3M knew its chemicals were harmful decades ago, but didn't tell the public

Post by Waterluvian » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #101

KennyBlanken wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you scale fines with income/wealth, fines are just a way of letting the rich do what they please. On the off chance they're caught - and don't get let off the hook because of how 'respectable' they are - it's so little money to them, it's not a discouragement at all. A fine for dangerous driving that is crushing to a day laborer is unnoticeable to someone wealthy. And whereas that laborer, to challenge a ticke…

That’s why Finland has “day fines” - after a threshold, fines are x days of your last years income. 5 or 6 figure fines are not uncommon.

Post by rocqua » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

haltist wrote: post #73

bsder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If companies are people, companies should be able to get the death penalty. We used to do this . Companies getting their charters revoked used to be something that wasn't uncommon. Unless you make the punishments for this an existential threat , it's just a cost of doing business.

How exactly do you get rid of 3M? They make so many chemicals necessary for modern consumer products that they are an irrevocable part of the global economy. There is no substitute for 3M. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually supply Intel, AMD, and other high-tech companies with chemicals necessary for photo-lithography. This is before we even get to what they supply to the military-industrial complex. Even if th…

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #102

14 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree if someone knowingly poisoned my baby then if death penalty isn’t imposed I’m going to attempt to get revenge myself. The death penalty was probably effective at calming the entire country from rage.

I think, as a general principle, justice should not be based around appeasing a potential lynch mob.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 9:36 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #5

I increasingly think we need personal criminal liability for everyone in the management chain before this will end. As long as you can cash out your options before the reckoning, maybe even spin a division out to go bankrupt, there are just too many people who’ll chase the larger number. You need the guy who gets that internal memo to think that if he doesn’t report it to the EPA, he’ll spend the rest of his life won…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #126

forgetfreeman wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You suggest vile acts should be permitted without consequence?

Consequences and punishment are different concepts, I support the death penalty in the case of egregious acts primarily from the perspective of cost and efficiency of removing an unacceptable risk to society. I don’t need to see them tortured beforehand, as it serves little to no purpose (in my opinion).