141–150 of 508 posts
The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DuPont pulled shady shit because executives were heavily incentivized to maximize profits in the short term.
Ok? No shit? That's not the same thing as literally trying to make people sick, as the original commenter said and as I was replying to initially. Being negligent is not the same thing as being malicious; intent matters. Even if I try to cover up a harm, that doesn't mean the harm itself was my intention. If you guys can't understand the nuance there then I dunno what to tell you.
Ordering the valve be opened is malicious.
Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/us-seek...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though. The same products like Doritos etc will have different ingredients in EU compared to US. US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe). Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. Americans will regularly consume chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic and banned in EU. EDIT: I meant high fructose corn syrup, not cane sug…
> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own no shares, nor do I work in any industry that would be affected by this. I'm fully against PFAS and related chemicals being used in consumer/cooking products or being released in the environment. They should be outlawed and not used, end of story. Now that that's out of the way, I don't think corporations are actively trying to make consumers sick so they can recoup the profits through their investments in the…
1. The executives know that chemicals are poisonous to wildlife, plants and humans 2. The executives don’t care because proper disposal would be costly and they are heavily incentivized to increase profits as much as possible 3. Executives order chemicals to be dumped or vented into the environment 4. Company gets caught 5. Executives order a coverup 6. Company eventually pays for cleanup, but the executives are alre…
This is the part I've been referring to from the original comment.
Also, once again, you should be careful how you use intention here. Even in the case where they knew about the harms or the risk, you can't impute intention without more evidence. Without that evidence, you should stick to negligence, since that's what it would be and indeed that is what separates a simple negligence claim from criminal negligence (intention).
If you say they intended to harm people or the environment, that's very different from saying their negligence or coverup resulted in harm to people/the environment. Intention is a subjective state of mind of the executives/board/'The company', and while it can be imputed in certain circumstances, it's a high bar. Dumping toxic waste somewhere because you think nobody will ever notice (which they did, in remote bodies of water), and then having some campers come along and jump into the water for a swim (which also happened), doesn't mean they intended to harm those campers or indeed that they intended to harm anyone. It was negligent but not obviously intentional. This really isn't hard to understand. It's also why there were never any criminal charges, not because the execs were long gone. In the US, corporations can be held criminally liable regardless of whether the original execs are still there or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're referring to very far left circles that definitely don't represent liberals or more moderate Dems. I agree though, those circles consist of single-issue voters (e.g. palestine) that harm actual progress.
Yeah the centrist dems— the vast majority of currently elected democrats— are really knocking it out of the park. It’s the tiny handful of actual progressives that snuck through the DNC’s fortress walls that are messing everything up with their pesky fringe principles… that also poll extremely well with the general public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.
The American left is one of the most impotent political entities. The only purpose they seem to serve is strengthening the far right by imposing counter productive purity tests and pushing people to vote for the far right options over more centrist ones.
And hell, just look at how first the Tea Party and then MAGA managed to yeet a lot of what used to be "moderate" Republicans out of the party alright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DuPont pulled shady shit because executives were heavily incentivized to maximize profits in the short term.
Ok? No shit? That's not the same thing as literally trying to make people sick, as the original commenter said and as I was replying to initially. Being negligent is not the same thing as being malicious; intent matters. Even if I try to cover up a harm, that doesn't mean the harm itself was my intention. If you guys can't understand the nuance there then I dunno what to tell you.
If you continue to ship a product after you know it is harmful you are deliberately causing harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.
I found this post useful in understanding this phenomenon: https://www.offmessage.net/p/how-liberalism-sabotages-itself The basic gist is that the left is too generous in its understanding of others' intentions, assuming good intentions from all actors long past the point where that's rational.
Look at how desperate they all were to leave DC and go on vacation, these people are not serious and they don't think there will be any consequence to them.