Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#631

Post by enschlnd » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

Sangermaine wrote: post #110

enschlnd wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not kidding. He's not human garbage. It's not astounding that different people have different opinions at all. Your post suggests that you're very emotionally attached to your opinion, which is not good. Nor takes into consideration some basic premises which are necessary for people to understand one another.

>He's not human garbage. Yeah, but he is. Spare me the faux "logically objective" pose. There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in America". His actions have earned him this reputation.

hey, spare me the faux "logically objective" pose, little guy. I'm the only one that can be taken seriously here.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#632

Post by spinlock » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:56 PM UTC

tnecniv wrote: post #617

spinlock wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Congress didn't need to find out any facts. They just wanted to put on a show to sway public opinion. Remember when they questioned Toyota over unintended acceleration? That made Toyota apologize and generally made the public believe that Toyota was at fault. Now, consider that at the time Congress questioned Toyota they were the largest shareholder in Toyota's biggest competitor (GM) and, when NASA examined…

> when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products. Well they found plenty of issues. The code was unreadable. They didn't find anything that would cause unintended acceleration.

That was not one of NASA's findings. It was the finding of a paid "expert".

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#633

Post by throwawayjava » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 11:01 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #503

throwawayjava wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.

> Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.

> I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing.

Restitution isn't the only reason for punishment.

> I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing

That he's clearly unapologetic and simply got lucky, and that this should factor into sentencing.