I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.
Meanwhile in Australia
-
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Oh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:22 pmI meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.
You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?
-
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Given the hassles with interpretations of ‘cruel and unreasonable’, I’d expect that all of the financial damages could be levied against the guilty party.Haumana wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:29 pmOh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:22 pmI meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.
You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?
In cases where the executive knowingly caused the death of more than one person, give em the chair or preferred method of execution.
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Oh. So you were saying you want death. You'll pull the lever? Spicy take, I'll give you that.SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:59 pmGiven the hassles with interpretations of ‘cruel and unreasonable’, I’d expect that all of the financial damages could be levied against the guilty party.Haumana wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:29 pmOh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:22 pm
I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.
You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?
In cases where the executive knowingly caused the death of more than one person, give em the chair or preferred method of execution.
-
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:16 pm
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
I'm not sure what started this debate, but it seems to be about responsibility when an organization commits a crime.
The current way this is handled is those who are responsible, which is usually the CEO or some of executive, is held responsible for that crime. I think it would be reasonable to make the company liable for any profits created from the crime, plus interest and inflation, and liable for any harm committed by that crime. I would even go a step further and also fine the company for an amount equal to all liabilities of said crime. The company should be responsible for the actions taken by any employee who is acting as an employee. When they are taking actions as an employee they are representing that company, therefore their actions are the companies actions.
The current way this is handled is those who are responsible, which is usually the CEO or some of executive, is held responsible for that crime. I think it would be reasonable to make the company liable for any profits created from the crime, plus interest and inflation, and liable for any harm committed by that crime. I would even go a step further and also fine the company for an amount equal to all liabilities of said crime. The company should be responsible for the actions taken by any employee who is acting as an employee. When they are taking actions as an employee they are representing that company, therefore their actions are the companies actions.
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Like the opioid crisis? How about the water in Flint? Justice was served. Justice will always be served. Ask Uncle Joe, he'll tell ya. Cornpop never stood a chance.TheOneX wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:04 pmI'm not sure what started this debate, but it seems to be about responsibility when an organization commits a crime.
The current way this is handled is those who are responsible, which is usually the CEO or some of executive, is held responsible for that crime. I think it would be reasonable to make the company liable for any profits created from the crime, plus interest and inflation, and liable for any harm committed by that crime. I would even go a step further and also fine the company for an amount equal to all liabilities of said crime. The company should be responsible for the actions taken by any employee who is acting as an employee. When they are taking actions as an employee they are representing that company, therefore their actions are the companies actions.
-
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Shit I wish that were true. BP would be gone now.
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Then what are you gonna fill your tank with? Don't even begin to act like you, and your offspring, aren't dependent upon those that you want to see gone. Cutting off your dick because you pissed on your shoe is no solution.
-
- Posts: 12241
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
And 63,600 formerly fully employed people would have no jobs.
But I'm sure you pay enough in taxes to cover their economic losses and keep them housed, clothed, and fed.
... and to cover the losses the of all the taxes they once paid, when they had jobs.
Or wait ... you'd just tax the rest of the remaining companies and employees *more*, to cover the loss, right?
Until *they* fucked up and had to be taken down as well.
Causing the loss of all those full time jobs and that tax revenue.
But then you could again just tax the rest of the remaining companies and employees *even more*, to cover that loss, right?
Until *they* fucked up and had to be taken down as well....
Sounds like a well considered and sustainable plan.
Bravo.
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Meanwhile in Australia
Magic.DBTrek wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:28 pmAnd 63,600 formerly fully employed people would have no jobs.
But I'm sure you pay enough in taxes to cover their economic losses and keep them housed, clothed, and fed.
... and to cover the losses the of all the taxes they once paid, when they had jobs.
Or wait ... you'd just tax the rest of the remaining companies and employees *more*, to cover the loss, right?
Until *they* fucked up and had to be taken down as well.
Causing the loss of all those full time jobs and that tax revenue.
But then you could again just tax the rest of the remaining companies and employers *even more*, to cover that loss, right?
Until *they* fucked up and had to be taken down as well....
Sounds like a well considered and sustainable plan.
Bravo.