Meanwhile in Australia

[SuburbanFarmer]

Hung and quartering is so much more reasonable. Most popular president approves that message. Let's all tilt at some windmills.

I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.

[Haumana]

Hung and quartering is so much more reasonable. Most popular president approves that message. Let's all tilt at some windmills.

I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.

Oh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.

You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Hung and quartering is so much more reasonable. Most popular president approves that message. Let's all tilt at some windmills.

I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.

Oh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.

You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?

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.

In cases where the executive knowingly caused the death of more than one person, give em the chair or preferred method of execution.

[Haumana]

I meant it figuratively. But I’m not opposed to a literal interpretation for mass murderers.

Oh. So that's a yes? I don't get what you are actually trying to say.

You meant one thing but you are down for something else. So what did you really mean?

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.

In cases where the executive knowingly caused the death of more than one person, give em the chair or preferred method of execution.

Oh. So you were saying you want death. You'll pull the lever? Spicy take, I'll give you that.

[TheOneX]

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.

[Haumana]

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.

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.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Shit I wish that were true. BP would be gone now.

[Haumana]

Shit I wish that were true. BP would be gone now.

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.

[DBTrek]

Shit I wish that were true. BP would be gone now.

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.

[Haumana]

Shit I wish that were true. BP would be gone now.

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 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.

Magic.