John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders

If your Thick Skinned & like hard-nosed Sports and or Political conversation then this steel and barbed wire cage match type of forum is for you................

Click To Enter

<< < (3/3)

NCVol:
Quote

‘I was never for the death penalty before – I am willing to look at it again.’

I can't agree that the death penalty is appropriate, but it's odd, don't you think, that a company whose negligence has killed a few dozen people in recent years IS NOT subject to manslaughter charges, or even murder charges. At what point do you conclude that employee deaths are a predictable consequence of their business practices and hold them accountable the same way you'd hold a drunk driver accountable for someone he or she kills as a predictable outcome of drunk driving? There are real people behind decisions to cut safety corners that KILLED folks. And more than once.

Here was a consultants conclusion in the months before the refinery explosion, and 15 dead:

Quote

A consulting firm had examined conditions at the plant in January and found conditions were so poor that it wrote in its final report, "We have never seen a site where the notion 'I could die today' was so real."

Tell me, what's the moral or criminal difference between driving after a couple of beers, and if you do and kill someone you might face manslaughter charges, and running a refinery with so little regard for your employees' safety? I don't see any difference.

Just this year, they had a problem with their refinery and spewed out hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants, sickening an entire community. I wonder what would happen to me if I spread poison around my neighborhood and sent 200 of my neighbors to the hospital? Somehow I don't think a fine would get it....

It's a nice advantage of corporate "personhood" I suppose. Real people, who live and breath, face charges and trial when they kill someone. Corporate persons get a fine. And people who think actual decision makers at companies whose decisions result in deaths and injuries ought to be treated like other human beings who kill folks are labeled crazy. THAT is crazy if you asked me.

Sasquatch:
Quote from: NCVol on September 02, 2010, 03:49:13 PM

Tell me, what's the moral or criminal difference between driving after a couple of beers, and if you do and kill someone you might face manslaughter charges, and running a refinery with so little regard for your employees' safety? I don't see any difference.

I guess it is the same as asking what is the moral/criminal difference between deliberately sticking a needle in the base of an infant's brain and sucking the brains out and your examples. 'Tis a slippery slope.

Quote from: NCVol on September 02, 2010, 03:49:13 PM

It's a nice advantage of corporate "personhood" I suppose. Real people, who live and breath, face charges and trial when they kill someone. Corporate persons get a fine. And people who think actual decision makers at companies whose decisions result in deaths and injuries ought to be treated like other human beings who kill folks are labeled crazy. THAT is crazy if you asked me.

It is sorta like trying to define when life begins, or calling the unborn "fetuses". Kind of takes away from their "personhood" I suppose.

NCVol:
I understand the argument, but it's really not a good comparison. This country does allow for legal abortions. And if you say, well, we don't prosecute abortionists, so how can you have a problem with not prosecuting murderers, really, what laws should we enforce. Nothing compares to murder, so why should we put people in jail for theft, or assault, or terrorism even. There is no moral basis to complain about ANY criminal not being prosecuted under that theory.

On the other hand, we DO right now have laws against killing people and we prosecute murderers and those who commit manslaughter. Unless the dozens dying are employees of a corporate person, in which case those killers face fines.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page