Nice ad-hominem. This is a philosophical debate and we are on a very interesting line that is worthy of passionate discussion. It is not as clear cut as many

Nice ad-hominem. This is a philosophical debate and we are on a very interesting line that is worthy of passionate discussion. It is not as clear cut as many people say. We aggressively advertise harmful substances to people, KNOWING full well that MILLIONS of people will be imprinted at a young age and result in disastrous consequences for their health (Seizures! And more). Giving kids sugar at a young age and making them addicted to sugary cereals with "prizes" in the box should result in a much greater pumishment than what these chumps did. I know they are on a different scale. But your reaction is a pre-reflective one and likely due to the novelty of this "assault". We will see if these writings are vindicated or not based on a guilty/not-guilty. Then we can read the Judge's PDF and see what philosophical consideratioms were at play.