3 ms·

This is at least as bad as any violent crime. Almost certainly far, far worse by any ethical metric. The only difference between this and normal violent crime i

by wfo 9y ago

This is at least as bad as any violent crime. Almost certainly far, far worse by any ethical metric. The only difference between this and normal violent crime is that this is the kind of horrifying malicious crime rich, powerful people commit while assault or mugging is the crime of choice for the poor and powerless. Compare this vs. a mugging. Intent was worse -- he intended to assault millions instead of just one and also profited off thousands of frauds as well as obstruction of justice (code to hide it from regulators). Consequences and damages were far worse than any violent crime, obviously. But yes, sentences should be far shorter across the board.

refurb 9y ago
This is at least as bad as any violent crime. Almost certainly far, far worse by any ethical metric. Really? You'd say that cheating on emissions standards is worse than say beating someone over the head with a bat and robbing them?
- u02sgb 9y ago
  Bat and robbing - impact one person. Cheating on emissions [1] - impact 1200 people? Not to mention willfully flouting the law. They need to set a precedent. [1]http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deaths-europe-0303 http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...
- wfo 9y ago
  Yes, obviously. Far worse. Are you seriously suggesting that intentionally poisoning thousands or millions is less bad than assaulting one? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, right? That's literally Stalin discussing mass murder. If someone has the power to poison a whole nation, with that power comes equal responsibility for their actions. If they act in good faith, we tend to forgive their mistakes, even if they have disastrous consequences. But there's no good faith here. We know he intended to poison them. There is no serious ethical justification for considering a mugging to be worse. None has been presented here. We just naturally 'feel' that when the powerful commit crimes, these are mistakes (they are not). When the weak commit crimes, they need to be put in their place, because the weak and poor breaking the law is abhorrent to our neoliberal ideology -- the rich are supposed to assault the poor, this is just how things are. The opposite is unthinkable.

by wfo 9y ago

refurb 9y ago

This is at least as bad as any violent crime. Almost certainly far, far worse by any ethical metric. Really? You'd say that cheating on emissions standards is worse than say beating someone over the head with a bat and robbing them?

u02sgb 9y ago
Bat and robbing - impact one person. Cheating on emissions [1] - impact 1200 people? Not to mention willfully flouting the law. They need to set a precedent. [1]http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deaths-europe-0303 http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...
wfo 9y ago
Yes, obviously. Far worse. Are you seriously suggesting that intentionally poisoning thousands or millions is less bad than assaulting one? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, right? That's literally Stalin discussing mass murder. If someone has the power to poison a whole nation, with that power comes equal responsibility for their actions. If they act in good faith, we tend to forgive their mistakes, even if they have disastrous consequences. But there's no good faith here. We know he intended to poison them. There is no serious ethical justification for considering a mugging to be worse. None has been presented here. We just naturally 'feel' that when the powerful commit crimes, these are mistakes (they are not). When the weak commit crimes, they need to be put in their place, because the weak and poor breaking the law is abhorrent to our neoliberal ideology -- the rich are supposed to assault the poor, this is just how things are. The opposite is unthinkable.