3 ms·
Sorry, but you essentially say "it must be different because it's regulated by different legal norms", and it is a nice example of logical fallacy. I'm, by the
by kingofhdds 9y ago
Sorry, but you essentially say "it must be different because it's regulated by different legal norms", and it is a nice example of logical fallacy. I'm, by the way, don't have any stakes in this debate (I'm not a US citizen), but the fact that your statement is built on sand is clearly visible from across the Atlantic (and I don't mean the magazine).
- CyberDildonics 9y agoIf it is so clear, why didn't you bother to explain what you are saying instead of just stating what your position?
- kingofhdds 9y agoWhen you say "if corporations were people they would be subject to [things physical persons subject to in the US]", you insist that if A is legally equivalent to B in context C(0), it must be equivalent also in any context C(n), but there's no sound logic to support this claim. Legal norms are not meant to reflect some inherent nature of things, they are nothing more than conventional agreements which take (and they must take) into account many nuances, concomitant circumstances, and context. So A can be legally treated as B in one situation, and not as B in another and that's just absolutely fine. (Laws of all countries are full of such things, and generally it is good, otherwise many laws would be either unbearable, or unenforceable.) That's why an "if this then that" argument cannot stand here. P.S. Sorry, if my previous comment wasn't clear. It was for me, so I assumed it is for others - it happens with me.
- CyberDildonics 9y agoThe whole point of this is that corporations have all the advantages of people with none of the disadvantages. You seem to be arguing semantics of how things are at the moment, when the entire point is the inconsistency to which the metaphor is applied.