5 ms·

That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same

That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime are now retired, therefore it is no longer the same company. Seriously? What about the continuity of corporate culture and management processes?

dionidium 8y ago
In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- atlantic 8y ago
  If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then no company could be held responsible for its actions if more than a generation had passed, because all the constituent employees would then have left. But by the same logic, if companies are just convenient fictions, then they should have no rights whatsoever beyond those of their constituent employees - no fiscal benefits, no corporate donations, no political lobbying, no corporate legal representation, etc. Is that also your position?
  - dionidium 8y ago
    No. You’re making a legal argument. Maybe that’s useful. Maybe not. But if your goal is to better understand the world, then it’s a dead-end. (In other words, litigating the history of Agent Orange does not clarify or contextualie this discussion about glyphosate; it adds only unnecessary and unhelpful moral confusion. It obfuscates and misleads. It is political axe-grinding of the worst kind.)
- SuoDuanDao 8y ago
  Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    Again, you're focusing on the legal entity. Maybe it's useful to hold the entity liable. Maybe not (I suspect not, but it's unrelated to my point). My point is that if you want to meaningfully engage in and understand a debate about glyphosate on the Internet, then a subthread about Agent Orange is guaranteed to confuse, distract, and mislead. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's political axe-grinding. It's mere well-poisoning (and would be even if the same people were involved, but, moreover, the people responsible for Agent Orange are dead).

dionidium 8y ago

In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
atlantic 8y ago
If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then no company could be held responsible for its actions if more than a generation had passed, because all the constituent employees would then have left. But by the same logic, if companies are just convenient fictions, then they should have no rights whatsoever beyond those of their constituent employees - no fiscal benefits, no corporate donations, no political lobbying, no corporate legal representation, etc. Is that also your position?
- dionidium 8y ago
  No. You’re making a legal argument. Maybe that’s useful. Maybe not. But if your goal is to better understand the world, then it’s a dead-end. (In other words, litigating the history of Agent Orange does not clarify or contextualie this discussion about glyphosate; it adds only unnecessary and unhelpful moral confusion. It obfuscates and misleads. It is political axe-grinding of the worst kind.)
SuoDuanDao 8y ago
Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Again, you're focusing on the legal entity. Maybe it's useful to hold the entity liable. Maybe not (I suspect not, but it's unrelated to my point). My point is that if you want to meaningfully engage in and understand a debate about glyphosate on the Internet, then a subthread about Agent Orange is guaranteed to confuse, distract, and mislead. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's political axe-grinding. It's mere well-poisoning (and would be even if the same people were involved, but, moreover, the people responsible for Agent Orange are dead).