3 ms·

You haven't given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked

You haven't given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them? No doubt it's complicated, but to play devil's advocate, if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous and how to use it safely, then perhaps they shouldn't sell the chemical to the general public, and maybe should even be punished for doing so.

ende 7y ago
You have the burden of proof reversed.
- jlarocco 7y ago
  That response doesn't make any sense. I didn't agree or disagree with, I simply asked the OP to explain their reasoning. And I also disagree that the burden of proof would be on the "other side". The status quo is trial by jury. That will never change if nobody wants to explain why they think it's bad or what would work better.
  - technothrasher 7y ago
    I believe the burden of proof response was in relation to the statement, "if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous". That would be asking them to "prove a negative" (really, it's proving a universal claim, not a negative claim, but 'negative' is the popular tagline). This cannot ever be done. All you can do is show that there is no credible evidence that it is dangerous. At the point, the burden of proof lies with the the claim that it is, in fact, dangerous.
lordlimecat 7y ago
>given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them? Given the staggering consensus on glyphosates safety-- the outcome of the case would make me say that.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Glyphosates are known to be unsafe so it seems like the jury got it right...
  - lordlimecat 7y ago
    Known by whom? The majority of government agencies and international NGOs disagree with you.

ende 7y ago

You have the burden of proof reversed.

jlarocco 7y ago
That response doesn't make any sense. I didn't agree or disagree with, I simply asked the OP to explain their reasoning. And I also disagree that the burden of proof would be on the "other side". The status quo is trial by jury. That will never change if nobody wants to explain why they think it's bad or what would work better.
- technothrasher 7y ago
  I believe the burden of proof response was in relation to the statement, "if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous". That would be asking them to "prove a negative" (really, it's proving a universal claim, not a negative claim, but 'negative' is the popular tagline). This cannot ever be done. All you can do is show that there is no credible evidence that it is dangerous. At the point, the burden of proof lies with the the claim that it is, in fact, dangerous.

lordlimecat 7y ago

>given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them? Given the staggering consensus on glyphosates safety-- the outcome of the case would make me say that.

gamblor956 7y ago
Glyphosates are known to be unsafe so it seems like the jury got it right...
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  Known by whom? The majority of government agencies and international NGOs disagree with you.