4 ms·

That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.

by DoneWithAllThat 4y ago

zardo 4y ago
You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.
- thfuran 4y ago
  What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- happyopossum 4y ago
  Winning or losing a lawsuit of this type is not necessarily proof of guilt, or proof that roundup causes cancer. what it proves is that a jury was convinced that it does.
  - dodgerdan 4y ago
    Funny we execute people based on that standard, but yet it’s somehow lesser here…
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      In the US, criminal trials have a higher bar (beyond a reasonable doubt) than civil trials (preponderance of the evidence). For executions there are additional things as well beyond the regular criminal trial.
    - bitbang 4y ago
      No we don't. In criminal law the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The bar is set much lower in civil law with the plaintiff only needing to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence".
    - aperson_hello 4y ago
      And we get guilt wrong in criminal trials all the time (see the number of people the Innocence Project has gotten off of death row because the person didn't do it). A jury saying one thing doesn't make it objective truth.
      - User23 4y ago
        The overwhelming majority of convicted criminals really did the deed. The existence of black swans doesn’t mean most aren’t white.
        aperson_hello 4y ago
        Roughly 90% accuracy. And the burden of proof is lower in civil cases. Which isn't to say that a civil trial verdict isn't accurate to some extent - it just isn't absolute proof. There's some evidence in scientific literature about roundup's carcinogenicity at high doses (like what a farmer or landscaper would commonly encounter) and other various health issues at high dose. The big question is what happens at low doses and if it's impactful. The science is still out on that (and the alternative of lower agricultural output per unit of land area isn't really palatable from both a starvation risk perspective and a climate perspective).

That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.

zardo 4y ago

You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.

thfuran 4y ago
What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
happyopossum 4y ago
Winning or losing a lawsuit of this type is not necessarily proof of guilt, or proof that roundup causes cancer. what it proves is that a jury was convinced that it does.
- dodgerdan 4y ago
  Funny we execute people based on that standard, but yet it’s somehow lesser here…
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    In the US, criminal trials have a higher bar (beyond a reasonable doubt) than civil trials (preponderance of the evidence). For executions there are additional things as well beyond the regular criminal trial.
  - bitbang 4y ago
    No we don't. In criminal law the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The bar is set much lower in civil law with the plaintiff only needing to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence".
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    And we get guilt wrong in criminal trials all the time (see the number of people the Innocence Project has gotten off of death row because the person didn't do it). A jury saying one thing doesn't make it objective truth.
    - User23 4y ago
      The overwhelming majority of convicted criminals really did the deed. The existence of black swans doesn’t mean most aren’t white.
      - aperson_hello 4y ago
        Roughly 90% accuracy. And the burden of proof is lower in civil cases. Which isn't to say that a civil trial verdict isn't accurate to some extent - it just isn't absolute proof. There's some evidence in scientific literature about roundup's carcinogenicity at high doses (like what a farmer or landscaper would commonly encounter) and other various health issues at high dose. The big question is what happens at low doses and if it's impactful. The science is still out on that (and the alternative of lower agricultural output per unit of land area isn't really palatable from both a starvation risk perspective and a climate perspective).