3 ms·

She defrauded people who would go to court and claim fraud laws are unconstitutional restrictions on speech if it served their purpose. They’re opportunists who

She defrauded people who would go to court and claim fraud laws are unconstitutional restrictions on speech if it served their purpose. They’re opportunists who will spin whatever tune empowers them. Murdoch and co’s only life skill is being rich which mesmerizes those who think fiat economics and American civic life are divine mandates of a higher power even if they don’t belong to a traditional religion.

nobody9999 3y ago
Okay. Mother Teresa was (according to some) a nasty, torturing bitch. Fair enough. I actually selected her as an example because off the cuff I couldn't think of someone else that some significant proportion of folks here on HN wouldn't say exactly that about. I guess I shouldn't have used a real person as an example. Lesson learned. N.B.: I am an atheist and find the Catholic Church (not specific Catholic adherents, I judge individuals based on their individual behavior) to be, in the main, a bad thing. My point wasn't to glorify Mother Teresa (or anyone else). Rather, I was pointing out that it wouldn't have mattered who Theranos' investors were, Holmes would have defrauded them too. Perhaps a better example would have been an attorney who works 60 hours a week at their day job doing pro-bono cases and litigating malicious/unfair prosecutions of innocent people, then funds and runs a soup kitchen/food pantry for the hungry another 40 hours a week. Is that better? I'm sure some segment of the folks here will decry even that person too, as a rabble-rouser trying to destroy civilization through wealth redistribution (one bowl of soup and a piece of bread at a time) and questioning the authority of the police and prosecutors. Who are, of course, the salt of the earth and only do what they do for the best of reasons (cf. The Innocence Project, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, The Central Park Five, etc., etc,. etc.) /s So I'll make the point again without the distraction (causing folks to ignore my point -- apologies for sending you down the Mother Teresa rat hole?) of an actual, flawed, human being: Holmes would almost certainly have defrauded any investors, regardless of your (the general 'you' here) opinion of the value of that particular persons' moral/ethical bona fides.

nobody9999 3y ago

Okay. Mother Teresa was (according to some) a nasty, torturing bitch. Fair enough. I actually selected her as an example because off the cuff I couldn't think of someone else that some significant proportion of folks here on HN wouldn't say exactly that about. I guess I shouldn't have used a real person as an example. Lesson learned. N.B.: I am an atheist and find the Catholic Church (not specific Catholic adherents, I judge individuals based on their individual behavior) to be, in the main, a bad thing. My point wasn't to glorify Mother Teresa (or anyone else). Rather, I was pointing out that it wouldn't have mattered who Theranos' investors were, Holmes would have defrauded them too. Perhaps a better example would have been an attorney who works 60 hours a week at their day job doing pro-bono cases and litigating malicious/unfair prosecutions of innocent people, then funds and runs a soup kitchen/food pantry for the hungry another 40 hours a week. Is that better? I'm sure some segment of the folks here will decry even that person too, as a rabble-rouser trying to destroy civilization through wealth redistribution (one bowl of soup and a piece of bread at a time) and questioning the authority of the police and prosecutors. Who are, of course, the salt of the earth and only do what they do for the best of reasons (cf. The Innocence Project, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, The Central Park Five, etc., etc,. etc.) /s So I'll make the point again without the distraction (causing folks to ignore my point -- apologies for sending you down the Mother Teresa rat hole?) of an actual, flawed, human being: Holmes would almost certainly have defrauded any investors, regardless of your (the general 'you' here) opinion of the value of that particular persons' moral/ethical bona fides.