2 ms·

> These guys were greedy, not axe murderers What if the axe murderer was after their wallet? That would put them in the same category as your sainted "job crea

• acdha 3y ago
  > That would put them in the same category as your sainted "job creators" You have badly misunderstood my point. I’m not saying they should be tolerated to protect jobs, only that someone who is not uncontrollably dangerous to the people around them can probably serve society better than as an ongoing $100k/year cost.
  • malfist 3y ago
    You're making an invalid distinction between axe murderers and people that will poison children to make a buck. They are both "uncontrollably dangerous"
    • acdha 3y ago
      That’s only invalid because it’s incorrectly characterizing my position. Yes, anyone who intentionally poisons a child is a risk but in this case it’s orders of magnitude more likely that these guys bought something because it was cheap and didn’t test it carefully enough, verify that certifications about safety were legitimate, etc. and that starts getting into more systemic questions – do our laws actually require them to do anything which they didn’t? – and relative risk comparisons. For example, the most popular vehicles sold in the United States are designed to cause more collisions and more serious injuries or deaths in each collision, which add up to far more children being harmed every year than this horrible food safety failure. I have a hard time saying it makes sense to have a standard here which says we should jail the CEO of this company but not those of the SUV manufacturers.