3 ms·

No, not at all. Blacklisting is attempted murder (perhaps with a low success rate) or, at the least, reckless endangerment. Financial hardship leads to depress

No, not at all. Blacklisting is attempted murder (perhaps with a low success rate) or, at the least, reckless endangerment. Financial hardship leads to depression and risk of suicide. Obviously, people can't be held liable for all cases in which they create conditions that may be unhealthy, but the purpose of blacklisting is to create persistent financial hardship, often without the person knowing the true cause. The fact that a blacklisted person will often not know the cause of his failed future interviews may add to the sense of low self-worth, or the suspicion may create paranoia, and both are conducive to mental health events that place the sufferer in high danger and others around in medium danger. Of course, there are legitimate actions that may cause financial hardship. If you fire someone but don't damage his reputation, then you've made a valid business decision and the fault isn't with you. That's just how business works. If you ruin his reputation or make it harder for him to find jobs and he ends up sick or dead, that's your fault entirely and you should be brought up on criminal charges.

MichaelGG 13y ago
>Financial hardship leads to depression and risk of suicide By that logic, exposing a scam is also murder, since the scammer could go bankrupt, face jail, etc. Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned. If you're making factual statements, I really don't see the problem. If they're lying, that's already covered by libel/slander. At worst blacklisting should be treated as illegal discrimination.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  By that logic, exposing a scam is also murder, since the scammer could go bankrupt, face jail, etc. Not all things that cause financial hardship are attempted murder. Firing someone is even more likely to cause hardship, but a valid business decision. Financial hardship isn't the purpose, though, when you fire someone or expose a scam. It's a side effect. What you are really trying to do, in the scam case, is protect the public and, in the firing case, end an unprofitable business relationship. Once those goals are achieved, you generally don't go after that person to cause further financial difficulty. Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned. Again, no. If anything, you're saving the world from more severe hardships (of the financial kind; but, more severely, injuries and deaths) by reporting him. Besides, when you report him, your goal isn't to ruin his life. It's to protect innocents from the danger he's causing. (If his life gets ruined, he's not exactly innocent, but that's probably not your goal in reporting him.) See, blacklisting is done specifically to cause persistent and unreasonable financial hardship. Financial difficulties to another party are, in those other cases, side effects. With blacklisting, there is intent to ruin the person's life, and that intent is persistent, which generally means that there is no escape for that person. Different story altogether.

MichaelGG 13y ago

>Financial hardship leads to depression and risk of suicide By that logic, exposing a scam is also murder, since the scammer could go bankrupt, face jail, etc. Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned. If you're making factual statements, I really don't see the problem. If they're lying, that's already covered by libel/slander. At worst blacklisting should be treated as illegal discrimination.

michaelochurch 13y ago
By that logic, exposing a scam is also murder, since the scammer could go bankrupt, face jail, etc. Not all things that cause financial hardship are attempted murder. Firing someone is even more likely to cause hardship, but a valid business decision. Financial hardship isn't the purpose, though, when you fire someone or expose a scam. It's a side effect. What you are really trying to do, in the scam case, is protect the public and, in the firing case, end an unprofitable business relationship. Once those goals are achieved, you generally don't go after that person to cause further financial difficulty. Reporting a drunk driver is murder, since they may get arrested, lose their job, and be shunned. Again, no. If anything, you're saving the world from more severe hardships (of the financial kind; but, more severely, injuries and deaths) by reporting him. Besides, when you report him, your goal isn't to ruin his life. It's to protect innocents from the danger he's causing. (If his life gets ruined, he's not exactly innocent, but that's probably not your goal in reporting him.) See, blacklisting is done specifically to cause persistent and unreasonable financial hardship. Financial difficulties to another party are, in those other cases, side effects. With blacklisting, there is intent to ruin the person's life, and that intent is persistent, which generally means that there is no escape for that person. Different story altogether.