You don’t need to waste time with the histrionics — You know what they meant. They’re assuming that these people are guilty and are found guilty and that the only reflexive courts we have are the ones that reflexively don’t take action against this kind of heinous behaviour that has already doomed hundreds millions to horrible deaths.
>shame and allegedly bully average consumers into possibly meaningless lifestyle changes is maybe almost certainly some sort of global or not global conspiracy that should be investigated and depending on the result of the investigation lead to various punishments in accordance with crimes committed ranging from fines to jail time or execution of likely non-zero number of politicians and CEOs possibly across the globe.
"bully average consumers into possibly meaningless lifestyle changes" isn't a crime, so "investigating" them for it seems like the kangaroo trial I just described. Not to mention "politicians and CEOs" isn't a monolith and often times it's not even the same people telling consumers to use paper straws vs pumping out microplastics, so there isn't even a contradiction.
> "bully average consumers into possibly meaningless lifestyle changes" isn't a crime
right, because clearly hn comments is exactly the place where one would present in legalese their case against possibly a global cartel or at least a conspiracy between politicians and corporations to shift the blame for their externalities onto consumers, reaping the immense profits and directly and indirectly causing millions if not tens of millions of deaths.
come on dude, give me a break, at least try to have a charitable interpretation of what you're reading.
>right, because clearly hn comments is exactly the place where one would present in legalese their case against possibly a global cartel or at least a conspiracy between politicians and corporations to shift the blame for their externalities onto consumers, reaping the immense profits and directly and indirectly causing millions if not tens of millions of deaths.
So let me get this straight, you don't know what exact crime has been committed, nor do you have any evidence for such conspiracy existing, but you still think they should be "investigated" and "executed". How is this not crank territory? At least q-anon is cogent enough to specify they're pedophiles or whatever.
> you don't know what exact crime has been committed
we can start with:
Conspiracy to defraud is an agreement between two or more people to act dishonestly to deprive someone of property, cause them financial loss, or expose them to economic risk. It is a criminal offense, and the conspirators can be prosecuted even if the actual fraud is never executed or no loss occurs.
but i'm also ok with creating a separate crime against the environment and applying it retroactively to top management and politicians whose work and decisions have inflicted most damage.
> evidence for such conspiracy existing
that is exactly what should be investigated.
> should be "investigated" and "executed"
obviously executed when found guilty (i could be convinced that other forms of punishment are sufficient). why are you inventing things to get outraged about?
>Conspiracy to defraud is an agreement between two or more people to act dishonestly to deprive someone of property, cause them financial loss, or expose them to economic risk. It is a criminal offense, and the conspirators can be prosecuted even if the actual fraud is never executed or no loss occurs.
But "you should use paper straws to help the environment" isn't fraud, because it does help the environment in some sense. You might argue there's higher priority or more effective measures, but that doesn't make it fraud. It's not fraud in the same way that ads for sports cars isn't fraud, even though they're terrible value for money.
>obviously executed when found guilty (i could be convinced that other forms of punishment are sufficient). why are you inventing things to get outraged about?
You can't be executed for fraud, so proposing it as the first option makes it sound like you already have a conclusion in mind. I'd be similarly outraged at someone who suggests we should round up homeless people for a suitable crime, then "execute" them.
Retroactively interpreting laws to prosecute people and giving exceptional punishments goes against the very idea of rule of law. In other words, you're describing a kangaroo court.
