• 0 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • There’s literally someone in this thread right now saying you can eat raw pork in America without worry…

    The correct response to that is to provide the actual guidelines based on actual data, not to fearmonger while quoting lines referencing wild game.

    A huge part of why commercial pork is safe – that you’re consistently leaving out – were major changes to how livestock are raised. Trichinosis transmission in pigs is primarily caused by the consumption of infected meat; US standards were changed to more strictly control what’s fed to pigs, which led to the decreased risk. The risk remains in wild boar because they’re omnivores that will scavenge whatever they can find.

    145 is still a limit people need to follow, lots of people don’t.

    145 isn’t a hard limit. It’s the recommended holding temperature for one minute.







  • Stakeholders are people with any kind of interest in the company doing well

    Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that – it’s not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.

    A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.

    At least that’s the theory. It shouldn’t be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they’re actually doing.




  • it took me way too long to realize that i can tell my boss to eat shit.

    I think the difference in upbringing you’re describing is a huge part of it.

    Millennials went through spending our entire early adult lives being gaslit about how all the ways we were being abused were ultimately somehow our fault because our parents refused to recognize the systemic issues we were facing.

    We may have come to the realization late, but we can certainly make sure younger generations know that they can and should call bullshit when they see it.









  • Chiming back in here to say that yes, that was exactly my point.

    To maybe make it a little clearer, a hypothetical: imagine a Republican-controlled state enacts a law banning late term abortions and makes it punishable with jail time for women to receive one.

    That hypothetical law includes a clause defining a late term abortion as one taking place at any time past 37 weeks from conception.

    A woman has an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant. Anti-abortion activists insist that she should be culpable under the law; an abortion at 36 weeks is functionally the same as an abortion at 37 weeks and 36 weeks is very obviously late term pregnancy, they claim.

    If the local sheriff then arrests that woman, is the sheriff behaving lawfully?

    That’s why the government being bound to the letter of the law is so incredibly important. A law can be stupid, harmful, regressive, or otherwise bad in any number of ways, but if the government must act within the law as written, then at least we know what rules we’re playing by and can work to change them.

    If the government is allowed to arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the letter of the law in favor of what the people enforcing it wish the law were, that will be abused by bad actors. That sort of thing is more or less a universal component of authoritarianism.

    tl;dr - we shouldn’t do it because allowing it will allow it to be used against us.


  • If the law says you can’t kill people by driving into them, and then someone slides into them (intentionally), is that illegal?

    It depends on how it’s defined in the law. States generally don’t write laws that define vehicular homicide solely as striking a person specifically with the front of a passenger car for exactly this reason. Further, the need for precision in law is why intentional acts and negligent acts are generally defined separately e.g., murder vs manslaughter.

    Beyond that, judges exist and are given sentencing discretion (or at least should be) because there are mitigating circumstances… in other words shit happens.

    Discretion in enforcement/prosecution is not the same thing as enforcing something that isn’t defined in law. One is arguably a necessary component of real justice, the other is how authoritarianism functions.

    The National Firearms Act has very specific language defining what constitutes a machine gun. It does not include language giving the executive branch power to expand that definition. Either something meets that legal definition and is legally a machine gun or it isn’t.

    I’m not even saying that it’s impossible for an enforcing agency to be given those powers – the FDA, for example, has been given pretty sweeping authority to classify drugs. In fact, they have the explicit authority to classify analogs of illegal drugs as illegal. That’s basically the parallel to what’s being discussed here with the NFA and the ATF.

    The difference is that Congress hasn’t given the ATF the authority to do so. If you want the law to grant the ability to enforce a less specific definition than what exists in the current law then you need to either change the law to carry a more expansive definition and/or give the enforcing agency the power to make that definition outright. Either of those things would allow the sort of enforcement the other commenter was calling for, but it would be within the letter of the law.

    The point wasnt that you can’t enact a particular law or even that you can’t allow for enforcement to be adaptive – it was that rule of law requires that adaptiveness to be defined within the law itself. It’s totally okay if the law says “it depends and here’s who decides.” It’s not okay to decide to enforce the law on the basis of “this is what I feel like the law should do” even if the actual language of the law doesn’t support it.