all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 8 months ago

Nothing says a product is safe like pushing for immunity against killing people.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    We can't have companies held accountable for their actions! That is unamerican.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    That should automatically produce a crime-against-humanity conviction, for all who vote for it.

    Treason's treason.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The best way for a company to avoid lawsuits from giving people cancer is by making a safe product that doesn't give people cancer.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    I am quite sure that doing that will not shield companies from lawsuits or even large verdicts against them.

    The judicial system is not designed to settle scientific questions. It is designed to be an adversarial system that gets to a resolution. It may be doing close to the best that it can, but that doesn't mean the resolutions are based on science or deliver truths.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There won't be verdicts against them if the law says you can't file a suit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Right. I was only addressing your statement that making safe products protects from lawsuits. That's not true. If Roundup caused no increase in cancer rates, it would not mean Bayer could not be sued - and lose - in court.

  • source
  • parent