They have to shut Monsanto down and sentence the decision makers.

A legal system that allows $2B punitive awards based on factual findings contrary to the official position of the government enforcing that legal system is not a legal system, but simply mob rule.

Mob rule? It’s the judicial system, one of 3 branches of government designed specifically to place checks and balances on the other branches, it’s the exact opposite of mob rule.

Mob rule would be the EPA deciding for everyone what the science is and not allowing any due process or acces to the courts to challenge the same.

You do know it came out at trial how Monsanto was able to influence the EPA including delaying the re-review of roundup ingredients , which was required by federal law, to allow their acquisition to go through?

Do you think it’s just coincidence 13,000 plaintiffs were diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma that worked with roundup for years even though those statistics are inconsistent with the general population?

Ignoring the complex system they have created is their fault

Where you take something that has been with us for 2000 years and replace it with something else, on which it's impossible to have the same amount of data.

Government isn't going to stop this.

I'm sure there's a balance there to be attained. But knowing you are capable of lying, being a jerk, cheating and what that gives you, is very powerful.

In general I think there's a lot to learn from bad people. Which is an idea lot of people dismiss.

If you want to learn from bad people: Do it, but use it for good. For example in identifying people who are bad, or want to take advantage of you/others. But certainly not to get a balance.

And btw, I always hope, people with questionable opinions get screwed by someone with the same questionable view. Let's hope you'll learn your lesson.

Now, building strengh, characters, and participating to alternatives to the status quo are better long term strategies.

But on the short term, always playing by the rules is a serious disadvantages in some environments.

Your argument started with "it's easier to get laid, if I'm a jerk". And now your argument is "it pays to be a jerk in harsh environments". First of all, I hope women aren't included in your harsh environment. Second, you're right. Absolute commitments without exceptions is rarely good advice. There are always exceptions. My criticism is about finding a balance of being a jerk. There is no balance to be attained. There might be exceptions, but not something to balance for.

I'm aware that I feel very strongly about it. That's why I couldn't hold myself back from writing a comment. For me this is very important, because I get the feeling, that humanity is drifting towards dishonesty. It's even expected to be lied at. For example, my co-workers lie to our customers if we missed something or implemented a bug in our software. It's not an option anymore to say to them straight, that we made an error! How stupid is that? The customers wants to be lied at! On the other hand, if they did something they're not supposed to do with our software, they lie about what they really did. This gets me so angry... Sorry, I'm going to stop now.. :)

If you have to play monopoly, and somebody cheats, you have 4 choices:

- loose. It's not a game you can win by skill

- stop playing. It may very well be a terrible option for you.

- call for authority. Unfortunatly this is one of the least effective strategy IRL.

- level the playing field. Not great, but the least of evils until you get yourself into a better situation such as playing another game, have friends to help you, etc.

First, your quote is not from a post I answered.

Second, it's interesting to have a link to Jung's material. But stating "something is true, since Jung discusses it at length" is just a very bad argument. Why? Because duedl0r said so.

Third, actually, I share your opinion about the quote and all....but the way you wrote your post is not ok for me

Please educate me about what wasn't okay about my reply - it's all blandly factual. "Principle of Charity" is a thing, not a phrase of mine.

I'd say it's a layered thing. You start with the right core, but you layer some of these bad characteristics on top. Depending on your environment, you will have to deal with different kinds of people.

Your example is exactly what I mean by balance. But there are more. But itt difficult to showcase my point when your response just leaks out moral superiority, as if you know the backstory to these opinions.

Looking at the relationship between Trump and the media vs any "good guy" and the media. He can, would and did say everything he wanted, and no one batted an eye, it moved no one. Fundamentally a lot of people already thought he was bad, or that he says shit.

But take your "good guy" Joe. That if his image was built on pure goodness, one slip, one mistake and the press would be all over him.

What I'm trying to see is that the arsenal of weapons ( physical, mental) at a bad person's disposal is larger than a purely good person's.

And that is maintained with scale. I'm looking at the weapons bad politicians have and use, vs those that the purely good ones have at their disposal. Especially when the former have power.

There's more to this. But it's hard to have a discussion with someone, who can't see that some of the things bad people do, have a place in this world, and can be employed for a better purpose.

It's feels icky to get autobiographical, but the major reason of why I leaned into the conversation at the expense of my pretty funny joke is because of May 22, 1998. It was the day my brother succumbed to a gunshot wound to the head inflicted by his roommate.

For a while after that, whenever a kid would allude to shooting someone in the head while talking about videogames or playing, it felt like a punch to my gut. I remember lashing out at people once or twice over it. It never brought any satisfaction, or helped with my grief. Trying to dominate the forms of communication between 5th graders to shield my heart was a silly, tyrannical proposition. If it had even worked, it would have taught me all the wrong things.

Fortunately the mere idea of not talking about headshots was well beyond the capabilities of an entire school playing goldeneye. Haha

It's good to let someone stir your tanks every once in a while. Last night I got to try striking a balance between kindness and conviction, normally it's just sarcasm and conviction.

But to each his own.