Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

No_Cook_9092 t1_izadm30 wrote

Reply to comment by pickymeek in DuPont loses challenge over cancer victim's $40 mln verdict in PFAS case by 3D-Printing

What I would be making is an argument for changing the system entirely.

Do you actually think this is new? Or that DuPont didn't know? Do you think that their lawyers didn't say sales > liability cost? Or that they are one of the big proponents of tort law reform? Do you know what else is out there that you'll find out about decades from now that they know about already?

But at any rate yeah let's pass some pissant regulation and keep at it every time something harmful is discovered. Surely the problem will fix itself, if anything it'll make the voters happy.

−9

pickymeek t1_izapkii wrote

> What I would be making is an argument for changing the system entirely.

This is so vague so as not to mean anything. Would you mind expanding on what you mean here?

Regulation could be written so as to encompass all of those PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific formulas.

7

No_Cook_9092 t1_izaqld0 wrote

>Regulation could be written so as to encompass all of those PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific formulas.

Right. Because this has absolutely worked so far.

>This is so vague so as not to mean anything. Would you mind expanding on what you mean here?

Seriously? Nothing, you can ignore that. Just keep voting blue. Neo liberalism will fix this.

−4

pickymeek t1_izaulhi wrote

>Right. Because this has absolutely worked so far.

I wasn't aware one had been written and passed. Can you link me to it?

>Seriously? Nothing, you can ignore that. Just keep voting blue. Neo liberalism will fix this.

Classic. When asked to get specific you have nothing. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you can actually explain what you mean. Just keep suggesting "changing the system". That will fix it.

4

No_Cook_9092 t1_izauyxr wrote

I'm a socialist. Would you like a link?

>I wasn't aware one had been written and passed. Can you link me to it?

This is freely available on the internet. There has not been one for pfas but it is irrelevant. Any shit attorney can tell you how to sidestep it, also with the neutering of the administrative state, regulations are even more worthless nowadays.

−2

pickymeek t1_izavvem wrote

>There has not been one for pfas but it is irrelevant. Any shit attorney can tell you how to sidestep it

By making a slightly different formula? Yeah, I preemptively addressed this argument by suggesting a reg to "encompass all PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole".

Or did you mean something else?

>also with the neutering of the administrative state, regulations are even more worthless nowadays.

I agree that a weak administrative state isn't good. What I'm arguing for is better regs and I suppose by extension as a neccessary prerequisite, better government.

Edited.

3

No_Cook_9092 t1_izazpny wrote

>By making a slightly different formula? Yeah, I preemptively addressed this argument by suggesting a reg to "encompass all PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole".

I mean how far would it go? I think now we're entering into a pretty interesting technical argument.

I'm not going to be a donkey and say that what you wrote is the regulation and stick to it to the death. But I want to point out the word like. Are there any derivatives? Are they useful and not harmful? What if they change the compound to something useful and harmless?

With the useful and harmless, it would take generations to even know right? Would regulations such as those create issues with development such as a new vaccine, or would that be granted just for emergencies?

How far would the regulation go and how much would it affect? Regulations written broadly do not really survive the courts. That's part of the problem there by the way.

Also enforcement... If sales = 1 billion and liability = 100 million. Which CEO would say no to that? There should be much much much steeper penalties involved. Not just a game of legal delay until they die because it's a cheaper bill. Yes, that's actually a legal strategy. Regulators should be able to just shut them down.

But then here we are with DuPont that holds a stranglehold on many products. Shut them down and then no more useful products and we start having exponential effects.

Just a side note, I am a socialist and an attorney too, I'm not simping for this corporation. If anything the opposite, but we are limited to the discussion with the way things are right now, sadly. Because while you and I can imagine a better future and how to get there (whether different or not) until it at least begins we're stuck with this.

0