Bricker, just out of curiosity do you understand why so many of us are annoyed at your nitpickery in this (and other) threads? Or is it totally baffling to you? And if you do understand why do you keep doing it?
Hint: Its not because anyone here believes or has suggested that the rule of law should be suspended in the case of Cardinal Mahoney.
I’m still confused as hell over this. (Pun intended.)
Let’s say I’m the VP of sales at a major toy company. I have a guy who recruits kids to play with the toys in a marketing test. Then I find out he’s been molesting kids. So to cover my ass and my company’s ass, I send him off to Pittsburgh, Denver, wherever, and I LET HIM KEEP THE SAME JOB. He continues to recruit kids, molests, gets caught, gets prosecuted.
There is no doubt in my mind I would be fired and prosecuted immediately. I willingly sent a molester across the country without notifying my company or authorities that he shouldn’t be around kids.
Now let’s say I’ve done that for 2, 5, 10 or 20 kid recruiters. I can expect much more charges filed against me. I could also expect the toy company I worked for to go down in flames.
So why isn’t this the same process for a business like the catholic church?? (And, no, do not tell me the RCC is NOT a business.) A boss, not THE boss, but a boss who used inappropriate methods and behaviors to extend the amount of child abuse in his company. It costs the company billions of dollars and world-wide ridicule. At the toy company, every finger would point at me. Looks like no fingers are pointing the cardy’s way from his business.
If I were catholic, I’d run away just for this. Show some decency and turn the guy in. Prove you’re not above man’s law.
Fired - of course. That’s the toy company’s decision; they don’t have to justify their decision to anyone. So in order to conclude that you’d be fired, you don’t have to identify some highly specific reason. Even if you said to the company, “Look here, at the employee manual – there’s no section about failing to fire molesters. So you can’t fire me!” they could still fire you.
But the criminal law is a different matter. In the context of criminal law, a accused person IS entitled to say, “Where does it say this is illegal?” So to prosecute someone, you have to be able to point to a specific section of the criminal code and say, “This, right here, is what you did wrong.” And the code has to be specific enough to give an ordinary person reasonable awareness of what conduct is prohibited.
So – when you say you could expect to be prosecuted, what law, specifically, might that be?
By what process would the toy company go down in flames? Again, be specific.
It seems to me that the company’s downfall would happen if its customers believed that the company as a whole was complicit. If its customers did not believe that, i see no reason to imagine the company would go down in flames.
Really? Since you’re such a fan of the dictionary, I’ll use the same one you did.
The word ‘criminal’ also means “Disgraceful.” Cite.
You might protest that “disgraceful” is the fourth (and last) item on the list of definitions of criminal. But from your link, “respulsive or odious person” is also last on the list of definitions of slime.
So if you’re willing to say that the definition that is last on the list and the most colloquial is fine and dandy for “slime”, then it should also be the same for “criminal”. And if a pedantic biologist came into the thread to “correct” you on your use of “slime” and respond that they’re simply fighting ignorance because someone out there might think you’re referring to actual slime, then they would be rightfully mocked. And if the SDMB had a resident pedantic biologist who made a point of responding to every thread where someone uses the colloquial definition of slime and then getting on their one-trick pony about it, then they would be called out on it as well.
Of course – in fact, someone DID criticize my use of ‘slime,’ and I defended it without rancor. I just posted the definition.
So, sure, if someone wants to say they were using that definition of criminal – and explain how that definition fits into the prison chatter – I’ll welcome it.
I’m not sure what one “does” with feelings, other than experience them, and share them as relevant to a discussion. So… I feel them, and as opportunities come up to share them, I do.
You know what would go a long way towards helping you realize that goal?
Not being an asshole.
See, you always do this Socratic thing, where you ask a bunch of leading questions. This is the sort of thing that you can get away with in a court of law, or a classroom, but in a conversation between ostensible peers, it makes you sound like an absolutely titanic douche. I know this, because there are times when I want to sound like an absolute titanic douche, and that’s exactly the method I use to achieve that end.
If you have information relevant to a thread, or a correction to someone else’s post, just fucking say it. Just say, “The terrible thing about this situation is that there are no laws that are relevant to Mahoney’s actions. There’s nothing we can charge him with, so he’s never going to see the inside of a jail.” That way, you’re adding relevant and interesting information to a thread, without coming across as an aggressive jerk.
Or you could keep doing exactly what you’ve been doing. How’s that been working out for you?
I might buy more stock. If I saw that the fundamentals of the company were sound, and I saw an unwillingness on the part of the public to assign vicarious blame to the company, I might set up a buy order to take advantage of a temporary dip in an otherwise strong performer.
If, in contrast, it appeared the public was voting with its pocketbook and abandoning the store, I’d sell.
