Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.
The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.
It would have been interesting if the article if the article gave prior concentrations as a baseline, such as when cattle died in WV from PFAS. Without a baseline it's hard to say. However, the levels being referenced in the calfs and the timing of the fish kills seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims. In civil trials, it just has to be more likely than not.
> The article mentions that microplastics was another theory
The mention of microplastics was in relation to why the piles of biosolids were smoking. Speculation that heat from composting was burning microplastic particles.
Breathing burning plastic and ingesting large amounts of PFAS can both be harmful at the same time. The 'micro' part is irrelevant, you don't want to breath burning plastic regardless of the size of the particles burning.
Polluting your neighbor's property IS NOT OK. Normally externalities are more ambiguous, but this is literally polluting your neighbor's land. This isn't just a failure of our laws, this a failure of a community.
That's not really comparable because in the case of the flood, the damage was unambiguously tied to the dam bursting. That's not the case here. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of PFAS from the fertilizer that leeched into the nearby soil, it hasn't been established what its contribution was. This is closer to suing the local factory because you got lung cancer.
We should have discourse on people who are major players in the general Zeitgeist tho.... And as far as I know the terrorist charges being ABSURD is one the reasons he has so much public support....
Saying we shouldn't support ANYONE the government ACCUSES of being terrorists seems like a pretty nasty slippery slope...
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]
>Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers.
There is some debate on the fringes of the definition, but not all state actions are terrorism. For example, if a state military goal is simply to kill or disable your enemy by force, that isnt terrorism. Wars of extermination aren't terrorism either. That said, targeting non-combatants to hurt morale is a pretty common terrorism tactic. You could make a strong case that the bombing the civilians of London, Dresden, or Tokyo were acts of terrorism.
Outside of state militaries, it is pretty hard to imagine a principal that separates Luigi from abortion clinic bombers, The Weather Underground, or other domestic terrorists.
I’ll disagree and say all war is indeed terrorism. But I do actually think the term is meaningless and just made up so people can say their violence is righteous while others is bad.
This has become painfully obvious when groups like Hamas are labeled terrorists, but the guys slaughtering civilians with 1000lb bombs aren’t.
Or when Luigi offs a CEO it’s terrorism but when corporate policies cause the death of thousands or millions, it’s just capitalism baby.
It has a meaning and isnt just a synonym for ++BAD. Terrorism is crime of intent. It describes the purpose of the violence, specifically to instill fear and terror.
Nazis ushering jews into gas chambers wasn't terrorism. They didnt care what the jews thought. Does the fact that it wasnt terrorism mean it wasn't bad? Of course not.
Similarly, if you kill millions to make a buck, that isnt terrorism either, just because it is bad.
Of course the matter who gets officially designated a terrorist is political. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you disagree with usage doesn't mean that the entire concept and definition is meaningless.
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Killing the Jews was an ideological aim. So that was terrorism.
The profit motive is also ideological. So that’d be terrorism too.
In fact, pretty much everything we do is ideological. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t mean the word is meaningful.
Every protest. Every dissent. Every unauthorized breath must be terrorism. If everything is terrorism nothing is.... I mean terrorism got us civil rights and more no?
Maybe should not but as long as I can remember we have. Individual terrorists have always had a bit of a following on here.
The unabomber has always been popular here, I saw his manifesto mentioned as recommend reading several times over the years. When he died the comments were initially neutral-to-positive, some even openly admiring. Sentiment shifted but is still very very far from consensus condemnation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36272409
When israel booby trapped pagers and detonated them in public places, injuring thousands of civilians, HN came out overwhelmingly in favor of this attack. There is certainly some quibbling in the comments about the precise definition of "terrorism" vs "war crime" and people did fight against the consensus. But again it is extremely striking how favorably those actions were viewed here vs in less america- and tech-centric venues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41567299https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580205
Anyway just a couple of recent examples. I don't think this is a good thing, but for better or worse this is a place where quite a lot of people support (some) terrorists.
I thought we believed in the principle of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of one's peers.
If you don't, that's fine, but I'm going to label you as a terrorist since you clearly see no problem doing it.
So here we go: by fiat, you're a terrorist. Congrats! Hopefully other astute readers will perform their civic duty and report you to local and federal LEOs. /s
Sign of the times. Deny, deny, deny, and maybe all the people suing you will die or run out of money.