|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 05:12 AM EDT |
No, the shareholders and the BoD are only interested in profit. All sanity
checks are basically gone from a modern corporation, thrown out the window by
ugly greed. There really ought to be a way of getting at these CEOs for being
dangerously ignorant about key aspects of the products of their company - about
reality, even. To "believe" such outright lies in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary should be considered criminally negligent.
There should be a limit to how stupid you are allowed to be (or pretend to be)
if you hold any kind of power.
Imagine if I said that I "firmly believe" that it is healthy exercise
for people to be hit by my car, and was allowed to do that to thousands of
people over several decades just because it was impossible to prove malice or
criminal intent on my behalf:
"I firmly believe that being hit by my car does a person no harm,
regardless of speed. Yes, allegedly some people have died after being hit by my
car, but if that is the case I believe that their deaths are due to other,
unrelated factors. Every day, many people die without being hit by my car. I
have no reason to believe that there is a connection between my car hitting
these particular people and them dying shortly afterwards. I may have hit
thousands of others that didn't die. True, I have learned of allegations that
some were hospitalized and some were maimed, but again, I do not necessarily
believe those rumors, and I do not accept your theory that there is a
connection."
Would I be let off the hook, or would I be considered a danger to society and
put to jail for the rest of my life?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
In the US, the idea was to let people decide
for themselves what they wish to believe, rather
than let governments decide what is allowed.
Remember they used to kill folks in Europe
if their religion contrasted with the reigning
monarch. So the US decided it'd be better to
let people hold any belief, rather than
control it from above.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
"He told the truth. He had a false belief."
I don't know
about that, the statements made by the CEO's in the hearing were in 1994.
The first
document I linked to had a bunch of statements saying the companies knew ,
all were from years prior to the hearing. Before I quote them here's the best
one that may have occurred after the hearing...
After
stepping down, Ross Johnson, ex-Chief Executive of RJ Reynolds, is asked
by
the Wall Street Journal whether nicotine is addictive:
“Of course it’s
addictive. That’s why you smoke the stuff.”
(Cited in Wall Street Journal
1994)
“Nicotine is addictive. We are, then,
in the business
of selling nicotine, an addictive drug.”
7
(Brown and
Williamson, 1963)
“Smoking is an addictive habit
attributable to
nicotine and the form of nicotine affects the rate
of
absorption by the smoker.”
10
(BAT, 1967 )
August: An advertising conference undertaken for Brown and
Williamson
examines the goals of how to
“market an ADDICTIVE PRODUCT
in an ETHICAL MANNER.” (1977)
“Why do people smoke? ...
to relax; for the taste; to
fill the time; something to do with my hands ...
But,
for the most part, people continue to smoke because
they find
it too uncomfortable to quit.”
24
(Philip Morris,1984)
“Different people smoke for different reasons. But the
primary
reason is to deliver nicotine into their
bodies. Nicotine is an alkaloid
derived from the
tobacco plant. It is a physiologically active,
nitrogen
containing substance. Similar organic
chemicals include nicotine,
quinine, cocaine, atropine
and morphine.”
27
(Philip Morris, circa.
1993
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Holding such false beliefs might be an indication that they are of unsound mind.
Being mentally sound is a requirement to server on a Board of Directors.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rocky on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
You missed the important point. It wasn't just external third-party scientific
evidence that contradicted them. If that were the case, then yes, he could be
cut slack that he was just mistaken. The part that makes it straight lying is
that these were internal documents from their own companies that said that
nicotine is addictive, so they already knew it was, but said it wasn't.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
