I'm telling you, MEN get swatted all the time. So don't tell me that some women getting some disturbing phone calls means women are targeted more then men.
If that is what you think, then you have no idea what other people go through with this sort of thing. And when it happens, do those men start a national pity party? No. They file a police report and watch their back.
This is a guy that got swatted telling his story to the press.
Does he sound like a victim? Does he sound like he wants you to feel sorry for him?
When the police officers came into the room... he was laughing. Process that. That is how you deal with the trolls. They mess with you and you can't show weakness. By all means, get on the ground when a man with a gun screams at you. But don't let the trolls know they got to you.
They don't target women. Women just respond badly to trolling. Some men deal with it badly as well. But they're the ones that didn't learn in the school yard. Most of us figured it out. This isn't a macho thing by the way... its an intelligence thing. Everyone paying attention figures this out.
The stats are not accessible to the public anymore. The only way to get access to them is to get permission from the government and they only give it if they know what you're trying to prove.
There have been some people doing gender studies that have tried to get access to current data and it isn't available in a raw form.
Regardless, the gender pay gap was non existent in the 1970s after accounting for years worked, education, etc so I find it unlikely that it has widened in 2014.
Statistics... you either understand them or you shouldn't base ANYTHING you know upon them because without an understand of statistics you do not understand what you are being told.
I really think statistics have done tremendous damage to our society not because they are inherently bad but because too many people read them that don't have the education or temperament to process them. So many misunderstandings are based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of a statistic.
I watch men get mocked all the time. There is a guy I watch a lot and the stream always has some people talking about his dick. It is an ongoing thing. They ask how big it is, whether it curves to the right or the left, etc.
They're seeing if he's uncomfortable about it. He laughs at them and moves on.
There is a growing number of women as well on the internet that are increasingly tired of being lumped in with this group of women. Not all women respond by crying for help. Some of them just deal with it like the boys.
It isn't that hard.
And again, women only need to be protected if they are inferior. If women are the equals of men then they don't need to be protected from men.
Only if women are inferior do they need protection.
I believe women are my equal. And so I am confident that they can deal with it just as I could deal with it.
The logic of that point should be clear enough for one and all.
I come from a family with strong women. Many of these opinions are opinions held by female members in my house. What is more, I know many women that are more then able to stick up for themselves. They don't have a problem with any of it.
If anything, they tend to tell negative stories about women in their work. I won't get into it because I can tell some of the sexism trolls are already looking at me to see if they can claim sexism on my part. So I'm going to deny them that ammunition.
But the point is that if women are an equal sex then they don't need to be coddled.
My family is full of strong women that don't need to be coddled. They don't cry for help. They don't whine. They don't tell everyone how hard it is... they solve their own problems just like the men.
People go after them... and its game on. Women only need protection if they are inferior.
If women are equals they need no special treatment.
As to what you do in your home, my father and mother didn't say such things to me either. If you think you can control this you're deluded.
Your children will be subjected to this by their peers whether you like it or not. And if they cry, call for their mother, or otherwise show signs of weakness then they'll be seen as weak. This is instinctual. It is in the blood. You can pretend all you like otherwise... but pretend is pretend.
As to how your raise your family... that is your own business. But you are raising human beings. Homo Sapiens. You can pass on your values but just as your child can't help it if he's a homosexual... there are other instincts that we also can't help having.
We can suppress them. But the suppression of instincts requires conscious will. The kids in the school yard are going to be the kids in the school yard. They're consistent and predictable. You should know that.
No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the trolls win simply because you take some measures to avoid them.
I didn't start with the extreme IF/THEN logic.
The other party in this discussion said if I change my behavior in any way to avoid the trolls it has a chilling effect and the trolls win. that's just bullshit.
Ever been Swatted? A friend of mine was swatted twice.
The troll called the police, said there was a murder in progress, and men with machine guns showed up at my friend's house... kicked the door down, slammed him to the ground, handcuffed him, searched his home, and then questioned him in a hostile manner for about an hour before leaving.
So I know how bad this can get. But saying they go after women is just false. They do not. They go after everyone. You make it easy for them or you do things that annoy them or you show that they're getting to you... and they'll just keep doing it.
People need to learn how to deal with bullies and trolls. The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.
Know what the troll wants and what the troll needs... and deny that troll both.
If you work fewer years FOR ANY REASON then you worked FEWER years.
That you had no choice is besides the point. If I am a company and you work fewer years, and are therefore less experienced... why should I pay you as well as a man that worked those years you did not?
You say it is unfair if people want to have a family? In what way is it in unfair? What does fair even mean?
If I am a company, do I have to pay you more as a women for LESS work to be considered fair in your eyes? Because that isn't what equal pay means. You apparently want MORE pay for LESS work.
If I have to pay you paternity leave and I don't have to do that for the man. If the man works more years and you work less years. Then he working MORE and the woman is working LESS. Also the woman costs more to employ because I have to pay her paternity leave and other assorted stuff. So it isn't equal.
If you suggest one more time that I didn't read your post or didn't understand it then I am just going to break off this discussion. Because it was in fact YOU that did not read or understand. I will not have you blame me for your own mistakes. It is beyond what I should be expected to put up with in this discussion.
As to paternity leave, that is a different issue and really many women choose to take time off their career because THEY WANT to spend more time with their children. You can give people all the social care in the universe and many women are still going to stay home because it makes them happy.
And if you combine statistics of all women without excluding those that had children and stayed home... you're going to get a biased result.
The whole perception is based on a misunderstanding of the numbers.
This was debunked in the 1970s. Literally that is how long ago this was shown to be a sham.
Women want better pay? Work the same number of years that men work. Put in your time.
They'll go after anyone. Yes they are drawn to weakness. But being a woman isn't a weakness unless women are inferior to men.
I don't believe women are inferior to men. So I don't see why being a women is a weakness especially on the internet where strength is irrelevant.
Why would a man on the internet be more powerful then a woman? Are not women supposed to be superior at social dynamics? Social intelligence? Then if anything women should have an advantage.
So I don't see why men or white men are more able to fend off attacks.
I have fought a LOT of trolls. I am a battle hardened forum warrior. I have been called everything under the sun. I have been doxxed. I have had my sexuality questioned. I have had... anything else you and imagine really. But whatever I felt when that was happened, I showed no weakness. No reaction.
I laughed at them. I showed them contempt. I gave them nothing.
And I won every single fucking time.
On the internet... so... whatever that is worth. But if these women did what I did... they'd win too.
They're big girls. I don't see why this is so hard. Why is it that I can read harassment posts directed at me and respond with cold ridicule and these women can't?
Is it sexist for me to suggest that an equal sex should be able to deal with this? Because men deal with this crap all the time.
Really? Then burn a Koran on national TV right now...
Oh wait... then the extremist muslims have won. Because you are so concerned about getting beheaded by some crazy person that you wouldn't dare burn a silly book.
Same thing on the internet. And I am not comparing the internet trolls to people that cut people's heads off. However, you don't go out of your way to draw their attention if you can help it.
Why? Because life is too short and it is a giant waste of time to deal with those people. I don't fear trolls. I fear trolls wasting my time. So I avoid them because they turn everything they touch to shit.
That realization on my part does not mean they won. It means they're something that has to be avoided.
As to a chilling effect... there is nothing the trolls prevent me from saying. It is all about how you say things and where you say them. Take any dumb position you like and it won't automatically get a response from the trolls. Take any position that is delivered in an irritating fashion and the trolls tend to respond.
Is this a hard and fast rule? Nope... just what I've noticed.
Precisely. Women tend to call for help or say comments hurt their feelings or otherwise give the EXACT reaction the trolls want.
They do the same thing to most men and... no reaction.
This is what is causing the focus on women. Not that the trolls are against women though I'm sure some are... but that the women often do not know how to deal with bullies.
Men are taught how to deal with bullies from a very young age. You toughen up or you're a weakling. The boys will literally call you "a girl" if you complain.
To not be "a girl" boys must hide their feelings and laugh off abuse. And then at some later date... taking some revenge is generally considered par for the course.
Women need to understand that they can't rely on men or society to come to their aid on the internet. They're going to have to take care of themselves and toughen up a bit. Crying foul just causes a troll feeding frenzy.
That isn't true though. Men work very hard for what respect they get. They take a lot of abuse and say nothing when it comes. We take the hard work and the shit people throw in our faces for granted.
We call that tuesday. Then we go to bed, get up the next day, and go through it all over again.
This notion that women are disrespected or given lower pay is based on statistics.
And if you know anything about statistics, then you should know that how they are handled allows you to make the stats say whatever you want. Especially if the numbers aren't that far off one way or the other.
In the case of female compensation, they never account for women that had children versus women that did have them. The difference is that women that have them tend to take time off work or do part time work or intentionally take easier jobs so they put less stress on the home life. The result is that over their lives they tend to make less money because of these choices.
The men they're compared against do none of these things.
If you instead take the same data and filter out all the women that had children and compare them to men, you'll find they make the same or more then their male peers.
This whole thing is another product of idiots that don't know how to read statistics.
Pass a law right now making it illegal for people that do not understand statistics to either read or quote statistics. I am that annoyed by how many issues are fucked up by fools quoting stats that they don't understand.
This is a tale between two people. Not two groups of people.
Trolls of this nature are unusual and they don't just target women. They target everyone.
You learn very quickly that you don't put personal information on the internet or you will get doxxed.
Is this guy a bad guy? Was she a victim? yes and yes. But it would be guilt and victimhood by association to say that there is a general issue with trolls or that they focus on women especially.
We can see what is going on in Infinite chan... the creator of that site, a gentleman with some sort of bone disorder is being Doxxed regularly. The trolls are calling it "cripple chan" and going after him because he's trying to create an alternative to 4chan.
Understand. I am not defending the trolls. Far from it. I'm just saying that they're not as pervasive as some would imply. They are a small group of very active trolls. You take basic precautions and do your best to avoid being a target. As to who is more or less likely to be a target? Anyone being obnoxious tends to get some focus. Being obnoxious doesn't mean you're right or wrong. It doesn't mean you don't have a point or do have a point. It just means you're annoying for some reason or other. And people that are being annoying do tend to get focused by trolls.
I am not letting the police officer off the hook. He is going to jail as well under my solution. BOTH criminals go to jail. Both are tried in a court of law. All evidence is accepted so long as it is true.
The court should be a place where all truth is heard and judged.
That isn't an answer to my question. I am well aware that there have been corporate frauds.
Further, that is a really stupid example because the CEO went to prison. Where was his magical corporate immunity from the law? He went to prison. So... wtf are you even talking about?
Make the government liable for breach of this law. Vulnerable to lawsuit and criminal prosecution.
They'll still break it on occasion but if they go too far or there is a leak... the agency will be fined billions and people will go to jail... assuming we don't have a completely corrupt Attorney General. Which is sadly what we've been dealing with for years.
As to executing corporations, you could say the same thing for any association. Non-profits and unions aren't executed either.
As to corps committing felonies and simply paying fines for it, can you please give a specific example so we can examine it please? In most cases, my understanding is that it is a civil matter which is often handled with a fine indifferent to did it. As to having more resources to avoid legal problems, you can say that about rich people, government agencies, or really anyone powerful. That isn't specific to corporations.
As to corporations not eating, they absolutely do eat. Every employee must be paid. Shareholders must be rewarded. Taxes must be paid. Etc... all of that goes to your overhead or burn rate or bottom line. You feed/pay that or starve/die.
As to not sleeping, they have business hours and non-business hours in most cases. At least for many sorts of decisions and operations. Corporations have preferred hours of operation which is largely dictated by when certain employees are at work.
As to not experiencing emotion, they are a group entity so it is hard to say what emotions are being felt on average from one moment to the next. However, the individuals at the companies obviously do have emotions and certain members are in over all executive control of the company. What is more, if you've ever listened to a management discussion at a company, you know there are emotions.
Steven Jobs was famous for going off into rages at people. Rage is an emotion. And Apple has shown itself from time to time to be a very angry company especially in regards to Android and Google. Apple's behavior often doesn't make good business sense. A lot of it is down to the feelings and values of the senior management.
Apple recently told shareholders that if they don't want to support renewable energy then they shouldn't invest in Apple. Think about that.
So companies do have emotions and values because they are made up of people that likewise have emotions and values.
As to companies not having human weaknesses... you must be kidding. How many dumb things have you seen companies do over the years and you're going to tell me they don't have human weaknesses? This whole paragraph from you was ill considered and really did nothing more then show both your ignorance of corporate governance and your prejudice towards something which you honestly do not understand.
I don't say that to be offensive. But you're saying things that are simply wrong.
As to corporations not being permitted to engage in the political process, why should they be forbidden and other associations permitted to do so? What basis rooted in the US constitution are you using to make that argument? Because your idea would have to pass the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure it would fail if this is all you've got.
As to having a right to communicate with congress, what about releasing criticism of politicians during election cycles? That is, do these organizations have a right to talk to the public and try to influence their voting patterns? Say things like "we at the anti whatever group would like you to know that politician X won't sign our anti whatever bill. Do not vote for politician X. Instead vote for politician Y who has said publicly to be in favor of anti whatever legislation."
If you say that is not okay you're going to run into major freedom of speech/freedom of association issues.
I really don't think you can get this sort of thing passed. I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the issue.
The difference is that I said what was being repeated and then examined the logic of it to show it to be ill considered.
You just gainsaid me with zero basis or justification for it.
So if you have a problem with something I said, say what it was and why.
Otherwise, extent your right thumb until it is 90 degrees from your index finger, raise yourself off your seat about six inches, place your hand thumb up on the seat, and then gently lower yourself back onto the seat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm telling you, MEN get swatted all the time. So don't tell me that some women getting some disturbing phone calls means women are targeted more then men.
If that is what you think, then you have no idea what other people go through with this sort of thing. And when it happens, do those men start a national pity party? No. They file a police report and watch their back.
Read this:
http://www.thedenverchannel.co...
This is a guy that got swatted telling his story to the press.
Does he sound like a victim? Does he sound like he wants you to feel sorry for him?
When the police officers came into the room... he was laughing. Process that. That is how you deal with the trolls. They mess with you and you can't show weakness. By all means, get on the ground when a man with a gun screams at you. But don't let the trolls know they got to you.
They don't target women. Women just respond badly to trolling. Some men deal with it badly as well. But they're the ones that didn't learn in the school yard. Most of us figured it out. This isn't a macho thing by the way... its an intelligence thing. Everyone paying attention figures this out.
You missed the part where I said we were done.
So I'm saying it again in hopes that you might be able to read even one of my posts with even a semblance of basic reading comprehension.
We're done. This is over.
Good day, sir. Shoo.
If you want to keep dreaming I won't try to wake you up.
Sleep tight.
The stats are not accessible to the public anymore. The only way to get access to them is to get permission from the government and they only give it if they know what you're trying to prove.
There have been some people doing gender studies that have tried to get access to current data and it isn't available in a raw form.
Regardless, the gender pay gap was non existent in the 1970s after accounting for years worked, education, etc so I find it unlikely that it has widened in 2014.
Statistics... you either understand them or you shouldn't base ANYTHING you know upon them because without an understand of statistics you do not understand what you are being told.
I really think statistics have done tremendous damage to our society not because they are inherently bad but because too many people read them that don't have the education or temperament to process them. So many misunderstandings are based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of a statistic.
I watch men get mocked all the time. There is a guy I watch a lot and the stream always has some people talking about his dick. It is an ongoing thing. They ask how big it is, whether it curves to the right or the left, etc.
They're seeing if he's uncomfortable about it. He laughs at them and moves on.
There is a growing number of women as well on the internet that are increasingly tired of being lumped in with this group of women. Not all women respond by crying for help. Some of them just deal with it like the boys.
It isn't that hard.
And again, women only need to be protected if they are inferior. If women are the equals of men then they don't need to be protected from men.
Only if women are inferior do they need protection.
I believe women are my equal. And so I am confident that they can deal with it just as I could deal with it.
The logic of that point should be clear enough for one and all.
We're done.
I made my argument and you apparently are one of those people that doesn't like logic or facts. So... there isn't anything I can do for you.
They work fewer years. That not being their fault is not my point or relevant to my point.
My point is that for WHATEVER reason that they work fewer years they STILL work fewer years. And because of that they get paid less.
End-o-fucking-story.
Good day.
I come from a family with strong women. Many of these opinions are opinions held by female members in my house. What is more, I know many women that are more then able to stick up for themselves. They don't have a problem with any of it.
If anything, they tend to tell negative stories about women in their work. I won't get into it because I can tell some of the sexism trolls are already looking at me to see if they can claim sexism on my part. So I'm going to deny them that ammunition.
But the point is that if women are an equal sex then they don't need to be coddled.
My family is full of strong women that don't need to be coddled. They don't cry for help. They don't whine. They don't tell everyone how hard it is... they solve their own problems just like the men.
People go after them... and its game on. Women only need protection if they are inferior.
If women are equals they need no special treatment.
The logic of that should be inescapable.
As to what you do in your home, my father and mother didn't say such things to me either. If you think you can control this you're deluded.
Your children will be subjected to this by their peers whether you like it or not. And if they cry, call for their mother, or otherwise show signs of weakness then they'll be seen as weak. This is instinctual. It is in the blood. You can pretend all you like otherwise... but pretend is pretend.
As to how your raise your family... that is your own business. But you are raising human beings. Homo Sapiens. You can pass on your values but just as your child can't help it if he's a homosexual... there are other instincts that we also can't help having.
We can suppress them. But the suppression of instincts requires conscious will. The kids in the school yard are going to be the kids in the school yard. They're consistent and predictable. You should know that.
No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the trolls win simply because you take some measures to avoid them.
I didn't start with the extreme IF/THEN logic.
The other party in this discussion said if I change my behavior in any way to avoid the trolls it has a chilling effect and the trolls win. that's just bullshit.
Next issue. This is boring.
And they do that to men as well.
Ever been Swatted? A friend of mine was swatted twice.
The troll called the police, said there was a murder in progress, and men with machine guns showed up at my friend's house... kicked the door down, slammed him to the ground, handcuffed him, searched his home, and then questioned him in a hostile manner for about an hour before leaving.
So I know how bad this can get. But saying they go after women is just false. They do not. They go after everyone. You make it easy for them or you do things that annoy them or you show that they're getting to you... and they'll just keep doing it.
People need to learn how to deal with bullies and trolls. The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.
Know what the troll wants and what the troll needs... and deny that troll both.
Your data set doesn't compare women that have never had children against men in the same career.
Unless it does that, it won't be comparable.
NO. YOU. MISSED. THE. POINT.
LISTEN.
If you work fewer years FOR ANY REASON then you worked FEWER years.
That you had no choice is besides the point. If I am a company and you work fewer years, and are therefore less experienced... why should I pay you as well as a man that worked those years you did not?
You say it is unfair if people want to have a family? In what way is it in unfair? What does fair even mean?
If I am a company, do I have to pay you more as a women for LESS work to be considered fair in your eyes? Because that isn't what equal pay means. You apparently want MORE pay for LESS work.
If I have to pay you paternity leave and I don't have to do that for the man. If the man works more years and you work less years. Then he working MORE and the woman is working LESS. Also the woman costs more to employ because I have to pay her paternity leave and other assorted stuff. So it isn't equal.
If you suggest one more time that I didn't read your post or didn't understand it then I am just going to break off this discussion. Because it was in fact YOU that did not read or understand. I will not have you blame me for your own mistakes. It is beyond what I should be expected to put up with in this discussion.
Sorry, lameness filter found something wrong with my post. I have no idea what it was complaining about.
I'm going to post it somewhere else and link it. I don't know what else to do since the stupid thing is clearly insane.
http://pastebin.com/XWJCLcBX
As to paternity leave, that is a different issue and really many women choose to take time off their career because THEY WANT to spend more time with their children. You can give people all the social care in the universe and many women are still going to stay home because it makes them happy.
And if you combine statistics of all women without excluding those that had children and stayed home... you're going to get a biased result.
The whole perception is based on a misunderstanding of the numbers.
This was debunked in the 1970s. Literally that is how long ago this was shown to be a sham.
Women want better pay? Work the same number of years that men work. Put in your time.
Period - End of Story.
They'll go after anyone. Yes they are drawn to weakness. But being a woman isn't a weakness unless women are inferior to men.
I don't believe women are inferior to men. So I don't see why being a women is a weakness especially on the internet where strength is irrelevant.
Why would a man on the internet be more powerful then a woman? Are not women supposed to be superior at social dynamics? Social intelligence? Then if anything women should have an advantage.
So I don't see why men or white men are more able to fend off attacks.
I have fought a LOT of trolls. I am a battle hardened forum warrior. I have been called everything under the sun. I have been doxxed. I have had my sexuality questioned. I have had... anything else you and imagine really. But whatever I felt when that was happened, I showed no weakness. No reaction.
I laughed at them. I showed them contempt. I gave them nothing.
And I won every single fucking time.
On the internet... so... whatever that is worth. But if these women did what I did... they'd win too.
They're big girls. I don't see why this is so hard. Why is it that I can read harassment posts directed at me and respond with cold ridicule and these women can't?
Is it sexist for me to suggest that an equal sex should be able to deal with this? Because men deal with this crap all the time.
Really? Then burn a Koran on national TV right now...
Oh wait... then the extremist muslims have won. Because you are so concerned about getting beheaded by some crazy person that you wouldn't dare burn a silly book.
Same thing on the internet. And I am not comparing the internet trolls to people that cut people's heads off. However, you don't go out of your way to draw their attention if you can help it.
Why? Because life is too short and it is a giant waste of time to deal with those people. I don't fear trolls. I fear trolls wasting my time. So I avoid them because they turn everything they touch to shit.
That realization on my part does not mean they won. It means they're something that has to be avoided.
As to a chilling effect... there is nothing the trolls prevent me from saying. It is all about how you say things and where you say them. Take any dumb position you like and it won't automatically get a response from the trolls. Take any position that is delivered in an irritating fashion and the trolls tend to respond.
Is this a hard and fast rule? Nope... just what I've noticed.
Precisely. Women tend to call for help or say comments hurt their feelings or otherwise give the EXACT reaction the trolls want.
They do the same thing to most men and... no reaction.
This is what is causing the focus on women. Not that the trolls are against women though I'm sure some are... but that the women often do not know how to deal with bullies.
Men are taught how to deal with bullies from a very young age. You toughen up or you're a weakling. The boys will literally call you "a girl" if you complain.
To not be "a girl" boys must hide their feelings and laugh off abuse. And then at some later date... taking some revenge is generally considered par for the course.
Women need to understand that they can't rely on men or society to come to their aid on the internet. They're going to have to take care of themselves and toughen up a bit. Crying foul just causes a troll feeding frenzy.
That isn't true though. Men work very hard for what respect they get. They take a lot of abuse and say nothing when it comes. We take the hard work and the shit people throw in our faces for granted.
We call that tuesday. Then we go to bed, get up the next day, and go through it all over again.
This notion that women are disrespected or given lower pay is based on statistics.
And if you know anything about statistics, then you should know that how they are handled allows you to make the stats say whatever you want. Especially if the numbers aren't that far off one way or the other.
In the case of female compensation, they never account for women that had children versus women that did have them. The difference is that women that have them tend to take time off work or do part time work or intentionally take easier jobs so they put less stress on the home life. The result is that over their lives they tend to make less money because of these choices.
The men they're compared against do none of these things.
If you instead take the same data and filter out all the women that had children and compare them to men, you'll find they make the same or more then their male peers.
This whole thing is another product of idiots that don't know how to read statistics.
Pass a law right now making it illegal for people that do not understand statistics to either read or quote statistics. I am that annoyed by how many issues are fucked up by fools quoting stats that they don't understand.
This is a tale between two people. Not two groups of people.
Trolls of this nature are unusual and they don't just target women. They target everyone.
You learn very quickly that you don't put personal information on the internet or you will get doxxed.
Is this guy a bad guy? Was she a victim? yes and yes. But it would be guilt and victimhood by association to say that there is a general issue with trolls or that they focus on women especially.
We can see what is going on in Infinite chan... the creator of that site, a gentleman with some sort of bone disorder is being Doxxed regularly. The trolls are calling it "cripple chan" and going after him because he's trying to create an alternative to 4chan.
Understand. I am not defending the trolls. Far from it. I'm just saying that they're not as pervasive as some would imply. They are a small group of very active trolls. You take basic precautions and do your best to avoid being a target. As to who is more or less likely to be a target? Anyone being obnoxious tends to get some focus. Being obnoxious doesn't mean you're right or wrong. It doesn't mean you don't have a point or do have a point. It just means you're annoying for some reason or other. And people that are being annoying do tend to get focused by trolls.
You get used to it.
I am not letting the police officer off the hook. He is going to jail as well under my solution. BOTH criminals go to jail. Both are tried in a court of law. All evidence is accepted so long as it is true.
The court should be a place where all truth is heard and judged.
That isn't an answer to my question. I am well aware that there have been corporate frauds.
Further, that is a really stupid example because the CEO went to prison. Where was his magical corporate immunity from the law? He went to prison. So... wtf are you even talking about?
google hasn't been hacking into people's systems... lets not pretend google is as bad as the NSA. That would just be ignorant.
Make the government liable for breach of this law. Vulnerable to lawsuit and criminal prosecution.
They'll still break it on occasion but if they go too far or there is a leak... the agency will be fined billions and people will go to jail... assuming we don't have a completely corrupt Attorney General. Which is sadly what we've been dealing with for years.
As to executing corporations, you could say the same thing for any association. Non-profits and unions aren't executed either.
As to corps committing felonies and simply paying fines for it, can you please give a specific example so we can examine it please? In most cases, my understanding is that it is a civil matter which is often handled with a fine indifferent to did it.
As to having more resources to avoid legal problems, you can say that about rich people, government agencies, or really anyone powerful. That isn't specific to corporations.
As to corporations not eating, they absolutely do eat. Every employee must be paid. Shareholders must be rewarded. Taxes must be paid. Etc... all of that goes to your overhead or burn rate or bottom line. You feed/pay that or starve/die.
As to not sleeping, they have business hours and non-business hours in most cases. At least for many sorts of decisions and operations. Corporations have preferred hours of operation which is largely dictated by when certain employees are at work.
As to not experiencing emotion, they are a group entity so it is hard to say what emotions are being felt on average from one moment to the next. However, the individuals at the companies obviously do have emotions and certain members are in over all executive control of the company. What is more, if you've ever listened to a management discussion at a company, you know there are emotions.
Steven Jobs was famous for going off into rages at people. Rage is an emotion. And Apple has shown itself from time to time to be a very angry company especially in regards to Android and Google. Apple's behavior often doesn't make good business sense. A lot of it is down to the feelings and values of the senior management.
Apple recently told shareholders that if they don't want to support renewable energy then they shouldn't invest in Apple. Think about that.
So companies do have emotions and values because they are made up of people that likewise have emotions and values.
As to companies not having human weaknesses... you must be kidding. How many dumb things have you seen companies do over the years and you're going to tell me they don't have human weaknesses? This whole paragraph from you was ill considered and really did nothing more then show both your ignorance of corporate governance and your prejudice towards something which you honestly do not understand.
I don't say that to be offensive. But you're saying things that are simply wrong.
As to corporations not being permitted to engage in the political process, why should they be forbidden and other associations permitted to do so? What basis rooted in the US constitution are you using to make that argument? Because your idea would have to pass the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure it would fail if this is all you've got.
As to having a right to communicate with congress, what about releasing criticism of politicians during election cycles? That is, do these organizations have a right to talk to the public and try to influence their voting patterns? Say things like "we at the anti whatever group would like you to know that politician X won't sign our anti whatever bill. Do not vote for politician X. Instead vote for politician Y who has said publicly to be in favor of anti whatever legislation."
If you say that is not okay you're going to run into major freedom of speech/freedom of association issues.
I really don't think you can get this sort of thing passed. I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the issue.
The difference is that I said what was being repeated and then examined the logic of it to show it to be ill considered.
You just gainsaid me with zero basis or justification for it.
So if you have a problem with something I said, say what it was and why.
Otherwise, extent your right thumb until it is 90 degrees from your index finger, raise yourself off your seat about six inches, place your hand thumb up on the seat, and then gently lower yourself back onto the seat.