Editing Talk:1390: Research Ethics
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:I have added a link to the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] in the explanation (which you found you self, can I see below.) You can always answer to an earlier comment, by adding a (:) or more before your text, so it will be clear that it is a direct answer to a specific comic. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | :I have added a link to the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] in the explanation (which you found you self, can I see below.) You can always answer to an earlier comment, by adding a (:) or more before your text, so it will be clear that it is a direct answer to a specific comic. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| β | The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no? | + | The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no? |
| β | |||
The SCOTUS ruling follows a US Supreme Court decision in the late 19th century that "A corporation is a person". Ironically, the justification for this ruling was based on a law clerk's note in the margin of a previous decision stating that the said previous decision could create the situation where a corporation has the same rights as a person. The decision at hand was to decide the validity of a presidential election and the the Supreme Court took the notes made by the clerk as law. it's clear the court knew what it's ruling meant, but it's not clear what the courts motivation was for accepting the clerks notes as if it had been an already rendered decision![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | The SCOTUS ruling follows a US Supreme Court decision in the late 19th century that "A corporation is a person". Ironically, the justification for this ruling was based on a law clerk's note in the margin of a previous decision stating that the said previous decision could create the situation where a corporation has the same rights as a person. The decision at hand was to decide the validity of a presidential election and the the Supreme Court took the notes made by the clerk as law. it's clear the court knew what it's ruling meant, but it's not clear what the courts motivation was for accepting the clerks notes as if it had been an already rendered decision![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | ||
