wlkngnthfrnk

Corporate criminals are not tried as harshly (or at all) for crimes which often have the impact of causing more societal harm than most murderers, rapists, or drug lords ever could. Because of this, I'm afraid that there is a class of society which is, effectively, above the law. In one way or another, my family and friends have been affected negatively (to put it mildly), as innocent bystanders to other people's "success." With a real lack of corporate accountability in the United States, how can we expect entities, like Walmart, to manage their operations in a way which take into account environmental performance, social responsibility, and sustainability?

Thank you for responding. I find myself very pessimistic about the political situation in the United States, and what it has devolved to, but take heart that there's a Senator that shares my concerns on this important issue. I'm curious to know how much progress we can make, with a more representative voice in the White House.

I hope I'm not too off base, but I've always had the sense that women and young girls are typically called 'sluts' because their anatomy is more prone to contracting STDs, spreading STDs, and passing STDs on to their children. Regardless, the label seems to be closely related to ideas of self-control in an individual, and how when it is lacking can negatively impact others. For example, people that drink and drive are not well-liked, to put it mildly, because their lack of self control can harm or kill other people. I am no prude, but I still believe that the 'slut' label has some usefulness in society as a matter of safety precaution. In what ways can we avoid slut shaming, but at the same time acknowledge a 'slut's,' male or female, promiscuity?