Devial

He wasn't really a scapegoat, he is the one who caused it to tip over. Both corporations and citizens were polluting the lake, seemingly legally in the absence of regulation, or at least enforcement. After the critical state of the water was discovered by Lisa, everyone, including, Burns stopped dumping waste in the lake. It would have started to slowly recover over the next couple of months-years, as the newly introduced anti pollution regulations were (at least initially) effective.

Homer was the only one who actually illegally dumped waste, and he did so in full knowledge of the consequence, and for literally no other reason that he wanted to eat donuts after the health department shut down the donut shop.

He's not solely responsible for the pollution, but he is solely responsible for adding the straw that broke the camels back, and he did so in full knowledge of the severity of the consequences, and for utterly banal and selfish reasons.

Because fat and sugar are drugs. People don't usually think of them like drugs, because of the widely accepted, but very wrong, attitude that only illegal substances can be drugs. Sugar, fat, caffeine, alcohol or tobacco are all drugs. They all trigger a desirable chemical reaction in your brain, and all have addictive potential. At least 2 or 3 of them are also significantly more harmful to you than several types of actually illegal drugs.

And in general, though perhaps most strongly for drugs, many people suffer from the cognitive bias of "illegal=bad & legal=good. Automatically and by default"

I like that you're complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I'm going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.

People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it's objectively fucking insane to claim it is.

Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.

You're not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.

Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.

Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don't have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.

This isn't an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.

I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that's why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.

I've directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You're literally just making shit up now. You're clearly arguing in bad faith, and I'm not going to engage with you anymore. You've notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would've been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is "they didn't chose it, and they couldn't possibly have been wrong". According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must've been the right decision.

Come back when you've learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.

~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~

Dude. You're reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that's not normal. Go touch grass.

You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn't mention the arguments you made and just called it a "contemporary source". I can't take you seriously anymore, you're arguing on the level of a C- high school student.

You've also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I've said. Every single time I've pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you're right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn't even mention the word "disclaim" or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.

Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they're just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don't want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That's not a legal arguement, that's an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can't be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.

You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.

Just a weird, coincidence I'm sure.

No it doesn't. They're explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.

Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don't need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn't strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.