Double_R

Government has legal duty to protect from assault

That’s why we have laws against assault genius.

thanks to first amendment, cant use my speech as excuse to create exception to legalize assault in that case.

This is a pure fantasy reading of what’s actually at issue in the chud case.

The issue there is whether someone can use self defense as a legal defense when they’re the one who provoked the attack against them. And a deeper question is whether words alone can qualify as provocation in this context.

These are perfectly legitimate questions, nothing about this has anything to do with “legalizing assault” because they didn’t like his speech.

And not for nothing, but referring to racial slurs as “speech” is already dumb enough. The whole reason we protect speech in the first place is to ensure people remain free to speak out against their political leaders, not because we value the right of people to freely insult their fellow citizens. So pretending like you’re protecting some kind of virtuous principal here is laughable.

This is probably the dumbest argument I ever read. You cannot have free speech if someone can beat you up or kill you for it.

“Freedom of speech” is a colloquial reference to the first amendment of the US constitution, not some vague philosophical notion of whether you are privileged enough to speak your mind.

The first amendment of the US constitution specifically bars Congress from creating any law abridging your right to speak. Nothing about that in any way addresses some rando on the street beating you up for speaking your mind. We have laws that cover such behavior, it’s called assault.

Well it depends what the consequences are.

What consequences could be legitimately deemed a first amendment violation not imposed by the government?

It's okay, your benevolent government that cares about the welfare of the people will…

Your capacity to disregard everything I’ve said and twist my position into whatever you like to tell yourself, in order to keep pretending my position is absurd, in order to not have to face the absurdity of your own position… is quite remarkable.

No market correction required when economic fascists are in charge of the private banking industry...

A market “correction” is the natural result of everyone suddenly pulling back on their spending. This is economics 101, you would know it if you understood the first thing about it.

We have the right to be offended by another's commentary, but we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary

This is totally made up. The 1A protects people government censorship, not from the consequences of their speech. Your position isn’t just wrong, it’s self contradictory. Censoring and censuring speech are both forms of speech themselves, so not having the right to that is having your right to speech taken away.

All this argument is is “I want the right to say whatever I want, and no one has the right to do anything about it” dressed up as legal analysis.

If you had a sister with hard right politics and I call your sister "low IQ", then you would not assault me over it. Insulting terms (like low IQ, the N word, etc) do NOT justify a violent response.

Comparing the insult “low IQ” to the N word. This is low Remy, even for you.

It won't crash, it has a market correction.

Yes, everyone pulling back their spending all at once has a market impact. Economists understand that impact very well.

Sounds like they took on some ambition to do more for themselves than they ever did before, so, there's that, and it supports my point about ambition. Question remains, however, whether they'd have expressed that ambition before Killer Mike made his offer... which also underscores my point of lack of ambition.

It doesn’t underscore your point at all, at least not in any context that matters.

Your point as far as I understand it is basically just an excuse to not give a damn about people who are poor. In your mind, being poor = being lazy and therefore undeserving. Anyone can make it if they try, you say. But this conversation is about politics, which means we’re talking about government, which means we’re talking about government policy. And from the standpoint of policy, what you’re offering is totally useless. Anyone can play the lottery and get rich, that doesn’t mean playing the lottery is a retirement plan, and certainly not a plan to fix poverty.

The point of the Killer Mike example is simple; most people are not inherently bad/lazy/ambitionless. Most people are absolutely willing to make something of themselves… if they believe that opportunity really exists. Things worked out for you. That’s great. Congrats. But things cannot work out for everyone. Not as a sentiment, not as my opinion, as basic math.

If everyone in America was a millionaire, then everyone could buy a million dollar home. That doesn’t make huge beautiful homes magically appear, it just means that shitty fixer upper next door becomes a million dollar home.

So the question we’re actually addressing isn’t whether the lazy among us deserve to live better, it’s whether our system encourages them to get off their arse. I don’t know what happened to the gangbangers turned entrepreneurs, but my guess is they failed. Because most entrepreneurs fail. That’s the reality that keeps the poor, poor.

Proposal for the forums; I would love to see a feature where when replying to a post, instead of scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the page, the window opens up right under the post for you to type your response.

When replying to a post that’s near the top of the page I (and I imagine everyone else) find myself constantly scrolling back and forth, up and down to find the post and to copy the next section to reply to. It’s really tedious. I wouldn’t want or expect the response to appear under it once submitted, the window would be just for drafting purposes.

And you are wrong again.

Wow Lucy, what a great argument. I can see why no one is a match for your awesome genius.

Almost everyone can get rich; it's a simple calculus. Consume less than you produce. It's that easy.

If everyone suddenly lowered their consumption to the point it would make them rich, the US economy would crash. Not exactly how you build a rich wealthy economy.

I like how you forgot to omit the word "ignores"

Nice accidental self-tell.

It wasn’t a failed omission genius, it was a failed inclusion of the three dots which should have been placed after ignored translating into “blah blah blah” because no one cares. As soon as you used the term “alone” you are misrepresenting my position in which case the critiques that followed don’t apply.

That remains one of the most backwards ideological inconsistencies I have ever read, and I have read a lot. It not only absolves the individual of his civic duty in the first part but also ascribes a duty that clearly is not evident by any metric with your second claim.

This is just stupid.

My statement doesn’t absolve anyone of anything. It explains in very simple very common sense terms what everyone’s first responsibility is and why we have a government in the first place.

People will always look out for their own best interests. That is human nature at its most basic and fundamental level. Capitalism not only works based off of this notion, it depends on it. The entire idea is that people will only work to solve other people’s problems if they themselves will benefit.

Hell, this is literally codified into law. you do realize that corporations are obligated by law to ensure their first priority is maximizing profits… right?

The second part, that the role of the government is to look out for the whole… how can any sane rational person argue against that? Please, be my guest… what is the role of government of not to look out for the best interests of the society it governs?

Before you give some stupid answer, we’re obviously talking about democracies or any form of government put in place by the people. We’re talking about the philosophical idea, not the reality of how governments operate.

Governments are not magically composed of selfless entities operating outside human nature.

No one made that claim genius. Again, human nature dictates that people will look out for their own best interests. That’s why our government was built with checks and balances - to ensure what’s in the best interest of the individuals working within the government are operating based on what’s best for the people, otherwise they would suffer personal consequences. This is really basic stuff.

Whether it’s working depends on the system. Having a justice department for example that reports directly to the president is a massive hole that the framers left in place only for someone like Donald Trump to come along and exploit.

Leave it to a political hack to ascribe saint-like qualities to an institution with the most mindless fervor of faith seen in any religion.

The tell of political hackery is to be explained something and to read something completely, totally different into it because it fits your preconceived notions, because you don’t read nor care what those you disagree with are actually saying.

Did I mention that the campaign against Trump began even before he was President, but in fact the Fall of 2014, when he announced just the potential of his running

Um, yeah… turns out people don’t like the idea of a vile, childish, petulant ignoramus in the Oval Office, and would therefore oppose the very idea of his candidacy. That’s not news, that’s common sense.

Convicted not just in the media, but by Democrat operatives, including Hilaryous Balloon Girl; so, yes, a loss of rights and legal entitlements.

Being president is not a legal entitlement.

But I especially love that first line; “convicted by the media”… yeah, of being a vile, childish, petulant ignoramus. Because he is. Only in MAGAville does that make you a great candidate for office.

--> anyone can get rich, everyone cannot.

If I really believed that...

So you believe everyone can be rich, is that correct?

Ambition is the lack, and by denying that, as well as planning and execution, the poor will remain poor, and average will remain average

I already addressed the ambition issue with the Killer Mike example. Do you have any thoughts on it?

the simplistic narrative that low wages alone caused industrial poverty ignores

I didn't say it did it "alone", but it was definitely a major contributing factor.

If you're going to argue that minimum wage policies are primarily a productivity incentive, I can easily write another page-long rebuttal explaining...

Yes, I am well aware you can ask ChatGPT to write another page long rebuttal. I prefer to interact with real people.

No. I've been following politics closely since 08. That was the point I knew I was getting old, when I'd find myself watching MSNBC instead of ESPN.

It has been over 10 years now since trump arrived on the scene so I'm probably off in my predictions. Social media has become far more prevalent in our politics over this time period so I guess I shouldn't underestimate how much it on its own has contributed to devolving or political discourse and incentive structure.

Everyone can be sued for anything

Not how our system works.

that is not definition of liability.

Liability is usually defined as legal obligation to pay or provide.

It's how the term is used in the legal profession. I would know, I work very closely with the legal team in my line of work.

A "legal obligation" is a vague term, not a black or white. There are always competing factors that have to be taken into account, so when lethal professionals say "there's some liability there" (a phrase I hear multiple times a year) they're telling you that there's a reasonable case that can be made against you. Again, this doesn't mean you will lose the case.

But justification for AI company being liable or having liability to provide anything due to harm AI causes doesnt exist.

That's literally the topic we're debating, but thanks for your opinion.

Because justification for AI advancement outweighs justification for punishing AI companies for this.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll think I'll stick with my opinion that AI companies should ensure their product isn't being used to teach mass murderers how to maximize their casualties.

So your "absolute claim", which then degraded to "not true in many cases"

Nothing I said changed. I'm sorry that you don't know how to read.

You:

"When you create a product for public consumption you have a responsibility to ensure that product comes with the proper safeguards in place to ensure it is not utilized in a way that causes harm."

This was an absolute claim, not "in many cases".

It was a principal, of course principals are absolute otherwise they're not principals. That's not what we were talking about. Principals are ideas we apply, our conversation and where you tried to argue I was absolute was in saying that companies should always be held liable, but that is of course absurd. Whether they should be held liable depends of the facts of the case, and each case will be different. So in many cases they will be, in many cases they will not be. We're saying the same damn thing.

--> I argued that companies have liability when their products cause harm.

This is likewise an absolute claim, because it tells nothing of exceptions.

I don't think you understand the difference between having liability and being held liable. The latter is a legal judgement resulting from the process being played out, the former is an assessment of the potential. If your product causes harm, you have liability meaning you can be sued, doesn't mean you'll lose the case.

Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.

We tried that, the result was a society where a handful of business owners lived a life of luxury while everyone else starved working for Pennies.

Fascist governments have no moral right to prohibit free association of contracted agreements between two willing people.

The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest, the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole. If an arrangement between two parties has the potential to negatively impact the well being of the rest of us, then the government not only has the right but the duty to intervene.

Too many are poor only because they lack ambition, let alone planning and execution.

If we're talking about any individual, sure this all sounds great. If we're talking about policy, this is totally useless. In a capitalistic society we're all competing with each other, so there will always be people at the bottom. It doesn't matter how much ambition everyone has, anyone can get rich, everyone cannot.

And that consideration doesn't even factor things like medical debt, or having to put your career on hold for loved ones. Not everybody can get to dedicate themselves towards their financial future like you were able to do.

Rapper Killer Mike did an episode where he found a group of gang members and gave them an opportunity. He walked them through the process of coming up with a product (they decided to make their own soda), funded the their start up costs, and showed them how to go from product development and licencing to finally getting someone to purchase their product for retail.

What this episode demonstrated is that people do not fall into the stereotypical unproductive lives because they're just bad or naturally lazy people, they fall into it mostly because they don't see a world that provides them real opportunity to succeed. Once he gave that to them, you could see how their entire outlook and approach to life changed.

The episode ended with them (they were Blood's) setting up a tent at a county fair selling their soda's right next to the Crypt's who were selling their soda's. Two rival gangs, competing with each other selling soda. Turns out there was a way to get them to stop shooting at each other.

You would have a lot less lazy people in this country if there was a real way for people to make it. That is fading by the day as the rich continue to get richer.

Difficult to tell if this is meant to be satirical or you're actually being serious.

Due process applies situations where individuals face a loss of rights and/or legal entitlements. Being president is neither.

Once he's gone politics will go back to the boring conversations about tax rates and entitlement spending that most people tune out of - exactly what it's supposed to be.

Trump is such an absurd childish figure who's managed to turn politics into a reality TV show and we're all dumber and worse off for it. Americans have totally forgotten what government is for, which is why we're very quickly losing our status as the world's premier superpower.

And no one has argued anything having to do with "all cases", so we're in agreement.

Do you see "I agree with you" written anywhere in my previous comment?

Yes. I argued that companies have liability when their products cause harm. When you said they "in many cases" should not be held liable, that directly, necessarily, translates into many cases where they would be held liable. So we're saying the same exact thing.

Your original claim didn't include "many cases" but was an absolute claim.

Show me where I made an "absolute claim" that companies should always be held liable. I'll wait.

In many cases, no

Which translates into "in many cases yes". So we're in agreement.

do you agree to charge the makers of gpt with murder type charges?

No. Murder or any other kind of criminal charge would require intent or at the very least willful negligence. As far as I am aware there's no evidence of that nor reason to believe that it is the case. Companies exist for one reason only; to make money. So that is always the go to when companies do wrong. I think they should be ordered to compensate the victims generously.

There is no such responsibility in any country.

Nonsense, this is how every product just about anywhere works. People sue companies and win over liability issues all the time. They sue car makers when their safety features don't work, they sue food manufacturers when their products are contaminated, hell they've even sued gun manufacturers. AI doesn't get a pass.

Do you seriously think a business should not be held liable for the harm it causes?

It's literally Google. You can't sue libraries for having how-to manuals, even on guns. Accessory to murder is even more outlandish.

It's not Google. Google only returns the inputs you give it. AI actually gave the shooters ideas that they didn't come up with themselves.

Beyond that, you can argue all day long that the shooters would have carried these acts out anyway, that's mostly irrelevant. When you create a product for public consumption you have a responsibility to ensure that product comes with the proper safeguards in place to ensure it is not utilized in a way that causes harm. That clearly wasn't done here.

And not for nothing, this is such basic common sense. We all grew up watching terminator, the idea that an AI bot would come up with ways to kill people is the first concern anyone born in the last 50 years would instantly tie to it. In the movie IRobot the literal first rule of their fictional bots was to cause no harm. How does a company put out a product like this and not teach it to refrain from instructing people on how to kill themselves or others? That is childish incompetence.

I suppose itd boil down to whether ai should be held to the same standard as a human.

What sperates AI from an encyclopedia, as one user suggested, is the fact that it does have the capability to understand the shooter's intentions and assisted anyway. That I would argue is absolutely grounds to hold the company liable.

It is perhaps the most fundamental consideration of any product - how can this product be used to cause harm, whether intentional or inadvertent? In any other scenario we have no problem accepting that harm resulting from a product being used as intended opens the makers to liability. This is perhaps the clearest example.

I just found this on the internet (where people are unfiltered). The real world is too filtered and not honest.

Wow Remy, you found a meme on the internet that "proves" you right. Must be the case then.