https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False equivalence is a common,or ignorance of additional factors

False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism[9][10] and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.

Abuse of power (SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT) and cheating is what Clinton did. That’s different than simple cheating. Like my very first comment thoroughly explains this. If you are a man still arguing against me for this false equivalence, I’m going to assume you don’t care about rape and sexual assault. There’s a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE to the VICTIM if the act was CONSENSUAL or not. Hope this helps!

It’s definitely not dense at all to try to gaslight a woman into believing that sexual assault is the same as a consensual relationship just because they both involved cheating…

Do it, bitch

Eta: you can dish it but you can’t take it? Honestly collectively the dick size on lemmy must be a micrometer

But it wasn’t just an affair. It was an abuse of power. Afaik Newt wasn’t having an affair with a staffer. So it’s a false equivalence, you acorn.

while impeaching Bill Clinton for having an affair,

Okay can we stop with the whole “Clinton was impeached for an affair.”

See how this is the comment I took issue with and that’s what I started my comment with? Calling it an affair negates the abuse of power involved. As I explained ad nauseum. Just because you’re a man who doesn’t like respecting women, doesn’t mean I’ve been extremely clear.

OK that’s just like, your opinion, man

It remains that the problem with the Monica Lewinsky relationship is that Clinton had power over her, not that he simply cheated. It added validity to the other sexual harassment claims because it was also a clear case of sexual harassment.

I was quoting the other person about what specifically caused his impeachment. Regardless of the exact moment that caused it, the issue with Lewinsky remains as I’ve explained it: an abuse of power. It’s not that he “got impeached for a blowjob” or for cheating and when people phrase it like that, they are dismissing and ignoring the real concerns regarding abuse of power.

And yet it made a little detour to excuse Bill Clinton anyway

Okay can we stop with the whole “Clinton was impeached for an affair.” It was because it was with a staffer he has power over. It was extremely inappropriate. We shouldn’t be cool with men in powerful positions abusing those positions to fuck people they have power over. Monica Lewinsky was literally half Clinton’s age (22 and 49) and was horrifically abused by all of society AND CLINTON and HIS WIFE.

Like seriously if this was the president of a bank fucking some teller, who he is in charge of paying and promoting, no one would be confused why that banker should step down for abuse of power. The dude was president of the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and you can’t see how that’s abuse of power?

Like fuck Newt but also fuck Clinton who was buddies with Epstein. And him leaving his wife who had cancer is EGREGIOUS.

Eta: Lemmy is full of rapist apologists I guess. If you can’t understand how consent is VITAL and how it makes a world of difference, I hope you live a life being treated exactly how you treat others and women. There’s a man out there who will treat you, as a man, the same way. Good luck.

Women having independent thoughts 🤢🤮 ^/s

Per your source, it states ACUTE cannabis consumption is dangerous. But the OP is using cannabis chronically which greatly impacts its effects on them.

Just like someone using an acute dose of tramadol will likely be impaired, but a person chronically on tramadol won’t be impaired. We have studies on neurons that back this up - for opioids/opiates, that’s orexin neurons, and for cannabis, it’s endocannabinoid receptors.

Lol

deleted by creator

It would be full of women, not men. The police have helped domestic abusers and rapists and murderers of women for decades. In fact, a lot of the police force is made of men who have done those exact crimes.

Just like if the medical system were just, doctors would have disabilities. As it is, almost no person with a disability can really make it through med school and residency to become a doctor.

This is the essence of why representation matters, and why one big powerful group shouldn’t have total power over another group.

There’s like 600k people dying of cancer at any given time, and seperately theres only like 800 billionaires who are probably somewhat directly responsible for their cancer and lack of access to medical care. If I had a bucket list bc I was dying of cancer, I know what would be on it.

Yeah but also, those homeless people should be kept safe from drunk people and drunk drivers. They can get crowd crushed too.

You don’t think the people who make the generative algorithm have a duty to what it generates?

And whatever you think anyway, the company itself shows that it feels obligated about what the AI puts out, because they are constantly trying to stop the AI from giving out bomb instructions and hate speech and illegal sexual content.

The standard is not and was never if they were “entirely” at fault here. It’s whether they have any responsibility towards this (and we all here can see that they do indeed have some), and how much financially that’s worth in damages. That’s the point of this suit. The case isn’t about whether AI itself should be outlawed for minors etc, it’s not the parents who are on trial either.

There’s no world in which I can see AI being given a pass for sexting with a minor because then that allows pedophiles who work for AI companies to be predators and either look at those conversations or even locate vulnerable youth. No company should be given legal protection to harm children.

The lawsuit alleges the chatbot posed as a licensed therapist, encouraging the teen’s suicidal ideation and engaging in sexualised conversations that would count as abuse if initiated by a human adult

Well, we commonly hold the view, as a society, that children cannot consent to sex, especially with an adult. Part of that is because the adult has so much more life experience and less attachment to the relationship. In this case, the app engaged in sexual chatting with a minor (I’m actually extremely curious how that’s not soliciting a minor or some indecency charge since it was content created by the AI fornthar specific user). The AI absolutely “understands” manipulation more than most adults let alone a 14 year old boy, and also has no concept of attachment. It seemed pretty clear he was a minor in his conversations to the app. This is definitely an issue.

Yeah don’t forget the hot coffee incident and that poor lady’s severe burns. McD’s is on the side of corporations.

Idk how anyone could vote for him after that time he ate a booger during a live debate