Senal

Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.

I mean, yes... that is what i did... i explained as i did it.

Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.

Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?

TL;DR;

It's weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.

Using "purity test" like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.

You say "purity tests" like it's some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.

Headcanon replace it with "personal ethics and morals" and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.

An example of what i mean.

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

vs

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?

I'm not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don't worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.

Is that relevant somehow?

Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?

Rebranding personal ethics and morals as "a purity test" is disingenuous at best.

If you're going to take umbridge with someone's approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.

The point was that guarding ideas didn't start with formalised copyright.

Sure, but that's not the only way people have guarded ideas.

Secret societies, artisan guilds that only taught it's members and on occasion killed people who find out their secrets, professions taught only to the direct student.

Just because the formal idea of something was recorded doesn't mean it wasnt around before.

As people we are constantly hoarding knowledge and ideas to benefit is individually or as a tribe.

What do you mean by "most of our history" , like in a timeframe sense ?

So you would say the level of skill, study and practice for genai art is approximately the same as a non-ai artist?

Because that was the statement you disagree with.

For now : https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Brother_printers_causing_issues_with_third_party_inks

I have one also so I'm invested in how this plays out.

Im a wired headphones person and even I think that battery death is a bullshit reason.

The jack jack has a finite number of uses, as does the flexibility of the wire, many other components also aren't indestructible.

Im a wired headphones person and even I think that battery death is a bullshit reason.

The jack jack has a finite number of uses, as does the flexibility of the wire, many other components also aren't indestructible.

Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you're not seeing the distinction.

You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.

It's reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn't interacted at all, he wouldn't have died.

I'll break it down into steps:

No interaction -> I'm assuming he isn't just going to drop dead in that moment.

Interaction -> he died.

Therefore interaction led to death.

It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it's not a reasonable assumption that he would though.

I'm not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it's certainly interesting to see.

Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.

That's some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.

The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn't be sure it wasn't a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.

Yes, i suppose you couldn't be sure until the autopsy, but it's reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.

Please note that i'm saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.

How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.

I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )

I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

You are not, i'm talking about cause and effect you're talking about media bias and fairness.

As i said, if they'd been having lunch and he'd been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.

Still killing though.

Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn't itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.

That's just cause and effect.

The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.