Lawtonfogle

Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a section of society judges not helping as better than helping for some price, even though anyone who doesn't want to pay is no worse off than if they were never given an option. I see this trend outside of business as well.

Is there any similar writeups of the fishing glitch where you get the fisherman to sit on the tree and then go fishing? That's one of the two I found as a kid. The other gave me some super item but I never could recreate it.

Being on a jury gave me the opposite experience. The guy who slept through parts of the trial was given as equal a say as those who stayed awake and the topic of them sleeping was a joke to many of the jurors. Charisma counted for more than reasoning. It made me have a lot more believe in the statement that the innocent seek trial by judge while the guilty seek trial by jury.

The problem? Because those actions are discrimination. Using discrimination to fight discrimination largely targets the under privileged members of the privileged groups.

It's basically a call for equity instead of equality, except it is limited equity which automatically assume some do not need equitable help. It is also limited in how it's applied.

Find the actual problems causing any modern day biases and fix those. Personally I work with some kids to help them love math. In my (admittingly anecdotal experience) there is a bias noticeable in middle school for all kids to not like math that evolves into a gender bias but to some extent hurts both genders' ability and desire to learn. Identifying and remedying the cause of this would do more to help both girls and boys than targeted aid in high-school or college.

The second half of your last sentence is the key to the issue, IMO. People calling things racist, and yet those who agree with the things being called racist seeing those name calling ignoring similar behavior weakens the concept of bigotry.

My favorite example of this is the legal system. The legal system is racist against blacks and Hispanics because it is harder on them. The legal system is also sexist against women because it is easier on them. When someone sees both of these views together, the entire concept of bigotry is called into question.

And it's becoming a self parody as well. People are now being called transphobic for being unwilling to have sex with a transsexual they aren't attracted to. A gay guy who is only attracted to people with a punishment is now a bigot... what? Yeah, that view isn't by any means common yet, but it has been appearing online for a while now.

So the Best Buy employees were in possession of child abuse material and even used it to make profit? Sounds like they should be charged for abusing children. Merely viewing it or possessing it harms children, so no excuses. Even the FBI shouldn't be allowed to posses it.

Or they thought she was guaranteed to win and wanted to have this mattered handled much quietly once the election was over.

I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost if that had happen.

/s

Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.

During my time in college I took multiple ethics and related classes and in my opinion they aren't worth the paper I printed class assignments on.

None of these answer practical issues like what happens when the law is bad or when one's livelihood is on the line. None of these give practical advice on how to fix a society where ethical behavior is not inherently incentivized.

The problem is finding which point was wrong. What behavior was done here that should be discouraged or banned by society? People don't like the outcome, but where should the government intervene?

Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.

Yeah, such a better system. Even set up a bit coin address where they have to pay about $25 to get in to prove intent (along with visiting the site and then logging in).

And how many charged with child molestation will have the police raid their homes and check their computers? How many will end up only being charged with child porn to spare the actual child the trauma of going through a case and how many times is there not enough evidence to convict for child molestation but there is plenty to convict for child porn?

Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.

I don't buy it for a second. Instead, I think that those who use but don't physically touch an actual child are so unlikely to get caught, the numbers are horribly biased.

To give some example numbers, say that 5% of those who view the material ever directly harm a child. And say that 100% of those who harm a child view the material. Now, say that 50% of those who harm a child get busted, but only 1% of those who don't get busted for viewing the material. The end result would be that of those caught about 5 of every 7 who viewed material harmed a child directly.

Now, the numbers are made up, but there are many values that lead to a false conclusion if people only look at those caught.