Trump shares video of "great people" yelling "white power" at pro Trump parade

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2020, 07:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Where?  I don't see anywhere your addressing the firearms industry's immunity from lawsuits over the misuse of their product.

Sorry for the confusion.  I guess I should have explained that PLCAA stands for "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".  It is the legislation that protects gun makers from liability.

And as I have said.  I have the same opinion of that act as I do 47 USC 230 which protects internet providers.

(07-01-2020, 10:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think protection under the PLCAA should have anything to do with the political neutrality of gun makers

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2020, 09:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry for the confusion.  I guess I should have explained that PLCAA stands for "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".  It is the legislation that protects gun makers from liability.

And as I have said.  I have the same opinion of that act as I do 47 USC 230 which protects internet providers.

There's no confusion and I am aware of what the PLCAA is (if I wasn't then I would have googled searched it).  You didn't answer my question though, what do you think of firearms manufacturer's having qualified immunity from lawsuits based on the misuse of their product?  I ask because many on the left want to eliminate this.  I thought the parallel was interesting given the right's concern about social media platforms.  I don't recall a Dem every calling for the repeal of this immunity for the gun industry based on the shooter's political stance.  Hence, you did not answer my question.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2020, 09:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's no confusion and I am aware of what the PLCAA is (if I wasn't then I would have googled searched it).  You didn't answer my question though, what do you think of firearms manufacturer's having qualified immunity from lawsuits based on the misuse of their product? 

Well, yeah, there was some confusion.  You never asked if I favored gunmakers having immunity.  In these situations I find it is always a good idea to use the quote function instead of paraphrasing.

Here is what really happened.

First I gave an opinion on the claim that internet providers protection from liability was dependent on political neutrality.

(06-29-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't make a law that has zero to do with political neutrality (47 USC 230) and then try to claim  it is somehow based on political neutrality.  Protecting internet providers against liability for false or dangerous information shared on their platform has nothing to do with political neutrality.

Notice that I never said if I was in favor of them having the protection or not.  Then you quoted my post and replied.

(06-29-2020, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder if you have the same opinion of the law banning lawsuits against fire arms manufacturers when someone uses one of their firearms to kill someone illegally?

And the answer was "Yes".  I did have the same opinion about the protection being based on political neutrality

(06-30-2020, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am lost here.  When has anyone said the PLCAA only applies if a company is politically neutral?  Are these "many people" also trying to remove protection under the PLCAA for any company that is not politically neutral?

Understand now?

(07-01-2020, 09:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I ask because many on the left want to eliminate this.  I thought the parallel was interesting given the right's concern about social media platforms.  I don't recall a Dem every calling for the repeal of this immunity for the gun industry based on the shooter's political stance.  Hence, you did not answer my question.

I have seen this argument before and it is a classic "false equivelancy".

There are arguments I could make about gunmakers' rights to protection from liability, but I would NEVER say their protection depended on them being politically neutral.  This whole argument is just an attempt to muddy the waters with something that has nothinbg to do with the President's claim that the protection provided to internet platform providers is dependent on political neutrality.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 12:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This whole argument is just an attempt to muddy the waters with something that has nothinbg to do with the President's claim that the protection provided to internet platform providers is dependent on political neutrality.

You are correct, it is an attempt to muddy the waters, just not by me.  Also, you still haven't answered my question.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 01:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, it is an attempt to muddy the waters, just not by me.  Also, you still haven't answered my question.

I have answered it regarding what we are discussing in thjis thread.


I am not going to muddy the waters with an issue that has nothing to do with requiring political neutrality.


Start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 02:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have answered it regarding what we are discussing in thjis thread.

No, you haven't

Quote:I am not going to muddy the waters with an issue that has nothing to do with requiring political neutrality.

Who said it was solely about political neutrality?  I believe the bone of contention was unequal application of the ToS.  Is that necessarily political?

Quote:Start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

I could, or you could just answer the question.  Do you think the firearms industry should have qualified immunity from lawsuits stemming from the misuse of their products?

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 02:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who said it was solely about political neutrality?  I believe the bone of contention was unequal application of the ToS.  Is that necessarily political?

Okay then, please explain to me how this has anything to do with removing gunmakers protection from liability.  I'll gladly discuss gunmakers rights if you can show how it has ANYTHING to do with internet providers having their protection removed because they are not politically neutral or apply the proper rules of service.

The gunmakers protection from liability have NOTHING to do with this issue.  It is a "false equivelancy" argument that some people have fallen for.  It is nothhing but a distration from the real issue.  The fact that you seemed obsessed over bringing it into the conversation seems to indicate that you want to sidetrack this discussion in an attemmpt to avoid the REAL issue.

I have issues to discusss about gunmaker immunity, but none of them have anything to do with requirements to be politically neutral.  The President's executive order on this issue is a joke.  It just proves that he has no idea how the law works.  Even the legal analyst on FoxNews agrees.  You can't take a law that has NOTHING to do with political neutrality and try to claim that it depends on political neutrality.

Not one single democrat that I know of has tried to argue that gunmakers protection from liability depends on them being politically neutral.  But if you can show me an exaplme I will join you in bashing him/her.  Until then I am not going to play a part in distracting from the real issue with unrealted discussion of gunmakers rights.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 10:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then, please explain to me how this has anything to do with removing gunmakers protection from liability.  I'll gladly discuss gunmakers rights if you can show how it has ANYTHING to do with internet providers having their protection removed because they are not politically neutral or apply the proper rules of service.

The gunmakers protection from liability have NOTHING to do with this issue.  It is a "false equivelancy" argument that some people have fallen for.  It is nothhing but a distration from the real issue.  The fact that you seemed obsessed over bringing it into the conversation seems to indicate that you want to sidetrack this discussion in an attemmpt to avoid the REAL issue.

I've been discussing the issue the whole time, you have no factual basis for claiming I'm ducking it.

Quote:I have issues to discusss about gunmaker immunity, but none of them have anything to do with requirements to be politically neutral.  The President's executive order on this issue is a joke.  It just proves that he has no idea how the law works.  Even the legal analyst on FoxNews agrees.  You can't take a law that has NOTHING to do with political neutrality and try to claim that it depends on political neutrality.

You keep saying "political neutrality" is the issue at hand when you're literally the only person bringing it up.  I explained, in the post you quoted, that the issue is not solely about politics. You're getting a little personal here, Fred.  Maybe it's time to take a break and have a nice cup of chamomile tea? 

Quote:Not one single democrat that I know of has tried to argue that gunmakers protection from liability depends on them being politically neutral.  But if you can show me an exaplme I will join you in bashing him/her.  Until then I am not going to play a part in distracting from the real issue with unrealted discussion of gunmakers rights.

Again with "politically neutral".  That's not the issue, Fred, and you're the only one who keeps mentioning it.  Please do try and stay on topic.


Also, try actually answering my question.  This is probably the fifth time I've had to politely ask this.  

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You keep saying "political neutrality" is the issue at hand when you're literally the only person bringing it up.  


Again with "politically neutral".  That's not the issue, Fred, and you're the only one who keeps mentioning it. 

(06-29-2020, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for you assertion about social media companies, they have protection as a "platform for discourse".  The "right's" issue with them is that they do not apply their terms of service in an equitable, fair or consistent manner.  Consequently the argument is that they should lose their special protection as a result.  It's not exactly an unfair position considering that the CEO of Twitter flat out admitted the platform is biased against conservatives.

So the basis for them losing their protection has nothing to do with political neutrality even though it is based on a bias against conservative.

That is like the old argument "Literally no one ever said anything about slavery being an issue in the Civil War.  It was just about States' Rights."

But even if you insist on saying it is about some violation of their terms of service what could you compare that to in regard to gun makers losing their protection from liability?  Since you think it is a "fair position" to strip liability protection from internet providers over their terms of service then what grounds would justify stripping the protection from gunmakers?  What if Maverick Arms gets caught using racist employment practices.  Does that mean they should be subject to liability for damages caused by people who use their guns?   You think that makes sense?  I'll have that discussion if you want to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So the basis for them losing their protection has nothing to do with political neutrality even though it is based on a bias against conservative.

That is like the old argument "Literally no one ever said anything about slavery being an issue in the Civil War.  It was just about States' Rights."

A person can be conservative and a registered Democrat.  You're engaging in a very binary mode of thinking on this issue.

Quote:But even if you insist on saying it is about some violation of their terms of service what could you compare that to in regard to gun makers losing their protection from liability?  Since you think it is a "fair position" to strip liability protection from internet providers over their terms of service then what grounds would justify stripping the protection from gunmakers?  What if Maverick Arms gets caught using racist employment practices.  Does that mean they should be subject to liability for damages caused by people who use their guns?   You think that makes sense?  I'll have that discussion if you want to.

You still didn't answer the question.  Both are protected from liability from misuse of their product.  Twitter, for example, does not take steps against this misuse in an equal manner as they should based on their terms of service.  This is analogous to a firearms dealer not exercising their due diligence in selling a firearm to a prohibited person.  The key difference is that in this example it's the retailer and not the manufacturer making the error.  Yet this still does not prevent many Democrats from aggressively seeking to end this type of immunity for the firearms industry.

So again, I ask you, what is your position on the firearms industry's qualified immunity.  Kindly just answer instead of tap dancing and nit picking my example.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A person can be conservative and a registered Democrat.  You're engaging in a very binary mode of thinking on this issue.

You lost me again.  Are you  saying that "bias against conservatives" is not a political issue?  What difference does it make what party they are registered under?  "Conservative" is still a political identification.

(07-02-2020, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Twitter, for example, does not take steps against this misuse in an equal manner as they should based on their terms of service.  This is analogous to a firearms dealer not exercising their due diligence in selling a firearm to a prohibited person. 

This is the crux of the fallacy.  The PLCAA does not even apply when a gun maker acts negligently or in any manner where it could be held civilly or criminally responsible for the resulting damage.  They are still subject to any regular "products liability" claims.  Not following the rules of who can buy their guns would clearly be an action that would open them up to liability

If the internet providers act negligently in any way that results in damages then they should also be held liable.  But they have not done anything like that.  Their "rules of service" are not laws or government regulations.  Their actions have not resulted in any damages.   

To illustrate the point.  Selling guns to mentally ill convicted felons would make a gunmaker liable for damages.  Just selling guns to Conservatives would NOT.  If they swore they would only sell guns to conservatives, but they lied and sold some to liberals they still would NOT be liable for any damages caused by a criminal using one of their guns.

If internet providers conspire with a foreign country to influence our elections then they should be held liable.  But if they have a liberal bias they should not.

This argument from the right is a logical fallacy called a "false equivalency".   They say it is "apples to apples" but it is really "apples to oranges".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 05:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You lost me again.  Are you  saying that "bias against conservatives" is not a political issue?  What difference does it make what party they are registered under?  "Conservative" is still a political identification.

Is it?  Is there a "Conservative Party"?  I pointed out that people who have conservative leanings can be registered Democrats.

Quote:This is the crux of the fallacy.  The PLCAA does not even apply when a gun maker acts negligently or in any manner where it could be held civilly or criminally responsible for the resulting damage.  They are still subject to any regular "products liability" claims.  Not following the rules of who can buy their guns would clearly be an action that would open them up to liability

Very true.

Quote:If the internet providers act negligently in any way that results in damages then they should also be held liable.  But they have not done anything like that.  Their "rules of service" are not laws or government regulations.  Their actions have not resulted in any damages.  

 
So depriving people of a platform based on discriminatory enforcement is not damaging?  Much like refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple right?  They aren't damaged, they can go to another bakery, correct?

Quote:This argument from the right is a logical fallacy called a "false equivalency".   They say it is "apples to apples" but it is really "apples to oranges".

Except it's not as described above.  I'm aware that conservative or political party affiliation is not a protected characteristic.  However, the argument being made against social media platforms such as Twitter is that they actively engage in discrimination that damages those discriminated against.


Once again, I ask you, do you think firearms manufacturers should have qualified immunity from lawsuits stemming from the misuse of their products?  I know why you won't truthfully answer this question, Fred as do most people reading this thread.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, I ask you, do you think firearms manufacturers should have qualified immunity from lawsuits stemming from the misuse of their products?  I know why you won't truthfully answer this question, Fred as do most people reading this thread.

I hope you know because I have only told you three times.

I won't answer it because it is not relevent to this discussion and is just a deflection from the actual issue.

So basically anyone who can read knows why I won't play that game.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, I ask you, do you think firearms manufacturers should have qualified immunity from lawsuits stemming from the misuse of their products?  I know why you won't truthfully answer this question, Fred as do most people reading this thread.

Irrelevant and provoking.  

Fred has responded multiple times to your question and explained why he answered the way he did.  This is getting the discussion nowhere.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So depriving people of a platform based on discriminatory enforcement is not damaging?  Much like refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple right?  They aren't damaged, they can go to another bakery, correct?



Except it's not as described above.  I'm aware that conservative or political party affiliation is not a protected characteristic.  However, the argument being made against social media platforms such as Twitter is that they actively engage in discrimination that damages those discriminated against.

They have no legal basis to sue for a violation of their civil rights.  If they did they could proceeed with that action.

47 USC 230 has nothing to do with ideology.  It was drafted to protect against liability for damage from things like threats or libel or fraud that get posted on social media.  Just like the PLCAA has nothing to do with ideology and was designed to protect gun makers from liability of damage done by crimnals using their guns.  You can't pull a gunmaker's protection just because it prefers to sell guns to conservatives more than liberals.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 10:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I hope you know because I have only told you three times.

I won't answer it because it is not relevent to this discussion and is just a deflection from the actual issue.

So basically anyone who can read knows why I won't play that game.

No, you don’t answer because you know your answer will contradict your argument in this thread. Your refusal to answer “muddies the waters” at least as much as you claim your answer would.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 10:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Irrelevant and provoking.  

Fred has responded multiple times to your question and explained why he answered the way he did.  This is getting the discussion nowhere.

If you feel my posts violate the ToS then report them. If not then let Fred be a big boy and answer the questions himself. Adults don’t need a white knight sticking up for them and, consequently, not adding anything to the conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 10:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They have no legal basis to sue for a violation of their civil rights.  If they did they could proceeed with that action.

47 USC 230 has nothing to do with ideology.  It was drafted to protect against liability for damage from things like threats or libel or fraud that get posted on social media.  Just like the PLCAA has nothing to do with ideology and was designed to protect gun makers from liability of damage done by crimnals using their guns.  You can't pull a gunmaker's protection just because it prefers to sell guns to conservatives more than liberals.

You just did an outstanding job of saying what I already stated in the post I quoted. Violation of civil rights is not a basis of my argument and your using it, especially after I already mentioned this exact point, is an obfuscation and a dodge.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2020, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you don’t answer because you know your answer will contradict your argument in this thread. 

WTF?

It can't contradict anything because I have already stated exactly how the protection laws for both gun makers (PCLAA) and internet providers (47 USC 230) should be applied equally under similar facts.


I even gave simple examples of what specific actions would justify the removal of liability protection for both parties.  


Then I gave simple examples of what specific actions would NOT justify removal of liability protection for both parties. 

I don't know what more I can do to show that I believe in treating the immunity for internet providers the same as the immunity for gun makers.


My opinion on the original justifications for these immunities is meaningless for this discussion.  That is why I have never given my opinion on the correctness of EITHER ONE.