07-02-2020, 07:19 PM
(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.
