show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you aren’t almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.
I’m down to change my view.
No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.
what if we didnt have money
It’d immediately be re-invented.
Money is a unit of measure, a necessary go-between because barter just doesn’t work on any but the smallest scales. If I need a root canal and I don’t possess any goods or access to any services the dentist wants/needs, what am I supposed to do?
How incredibly naive.
The fact is, one thing has pretty much nothing to do with the other. The wealth gap between the wealthiest individuals on Earth and the rest of us is not the cause of poverty; in fact, as you go back in time long term, the wealth gap shrinks, while overall poverty goes up.
And what you mention about Space X is one example of the ‘rising ride lifts all ships’ phenomena that makes things better for all of us overall long term.
The fact that fulfilling three extremely-doable conditions: graduating high school, not getting married before the age of 21, and not having children before getting married, make your chances of being impoverished as an adult next to nothing, makes it even more obvious that billionaires are not the cause of poverty.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of increases in net worth of billionaires is created wealth (as in, if it didn’t happen, that wealth wouldn’t belong to someone else, it just wouldn’t exist at all).
The real issue is the eradication of poverty. It’s impossible to prevent someone from being at the top, and that top being exponentially higher than the average, in a society where wealth is so ‘create-able’ (and the fact that it is is a good thing, imo!), that position is always going to exist. But as we’ve seen over the past 50-100 years, it is very possible for that wealth gap to not only exist, and grow, and have the percentage of human beings who are impoverished shrinking, at the same time.
Just reacting to the irony of you saying what you said while accusing another of being ‘ignorant of a chunk of history’.
If you think the situation before the 19th amendment was ratified was ‘men could vote and women couldn’t’, you’re carrying around an elementary school level understanding of that history.
There were demographics of men who still weren’t allowed to vote after the 19th, who the suffragettes gave zero shits about enabling.
This narrative of ‘feminism fights for men’s issues too’ needs to die. It has never been true on any significant scale, and this rhetoric only started as a means to devalue and justify attacking movements that do seek to address misandry and injustices with primarily/exclusively male victims.
When legislation ‘threatens’ to make shared custody the default (re: neither parent is unfit, and both want custody) instead of maternal, feminists fight it. NOW put out press releases saying that the only two reasons a man would ever fight for custody is 1) they’re abusing the mother and want to retain access to her 2) they’re a deadbeat trying to avoid child support payments. Men are so dehumanized in the feminist mind that the very notion that a man actually wants to raise his child does not even register as a possibility to them.
When lifetime alimony (specifically alimony that never expires) is challenged, feminists fight to keep it.
When men significantly outnumbered women in college (though only because they got free college via the GI Bill after being forcibly conscripted into the military, something women were never subjected to–in the early 1900s, the rate of men and women in college was the same ~9%), feminists were outraged, and countless programs/grants/incentives were created to fix this ‘injustice’. But presently, when women significantly outnumber men in college, feminists magically stopped giving a shit about sex disparity in universities.
When Erin Pizzey helped create domestic violence shelters for female victims of male abusers, she was a heroine to feminists. When she realized there are also male victims of female abusers, and wanted there to be shelters for them as well, she became ‘the enemy’ in their eyes, with not only censorship attempts by feminists, but her dog was fucking shot, on her property, on Christmas Eve that year.
Feminists point to a stat showing that 11% of journalists killed are women, to put out a “stop targeting women journalists” message. Similar happened with 1 of 4 women being homeless.
And that’s just what I care to mention while I’m on mobile.
Feminists have proved many times over that they don’t give a shit about men, nor about women who don’t fall in ideological line with them, for that matter. They’re special interest group that wants as much as they can get for themselves, no matter at whose expense it’s of. There is a good reason there is a huge gap between the percentage of the population that believe in sex equality, and the percentage that self-identifies as “feminist”.
Atheism isn’t a religion, likewise asexuality is not a sexual orientation, but the lack of one, I say.
Reminder that he won election, and four years later re-election, in landslides, even if you go by popular vote.
Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.’
That’s definitely going to happen organically, especially since this is a genie that is definitely never going back in the bottle. It’s only going to become more convincing, more accessible, and more widespread, even for simply ‘self-contained’ use, especially by hormone-flooded teenagers.
Not when it comes to the notion of politicians making moves that will or won’t affect them in their own lifetimes. It’s easier/more tempting to kick the can down the road the older you are.
Your claim that it’s victimless is, of course, false since real children are used in the training data without consent.
Your assumption, but there are a ton of royalty-free images that contain children out there, more than enough for an AI to ‘learn’ proportions etc. Combine with adult nudity, and a generative AI can ‘bridge the gap’ create images of people that don’t exist (hence the word “generative”).
This also ignores the fact that the result is child porn
That’s not a fact. “Child porn” requires a child–pixels on a screen depicting a person that does not actually exist is not a child.
Lastly, your claim that any of this results in any reduction in child abuse is spurious and unsubstantiated.
I’m just making a reasonable guess based on what’s been found about other things in the same subcategory (Japanese research found that those who have actually molested a kid were less likely to have consumed porn comics depicting that subject matter, than the general population), and in other sex categories, like how the prevalence of rape fantasy porn online correlates with a massive reduction of real-life rape.
Seems pretty unlikely that this is going to be the one and only exception to date where a fictional facsimile doesn’t ‘satiate’ the urge to offend in real life, and instead encourages the ‘consumer’ to offend.
That’s not how it works. The “generative” in “generative AI” is there for a reason.
Do we know that AI child porn is bad? I could believe it would get them in the mood for the real thing and make them do it more, and I could believe it would make them go “ok, itch scratched”, and tank the demand for the real stuff.
From bits/articles I’ve seen here and there over the years about other things that are kind of in the same category (porn comics with child characters in them, child-shaped sex dolls), the latter seems to be more the case.
I’m reminded of when people were arguing that when Internet porn became widespread, the incidence of rape would go through the roof. And then literally the opposite happened. So…that pushes me toward hypothesizing that the latter is more likely to be the case, as well.
You’re arguing against a victimless outlet that there is significant evidence would reduce the incidence of actual child molestation.
So let’s use your ‘logic’/argumentation: why are you against reducing child molestation? Why are you against fake pictures but not actual child molestation? Why do you want children to be molested?
You’re projecting your unwillingness to defend what doesn’t confirm your biases. Some of us care about what’s accurate more than what props up a pet narrative.
All I did was state a fact that you can’t deal with. That’s the bottom line. Cope and seethe.
You’re just projecting your unwillingness to ever take a stance that doesn’t personally benefit you.
Some people can think about things objectively and draw a conclusion that makes sense to them without personal benefit being a primary determinant of said conclusion.
When you’re playing a FPS, the intent is to watch people being murdered.
How is this argument any different?
My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.