3 ms·

> which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 time

> which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 times is legally problematic, I have to be prepared to explain why doing it 10 times is problematic as well, only less so.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Nothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.
- croon 4y ago
  You just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    My examples only were meant illustrate that scale is a well known "thing" in legal systems and I happened to pick things with two illegal endpoints (IANAL). You could look at other things like the need for permits for certain things as a function of size and use, if you want simple examples for scale mattering and legal endpoint(s).
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      I am no lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. I am completely aware that scale is a "thing" in legal systems. But as I said before: For scale to be important, the unscaled act in itself has to be problematic already.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        IANAL, but not sure I necessarily agree I with that. Why then worry about monopolies or cartels? Price setting is just "at scale" there, for example. Granted, things around power concentration have deep philosophical and social roots.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
foota 4y ago
Would you give me a second of your time? What about 1 billion seconds of your time? Could I have a dollar? What about a billion dollars? The burden isn't on me to explain why something being scaled up by a billion is not the same.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  The question isn't if a scaled up thing is the same, the question is if a legal thing scaled up suddenly becomes illegal for no other reason than being scaled up.

RandomLensman 4y ago

Nothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.

croon 4y ago
You just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  My examples only were meant illustrate that scale is a well known "thing" in legal systems and I happened to pick things with two illegal endpoints (IANAL). You could look at other things like the need for permits for certain things as a function of size and use, if you want simple examples for scale mattering and legal endpoint(s).
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    I am no lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. I am completely aware that scale is a "thing" in legal systems. But as I said before: For scale to be important, the unscaled act in itself has to be problematic already.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      IANAL, but not sure I necessarily agree I with that. Why then worry about monopolies or cartels? Price setting is just "at scale" there, for example. Granted, things around power concentration have deep philosophical and social roots.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

foota 4y ago

Would you give me a second of your time? What about 1 billion seconds of your time? Could I have a dollar? What about a billion dollars? The burden isn't on me to explain why something being scaled up by a billion is not the same.

usrbinbash 4y ago
The question isn't if a scaled up thing is the same, the question is if a legal thing scaled up suddenly becomes illegal for no other reason than being scaled up.