3 ms·
> This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is. No, it absolutely is not. > Literally every work I've ever rea
by Turing_Machine 3y ago
> This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is.
No, it absolutely is not.
> Literally every work I've ever read in political philosophy regards "the public" to be the general population or the citizens of a country.
Then every work you've ever read in political philosophy is overly simplistic.
Pick any contentious political issue (abortion, gun control, socialized medicine, the list goes on and on). There are substantial (not fringe, substantial) portions of the populace on both sides (1) of those issues.
Which side is "the public"? Generally, it's whichever side the person who's appointed himself to "speak for the public" prefers.
(1) In actuality, pretending that there are only two sides itself is an oversimplification, of course.
> USPTO requires patent lawyers to be educated at accredited universities
And? Patent lawyers are ethically required to represent their clients (i.e., identifiable people), not "the public".
- infamouscow 3y agoThe word public derives from the Latin word publicus, which means the people, state, or community. It's also legally defined as such. [1][2] Further, it's limiting to say there's only two sides to an issue, when in truth there's typically multiple dimensions and a gradient of positions along each of those dimensions. I would love to continue, but it seems like you're only interested in discussing a strawman of the ACM's code of ethics. I implore you to apply the principle of charity rather than interpret the code of ethics in the worst possible light imaginable. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public 2: https://thelawdictionary.org/public/ https://thelawdictionary.org/public/