4 ms·
> Scale matters. On what grounds? Very rarely does the law see things that way [1]. Where is the tipping point. What if it did Mondrian _and_ Rothko? Still goo
by Pet_Ant 1y ago
> Scale matters.
On what grounds? Very rarely does the law see things that way [1]. Where is the tipping point. What if it did Mondrian _and_ Rothko? Still good? Okay, now add Damien Hirst. Also add Jackson Pollock. Then Roy Lichtenstein. What is your grounds for delineation? If it's just a feeling, then the problem isn't the law, it's you. Monet could just be a Photoshop filter, Pointillism is. Warhol?
[1] Newton v. Diamond is an example I can think of https://www.quimbee.com/cases/newton-v-diamond https://www.quimbee.com/cases/newton-v-diamond
- energywut 1y agoWe differentiate based on scale all the time. If I steal a pack of gum I expect a very different legal outcome than if I steal the entire contents of a best buy. In violent crime scale matters -- manslaughter is very different from mass murder. In financial crimes ripping off my friend by not paying back a dinner is very different from embezzling millions from my company. Possessing a dime bag of marijuana is a very different crime from possessing 100 kilos of marijuana. And in many cases, scale reaches a level of either not being enforced as a crime or not being a crime at all. Federal sentencing guidelines specifically call out scale several times: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/...
- Pet_Ant 1y agoThat is scaling not differentiating. It doesn’t change in category just severity.
- UncleMeat 1y agoAlthough we cannot say when something becomes a heap we can nevertheless say that heaps exist. When discussing the social and ethical implications of a technology there really is a difference based on scale.