Gloss over the meat of the argument. Good call.
Something that isn’t guaranteed by man or natural law (eg physics and biology) isn’t guaranteed at all.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon: FSD Beta tweets
- Thread starter Terminator857
- Start date
Gloss over the meat of the argument. Good call.
Something that isn’t guaranteed by man or natural law (eg physics and biology) isn’t guaranteed at all.
I will gloss over your sarcasm because I don't think it befits the discussion. I'll make an attempt to put things on friendlier terms after I respond to the above.
Regarding Natural Law, I would respectfully but unapologetically say that this is a confusion on your part. The first definition of Natural Law, and what people mean (for hundreds of years) when they talk about these things, is not the same as science i.e. "laws of nature". Because it's an understandable confusion of similar wording as well as some abcient history, there is a second definition below - but the clear context of this Rights discussion would be the first one (nothing is spin here; just type "natural law definition" into Google and this is what you get):
nat·u·ral law
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl lô/
noun
1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
"an adjudication based on natural law"
2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
"the natural laws of perspective"
In a nutshell, the important tenet is that you cannot have a fundamentally correct and just government derived from the authority of men (i.e. persons), no matter how wise, just, ethical or educated they are deemed to be. That is what distinguishes Natural Law from Law of Man. It doesn't mean you have to believe in my God, another God or any supernatural or alien deitie(s), though you may. It means that you cannot correctly derive the authority or rightness of the law from any person(s) no matter how highly placed or regarded in society.
The American government is established from the "consent of the governed". Specifically not the consent of the Governors (or President or King or Supreme Leader etc. etc.). It's not that nothing else is possible or imaginable; clearly most of world history and human behavior, as you essentially noted, is filled with practices quite contradictory to this. And that's exactly why it's important to comprehend the topic and the historical significance. Wonderful books we written with philosophy that underpinned this, before the United States came along - yet the title page would generally be dedicated to the grace of the current monarch.
The very fact that this Natural Law / Derivation of Authority topic seems to be a novel, unusual or unfamiliar argument to you, as a clearly intelligent, thoughtful and probably well-credentialed person (and that's an absolutely straight and sincere statement), is a phenomenon of the last few decades. You certainly may wish to disagree with the philosophy of our constituted government (on which I would respectfully differ with you if you did), or wish to point out the legion of failures to adhere to it (on which I would sadly concur). But what's striking is that we can't even establish the common ground of what we all should have been exposed to in school, so that we understand the terms and bases of agreement or disagreement.
I honestly don't want this to devolve into back-and-forth forum snark-fest. I entered this facet of the thread to make a clarifying statement about whether rights are granted vs. guaranteed. This is not a novel topic, and I stand by the relatively basic points I made - points that as I say were hardly unfamiliar until recent times.
Further, the fact that I'm writing all this does not indicate that I put myself up as some great expert on the subject, nor that you'd have to throw yourself deeply into esoteric study to keep up. No more than I would put myself up as a world-class mathematician just because I made some familiar points about algebra that we both learned in school. It should be a similar "understood by all" thing, but unfortunately it isn't anymore.
Finally, I already acknowledged that this is off the Tesla topic. But I would beg the Indulgence of moderators and Tesla fans because it's at the core of big news about Elon, Tweets and free speech, even if not about FSD. (I don't mean that Elon thinks as I do about free speech - I have no idea, and I certainly can't expect that he would have had an American civics class in South Africa.)
But these concepts, that were bouncing around the world prior, were indeed first crystallized into practice, imperfectly but importantly, by the American experiment. Today, all sorts of national constitutions and UN declarations embody similar philosophy even if badly violated in practice. The fact that Elon has spurred us to talk about this at all is, to me, a bit of a victory.
goRt
Active Member
While we all have freedom of speech...limited only by law, social norms and common sense...what does it have to do with Teslas
Musky's bought twitter purely so he can edit his old tweets promising FSD unicorns
Well of course there's that. Why do you think he's already moving on the Edit Button?
10 minute edit window for you,
10 years for the big guy
Anyway, rewriting history is well in vogue.
He can call it the 2015 Project.
Tweeter + 10 years = My Space. Fad compony that doesn't produce anything or have any tangible assets. What a way to flush $45B down the toilet, some of it Tesla share value.
Hell it will likely be WAY less than 10 years now since Musk will likely turn it into a cesspool of carnage and crap that will run off all advertisers and media.
Hell it will likely be WAY less than 10 years now since Musk will likely turn it into a cesspool of carnage and crap that will run off all advertisers and media.
I guess since it was broken out fine. But in 2019 when smart summon was released, FSD was $6k which would’ve been 15% on a $40k sr+
In 2020 when the first celebrities got FSD, it was bumped to $8k which was finally 20%
Anyways, you didn’t explain what your point is. What does percentage have to do with it? $6k or $8k for an undelivered product is a lot of money to give up on.
Also have you ever seen a video game company take $60 for a pre-order and not deliver it for 6 years?
Last edited:
No they believed that Level 4 in limited form would be acheived in a geofenced city. Which happened in 2019/2020!
Elon believed and promised level 5, every road, every where, entire country, any wheater, snow, fog, heavy rain, etc in 2 years (back in 2015).
Quite the difference. Its like someone saying they will take you to space versus someone else promising you a time machine.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
no they didn't. Chris Urmson said he hoped his son (who lives with him) wouldn't need one. He didn't say that Waymo would drive on every street in the country and that no kid in the country would need one in acouple years.
Show one company making and consistently making the statements Elon makes EVERY YEAR.
You can't so you resort to lie about what others have said to absolve elon of any responsibility.
Yea, thanks Elon. But why am I having to help pay for this Tweeter debacle toy? Also Musk promised he was going to use his fortune to save humanity and not to play "free speech" enabling every obnoxious "in the basement" a$$ hole just dying to spew hate, sexism, racism, political hate, sick innuendo, etc. Well looks like the gate is about to open.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I just used it as an opportunity to buy some shares this morning. My cost basis looked better at $58/share before that though, lol.
He is conflating and WAY overvaluing Tweeter's place in long term society. He sees the world and himself revolving around Tweeter. Tweeter is not that relevant and likely to become completely irrelevant in a few years. It is a fad and therefore temporary platform (all these platforms are fads). Tweeter is only prevalent because most media, organizations and brands use it and then many outlets quote from it. Once all the haters are set free they will take it over and all the media, organizations and brands will stop using it and Tweeter becomes irrelevant.
EDIT: Just to add how preposterous it is. Can you even imagine Tweeter being important in the world 40 years from now (other than a footnote in distant history)? Not a chance but even if it did that would be Musk paying over $3,000,000 a day just to keep it going. Now tell that that is not ridiculous.
Just to look back 40 years here is the Osborne 1 laptop (or is it a lap crusher)
which led to the Osborn effect.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with you.
But the fact HE sees it that way is why HE believes doing this is entirely consistent with using his fortune to save humanity.
One…. Two. TWO. There is obviously two definitions for the phrase natural law. I’m using the second definition. It wasn’t an accident.
This is all human construct. Worthless without backing of a government.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
EVNow
Well-Known Member
But - platforms like Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp can do untold damage to society. Even if they exist for just a few decades. They have likely already screwed up democracies in India (and possibly US too).
During "Arab Spring" people naïvely thought all these social platforms are going to set people free and help them organize to get authoritarians out of power. But what they didn't realize is that hatred is always more powerful - and will be used to make the world less democratic. Not more.
Hopefully Elon will learn quickly and institute open but strict controls on Twitter. A free for all will just make Twitter a place where only the abusers prevail.
Similar threads
