Chinese Courts Rule Companies Cannot Fire Workers Simply to Replace Them With AI - Judges classify AI adoption as a controllable business strategy rather than an unavoidable disruption, shielding employees from automation-driven layoffs
I’m not okay with human rights violations, which is why I support jury trial enabled capital punishment for those committing human rights abuses, like every CEO China has executed.
Not really, no. While an ideal utopia might successfully eliminate psychopathy and all related disorders falling under that umbrella, or at the very least totally prevent its affects on society, we are not in that ideal utopia and likely won’t reach there as we don’t know what genetics precisely cause it (mainly because rich people do not contribute DNA for research.)
Until we can either safeguard society from its affects or eliminate that particular defect from humanity, whichever is possible, we cannot eliminate capital punishment. There will always be another day, and normal humans are quick to forget and forgive, not to mention just be miseducated on the subject. Just see the deification of figures like Henry Ford, Ted Bundy, or Henry Kissinger for examples. While all but the last had their reputation resurrected long after their death, Kissinger shows this reputation can be changed or hidden from the masses in real time during their lifetime.
Life imprisonment then becomes a Sword of Damocles instead of a solution for these people that objectively, by all current scientific research, cannot physically change what they are or how they think and act. Eventually that Sword will fall, the public will forget, forgive, or be misled about their crimes, and they and their fans and enablers will be free to do their crimes again.
I agree capital punishment is not ideal, no state should have that power, but then again there shouldn’t be states, period; but as there are and we have to live until there’s not… we must have a solution for those that harm masses of workers.
That solution is their crimes being laid bare, a public representative lawyer having every chance to defend them fairly, and a jury panel of either judges or the public deciding their fate; allowing the state to execute the will of the people before the people take matters into their own hands — which is another point to be made; These people will die if they continue their crimes. The people will enact justice with or without the state, and for all the reasons above imprisonment is not seen as justice to those wronged badly enough.
It is much better to have a system handling this than relying on heroes like Luigi Mangione, may his innocence be held up in court, to handle what needs to be handled.
Find a better solution to permanently disabling the power of a person who feels no shame or empathy and who has harmed, in most cases thousands to millions of people; then talk.
Well you can disagree, but just know that there isn’t a single human right’s agency that advocates for capital punishment and you will be consider a human rights violator for supporting it.
I think a choice between life imprisonment and capital punishment is a false dilemma.
Most human rights agencies were started by “ex” US intelligence members. That’s a true fact btw, really weird fact, but true. That aside no human rights have ever been won nor retained without violence against those withhold and oppressing those rights.
Ever.
While we can always acknowledge all enforcement of laws is violence, some violence is not effective enough to ensure the safety of the people. Certainly not all or even most cases, but in a few cases there is no rehabilitation. There is no recovery. There is no chance the individual ever actually sees what they did as wrong.
And that’s unfortunate. And I would sincerely love to see the utopia in which you dream of, but there would need to be incredible amounts of violence to ever get there, and I don’t think you or other anti-capital punishment advocates have that in you.
Hey, if you cool with human rights violations and state sanctioned murder that is on you.
I’m not okay with human rights violations, which is why I support jury trial enabled capital punishment for those committing human rights abuses, like every CEO China has executed.
Capital punishment is a human rights violation silly.
Not really, no. While an ideal utopia might successfully eliminate psychopathy and all related disorders falling under that umbrella, or at the very least totally prevent its affects on society, we are not in that ideal utopia and likely won’t reach there as we don’t know what genetics precisely cause it (mainly because rich people do not contribute DNA for research.)
Until we can either safeguard society from its affects or eliminate that particular defect from humanity, whichever is possible, we cannot eliminate capital punishment. There will always be another day, and normal humans are quick to forget and forgive, not to mention just be miseducated on the subject. Just see the deification of figures like Henry Ford, Ted Bundy, or Henry Kissinger for examples. While all but the last had their reputation resurrected long after their death, Kissinger shows this reputation can be changed or hidden from the masses in real time during their lifetime.
Life imprisonment then becomes a Sword of Damocles instead of a solution for these people that objectively, by all current scientific research, cannot physically change what they are or how they think and act. Eventually that Sword will fall, the public will forget, forgive, or be misled about their crimes, and they and their fans and enablers will be free to do their crimes again.
I agree capital punishment is not ideal, no state should have that power, but then again there shouldn’t be states, period; but as there are and we have to live until there’s not… we must have a solution for those that harm masses of workers.
That solution is their crimes being laid bare, a public representative lawyer having every chance to defend them fairly, and a jury panel of either judges or the public deciding their fate; allowing the state to execute the will of the people before the people take matters into their own hands — which is another point to be made; These people will die if they continue their crimes. The people will enact justice with or without the state, and for all the reasons above imprisonment is not seen as justice to those wronged badly enough.
It is much better to have a system handling this than relying on heroes like Luigi Mangione, may his innocence be held up in court, to handle what needs to be handled.
Capital punishment is a barbaric practice that can not be justified by hiding it behind a jury.
Find a better solution to permanently disabling the power of a person who feels no shame or empathy and who has harmed, in most cases thousands to millions of people; then talk.
Well you can disagree, but just know that there isn’t a single human right’s agency that advocates for capital punishment and you will be consider a human rights violator for supporting it.
I think a choice between life imprisonment and capital punishment is a false dilemma.
Most human rights agencies were started by “ex” US intelligence members. That’s a true fact btw, really weird fact, but true. That aside no human rights have ever been won nor retained without violence against those withhold and oppressing those rights.
Ever.
While we can always acknowledge all enforcement of laws is violence, some violence is not effective enough to ensure the safety of the people. Certainly not all or even most cases, but in a few cases there is no rehabilitation. There is no recovery. There is no chance the individual ever actually sees what they did as wrong.
And that’s unfortunate. And I would sincerely love to see the utopia in which you dream of, but there would need to be incredible amounts of violence to ever get there, and I don’t think you or other anti-capital punishment advocates have that in you.