this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
649 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
7244 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it's getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
The dystopian attitude is "you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment's notice every day, otherwise you're just unprepared for day to day life."
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
It's like if I said "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" and you coming along and saying "omg swimming and flying are the same now????/"
I even spelled it out - it's about preparedness.
That doesn't answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You've made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" isn't an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying "I've never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt" is not an argument for "always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house" not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
No. It doesn't do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.
The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.
Edit: Y'all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?
So completely irrelevant to the topic that "Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up."
Okay, sure. I wish people didn't steal, kill, and rape too but it happens. Just the reality.
"murder and rape are a fact of life."
Sorry, are you implying it isn’t?
Just say what you mean.
Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.
As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn't the death penalty, but here you are saying a citizen dealing out that punishment without a judge or jury isn't only acceptable but should be actively encouraged.
Sure, I advocate for that too. Until then...
There's one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.
You're just trying to deflect from my statement:
The criminal punishment for theft is not the death penalty, and you are actively encouraging vigilantism issuing death sentences without a judge or jury.
I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
I would once again like to remind you where this conversation started:
Not only have you shown you lied with your original argument on "self defense", you've also revealed that you are a monstrous person who simply wants the excuse to murder "undesirables". Dehumanizing others is an action encouraged by terrible people to excuse abhorrent behaviour, and they should not be listened to as their words and arguments are less than worthless.