There are always two paths to take - take away all of humanity’s tools or aggressively police people who abuse them. No matter the tool (AI, computers, guns, cars, hydraulic presses) there will be somebody who abuses it, and for society to function properly we have to do something about the delinquent minority of society.
No, just an example. But if you’ve ever noticed the giant list of safety warnings on industrial machinery, you should know that every single one of those rules was written in blood.
However this tool doesn’t have any safety warnings written on it. The App they used specifically caters for use-cases like this. They advertise to use it unmorally and we have technology to tell age from pictures for like 10 years. And they deliberately chose to have their tool generate pictures of like 13 yo girls. In the tool analogy that’s like selling a jigsaw that you’re very well aware of, misses some well established safety standards and is likely to injure someone. And it’s debatable whether it was made to cut wood anyways, or just injure people.
And the rest fits, too. No company address, located in some country where they can’t be persecuted… They’re well aware of the use-case of their App.
Guns have no other purpose though, they shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of that list (except hunting rifles and so on, for folks that actually need them).
Guns do not belong in the list. Guns are weapons, not tools. Don’t bother posting some random edge case that accounts for approximately 0.000001% of use. This is a basic category error.
Governments should make rules banning and/or regulating weapons.
Weapons are tools, by strict definition, and there are legitimate uses for them. Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Prove it. Prove that the majority of people think of a gun in the same way as they do a screwdriver
by strict definition,
Assertion without evidence
and there are legitimate uses for them.
I see we didn’t read what I wrote, only the first sentence of what I wrote.
Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Mate, he’s right. First definition. “A handheld device used to aid in performing a task.” Any gun falls into that definition. But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
When I hire a task rabbit is that the same as hiring a hitman? When I open task manager should I see process “kill my cheating ex”?
But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, t
Did I do that? Yes or no question.
that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
I am fine with engaging with the topic, I did so. He/she clung to definitions while I was blunt and pointed out that a gun is not a screwdriver and should be banned or regulated just like we do with any weapon.
There are always two paths to take - take away all of humanity’s tools or aggressively police people who abuse them. No matter the tool (AI, computers, guns, cars, hydraulic presses) there will be somebody who abuses it, and for society to function properly we have to do something about the delinquent minority of society.
Hydraulic press channel guy offended you somehow? I’m missing something here.
No, just an example. But if you’ve ever noticed the giant list of safety warnings on industrial machinery, you should know that every single one of those rules was written in blood.
Sometimes other bodily fluids.
The machines need to be oiled somehow.
🤨 vine boom
Either Darwin awards or assholes, most likely. Those warnings are written due to fear of lawsuit.
However this tool doesn’t have any safety warnings written on it. The App they used specifically caters for use-cases like this. They advertise to use it unmorally and we have technology to tell age from pictures for like 10 years. And they deliberately chose to have their tool generate pictures of like 13 yo girls. In the tool analogy that’s like selling a jigsaw that you’re very well aware of, misses some well established safety standards and is likely to injure someone. And it’s debatable whether it was made to cut wood anyways, or just injure people.
And the rest fits, too. No company address, located in some country where they can’t be persecuted… They’re well aware of the use-case of their App.
I don’t think they’re offended. I think they’re saying that a tool is a tool. A gun or AI are only dangerous if misused, like a hydraulic press.
We can’t go around removing the tools because some people will abuse them. Any tool can kill someone.
Guns have no other purpose though, they shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of that list (except hunting rifles and so on, for folks that actually need them).
That’s purposely obtuse. Of course guns have a purpose, you even listed one.
Not sure why I keep trying to talk about this with Americans, my bad. You’re completely right!
Sure, get needlessly antagonistic, provoke a response, decide to run from the confrontation you caused, and I’m the childish one. Fuck outta here.
Rofl you just lost
We could also do a better job of teaching people from childhood not to be assholes.
That’s been working fine…
Guns do not belong in the list. Guns are weapons, not tools. Don’t bother posting some random edge case that accounts for approximately 0.000001% of use. This is a basic category error.
Governments should make rules banning and/or regulating weapons.
Weapons are tools, by strict definition, and there are legitimate uses for them. Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Prove it. Prove that the majority of people think of a gun in the same way as they do a screwdriver
Assertion without evidence
I see we didn’t read what I wrote, only the first sentence of what I wrote.
By generally you mean not even close to them yes.
It seems we can’t have a reasonable discourse here because you are ignoring basic definitions. Have a lovely day!
No you are pulling a libertarian. You defined a word that is used a particular way to mean what you want it to mean then declare victory.
You are not arguing step-by-step, you are bypassing.
Mate, he’s right. First definition. “A handheld device used to aid in performing a task.” Any gun falls into that definition. But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
Task =\= murder
When I hire a task rabbit is that the same as hiring a hitman? When I open task manager should I see process “kill my cheating ex”?
Did I do that? Yes or no question.
I am fine with engaging with the topic, I did so. He/she clung to definitions while I was blunt and pointed out that a gun is not a screwdriver and should be banned or regulated just like we do with any weapon.
Ironic that the first thing you jump to in defense of your previous point is a definition argument.
Hilarious that that argument is, again,flat out wrong.
something hard or unpleasant that has to be done