Ok, I’ll demonstrate my point by asking you a question. You are attacked. A gun nut is 3 minutes away from you. A cop is 6 minutes away from you. You are, obviously, present at the scene of the attack.
Which of those three people has the greatest capability of protecting you from that attack?
The cop can start protecting you 6 minutes into the attack. This particular gun nut can protect you 3 minutes into the attack. The only person capable of immediate response is… You.
The arguments in your initial comment only make sense when you are disarmed. When you are not disarmed, your arguments become nonsensical: you are no longer a helpless prisoner or a victim, subject to the whims of abusers and attackers.
I do not accept the premise of “helpless victimhood” required by your argument. If you want to make the same conclusions, support them with a reasonable premise.
And while I certainly don’t expect you to believe me, I feel obligated at this time to deny your claims of AI intercession.
As I said before, you didn’t like what I said so you hyper focused on a statement (that was based on satire and then took it literally). You constructed a false premise that we were discussing this made up argument of yours. We were not.
Now you want to LARP defense scenarios like that is something normal people do. Sorry but you never responded to anything I actually said.
You used some AI to write some very confusing stuff and now you want to try and save face. That about sums it up. Have a good day.
I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being “prisoners” of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.
I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.
If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.
It’s been a pleasure. My hope is that in future arguments, you will remember your own agency and empowerment.
Well done, great responses :)
He literally generated shit with an AI that made no fucking sense. I really wonder how far your head must be up your ass to applaud such stupidity.
Ok, I’ll demonstrate my point by asking you a question. You are attacked. A gun nut is 3 minutes away from you. A cop is 6 minutes away from you. You are, obviously, present at the scene of the attack.
Which of those three people has the greatest capability of protecting you from that attack?
The cop can start protecting you 6 minutes into the attack. This particular gun nut can protect you 3 minutes into the attack. The only person capable of immediate response is… You.
The arguments in your initial comment only make sense when you are disarmed. When you are not disarmed, your arguments become nonsensical: you are no longer a helpless prisoner or a victim, subject to the whims of abusers and attackers.
I do not accept the premise of “helpless victimhood” required by your argument. If you want to make the same conclusions, support them with a reasonable premise.
And while I certainly don’t expect you to believe me, I feel obligated at this time to deny your claims of AI intercession.
As I said before, you didn’t like what I said so you hyper focused on a statement (that was based on satire and then took it literally). You constructed a false premise that we were discussing this made up argument of yours. We were not.
Now you want to LARP defense scenarios like that is something normal people do. Sorry but you never responded to anything I actually said.
You used some AI to write some very confusing stuff and now you want to try and save face. That about sums it up. Have a good day.
I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being “prisoners” of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.
I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.
If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.
deleted by creator