Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
(Emphasis mine)
You identified two possible “protectors”. Your argument failed to consider yourself as a third option. That oversight is a fundamental flaw in your initial argument.
You are not a “prisoner”. You are the person in the best position to protect you. That fact is not represented in your initial argument.
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.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
Still waiting.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
Most reliable protector? What kind of word salad AI bullshit are you trying to feed me.
Still waiting.
I utilized conjugations of your own words:
(Emphasis mine)
You identified two possible “protectors”. Your argument failed to consider yourself as a third option. That oversight is a fundamental flaw in your initial argument.
You are not a “prisoner”. You are the person in the best position to protect you. That fact is not represented in your initial argument.
I think we are done here. You are clearly just generating AI garbage.
Not waiting anymore.
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.
deleted by creator