792
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 246 points 1 year ago

If u make privacy illegal then only criminals will have privacy.

[-] [email protected] 112 points 1 year ago

If u make privacy illegal then only cops, spooks, governments, billionaires and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.

[-] [email protected] 83 points 1 year ago

Yep, you just said the same thing with more words 😁

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

If u make privacy illegal then only ~~cops~~ criminals, ~~spooks~~ criminals, ~~governments~~ criminals, ~~billionaires~~ criminals and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.

FTFY.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago
[-] [email protected] 83 points 1 year ago

You can't murder a room full of children with pgp.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Say that again after you sit the same IT exams as I did.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I already have a chainsaw for that kind of thing, that does this have to do with guns and encryption?

[-] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's the point. What do guns have to do with encryption? I could say "If you outlaw beards, only outlaws will have beards" and it will make as much sense as your original post. I appreciate that you have a weird fetish for violence but you don't have to shoe-horn it into every conversation.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Privacy and guns can be used for defense. Beards generally don't affect that (though Alexander was of a different opinion and made his soldiers shave so that they couldn't be grabbed by the beard ; I think same was the reasoning for Roman soldiers shaving their beards and other hair).

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

You can’t murder a room full of children with pgp.

I'll just say it again in the hope that it might dawn on you that the two things are not even remotely similar enough that you can say "this also works for guns".

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I've already described specifically how they are similar, it might dawn on you that repetition doesn't strengthen an argument. Not hopeful though.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

What? That they can both be used for defense? Name something that couldn't ever be used for defense. Your comparison is pointless because the only trait they share is one which is also shared by pretty much everything else on the planet. Like beards, to bring up an earlier example.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They are both intended for defense.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I think it's safe to say guns are an offensive weapon

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Not with that kind of attitude!

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

Only in the only country that believes that.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

What? You think criminals don't have guns in yours?

By the way, a country can't believe anything, it's an artificial concept on a map.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Unironically yes. Out of 1000 crime news I hear about here, maybe one of them is about gun violence. Also I have never ever heard about mass killings here like USA seems to have every week.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Look up stats, because what's reported in media is always quite different.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Lol is it really that hard for you to believe? I am not just talking about media channels, also just word around the block, multiple YouTube channels and such.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Not that hard. I'd say organized crime will have guns regardless. Usual hooligans will do with many things one can imagine.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes and those organised crimes are almost non existant and not even close to the violence in US.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

So is obtuseness and pedantry.

Sorry I made you fail.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

You can be anti-guns but he is still right. Criminals do have weapons where I live, even though it's illegal. Fortunately, we don't have many criminals since the country is rich

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I really don't think you need to mansplain shit.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I don't care if you are a woman, I didn't even know. Also, you are the one being wrong

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You already said that to the other guy, and it was already ridiculous back then

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You should ask chatgpt, it would provide better and more constructive comments

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The voice of experience, I see.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I AM RUBBER, YOU ARE GLUE

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That's a weird answer, I didn't say that obtuseness\pedantry can believe in something.

You made nobody fail, accusing someone of these traits just means their correctness is socially unpleasant for you.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry for your loss.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's what I think. That's what I observed (anecdotally) and what statistics show. When the sentence for having a gun is higher than robbery or drug dealing or whatever, even criminals avoid that shit.

Why would you think criminals DO have guns in other countries?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Uhh have you heard? Constitutional rights are ala cart now! Just pick and choose what you want! No big deal.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've always been reluctant to rely on papers like any constitution as a base for my perceived rights.

Maybe as an argument, in the sense of "smart people have said that it should be and made some points in its favor".

But in general it's a horrid mistake to rely on a paper. Some people you haven't given any consent will stamp a few saying that you are a slave and oops.

The reality is that there's no way to consistently defend a right suppressed by legal arguments. If you can check the chain of laws giving you some right or taking it, you'll always come to the point where it's just "we all decide that's law" and you were not part of that decision. And if you go the opposite way and just accept what's made law, then you are dropping the idea of rights in its entirety, making decisions made by someone else a law for you.

My point is that this is unsolvable and one can't replace good and evil with legal arguments. Laws will never be sufficiently good for that, even constitutional laws.

So I'm for right to arm oneself, but I don't think there's any magic allowing to universally prove that a thing is legally right or wrong.

Which is why, again, a journalism which isn't outrageous is just public relations, a protest that doesn't harm economy and break laws is just a demonstration, an a principle which can be overridden by a law or a threat of force is just virtue signalling.

this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
792 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

73067 readers
2114 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS