Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic
Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic
Two men stood in front of the autonomous vehicle, operated by ride-hailing company Waymo, and literally tipped a fedora at her while she told them to move out of the way.
You're viewing part of a thread.
"Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people." Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
You've had a variation on this in just about every response. It's getting very old. We get it, US bad.
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."
Was my statement wrong in any way?
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.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
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.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
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.