• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.

      I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.

      I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.

          One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            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.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              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.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Most reliable protector? What kind of word salad AI bullshit are you trying to feed me.

                Still waiting.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  I utilized conjugations of your own words:

                  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.

                  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    15 hours ago

                    I think we are done here. You are clearly just generating AI garbage.

                    Not waiting anymore.