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.
In this case OP used prisoner metaphorically to mean they would be oppressed by not having guns. OP confirms this with their gun grabber statement. E.g. Guns=freedom. This is of course silly nonsense.
In our society over 1 million people have died by gun violence in the last 20 years including over a thousand children every year. In Japan, for instance, zero children died from gun violence this year.
I pointed out the real metaphorical prisoners were our society who have to live under the constant threat of gun violence. Having grown up poor the constant gun shots in the neighborhood became normal. Like a bird chirping or dog barking only someone was dead.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed. It was truly a strange tangent, one that you seem to be unwilling to forget.
So if you would like to join the conversation stop using AI and start paying attention to what is actually said and not just what you want to hear.
So to sum it up, you did not address anything other than to show you didn’t get it. Need I remind you the original post was satire making fun of gunsexuals. OP took it as an opportunity to spread some garbage propaganda.
You see to be very confused about what is oppression. I studied oppression theory at Uni so my understanding is probably drastically different than yours. This just highlights the vast differences in understanding that we face when communicating on the Internet.
I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed.
It does, actually. I’m not actually speaking about defending yourself. I’m talking about your mindset. I’m talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.
It was truly a strange tangent,
From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don’t share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.
In all the examples you gave (with the exception of children in school), your “prisoners” have that mindset specifically because they are unarmed. They have no hope and no viable means of stopping their abusers.
The situation you describe is bleak and desperate, and only made worse by the solutions you offer.
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.
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.
In this case OP used prisoner metaphorically to mean they would be oppressed by not having guns. OP confirms this with their gun grabber statement. E.g. Guns=freedom. This is of course silly nonsense.
In our society over 1 million people have died by gun violence in the last 20 years including over a thousand children every year. In Japan, for instance, zero children died from gun violence this year.
I pointed out the real metaphorical prisoners were our society who have to live under the constant threat of gun violence. Having grown up poor the constant gun shots in the neighborhood became normal. Like a bird chirping or dog barking only someone was dead.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed. It was truly a strange tangent, one that you seem to be unwilling to forget.
So if you would like to join the conversation stop using AI and start paying attention to what is actually said and not just what you want to hear.
So to sum it up, you did not address anything other than to show you didn’t get it. Need I remind you the original post was satire making fun of gunsexuals. OP took it as an opportunity to spread some garbage propaganda.
You see to be very confused about what is oppression. I studied oppression theory at Uni so my understanding is probably drastically different than yours. This just highlights the vast differences in understanding that we face when communicating on the Internet.
I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.
It does, actually. I’m not actually speaking about defending yourself. I’m talking about your mindset. I’m talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.
From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don’t share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.
In all the examples you gave (with the exception of children in school), your “prisoners” have that mindset specifically because they are unarmed. They have no hope and no viable means of stopping their abusers.
The situation you describe is bleak and desperate, and only made worse by the solutions you offer.
deleted by creator