If I say, “People should be forced to give up their AR-15s because that would prevent at least some school shootings and that’s worth any price. By not agreeing, you’re saying that some school shootings are ok, as long as you can keep your toys, and that’s objectively wrong,” that’s an idea Lemmy readily agrees with.
However, if I say, “People should be forced to give up their RAM and only access compute power via the cloud, where they can be monitored, because that would prevent at least some child porn from being produced and distributed, and that’s worth any price. By not agreeing, you’re saying that some child porn is ok, as long as you get to keep your toys, and that’s objectively wrong,” that’s an idea Lemmy abjectly disagrees with.
Just because child porn is one thing you can do with a lot of RAM doesn’t mean that’s what everyone with a lot of RAM wants to do. Even though banning high-capacity RAM would theoretically stop at least some hacking and child porn, that doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to live without high capacity RAM. Having a lot of RAM is fun and there’s nothing wrong with having fun with a computer.
Just because some people abuse their right to own computers doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to give up their right to own computers.
If someone hacks somebody or creates, edits, or distributes child porn with their computer, that’s a problem with the person at the keyboard, not a problem with the computer.
These are all pro second amendment arguments with the words changed; instead of high-capacity magazines in AR-15s, were talking about high-capacity RAM in computers. I’ve even seen the “Come and Take It” flag co-opted with the AR-15 replaced by a RAM stick.
So, what’s the deal? Does Lemmy secretly agree with Sam Altman or does the Fediverse secretly support the second ammendment?
In an effort to provide an actual response:
What you’ve displayed is called “black and white thinking”… You have essentially argued that “all things should be subject to government oversight, or nothing should be. There is no in between”.
The argument against the second amendment is based on the measurable harm vs the measurable value.
RAM in the hands of consumers has measurable value. We can quantify the things we can do with it that we couldn’t do without it.
Nobody has been able to quantify the value of owning high powered semi automatic rifles in a way that is even debatably close to the quantifiable lives lost to them. You cannot quantify “the ability to overthrow a government” and attempts to quantify “good guy with a gun” events fails spectacularly.
Like most things in life, nuance is important.
Nobody has been able to quantify the value of owning high powered semi automatic rifles in a way that is even debatably close to the quantifiable lives lost to them.
I’m presuming you’re referring to mass shootings but the way you phrased this is funny because… No shit? That’s what guns do.
Aside from that, in the US at least I can think of several reasons why, minorities for instance, should be armed.
So your quantifiable measure of value is… Innocent people dying?
I’m just giving you the argument in favor of gun control compared to “RAM control” as the OP requested.
Once again, please quantify the value of AR-15s that is unique to that form factor compared to, say, a handgun
I’ve got too much shit going on to argue but you did not say innocent people so don’t put words in my mouth.
I assume you’re talking about mass shootings […] The way you phrased this is funny […] No shit? That’s what guns are for.
Bruh, you said it, not me. Mass shootings are innocent people.
Yes, all of Lemmy thinks exactly the same way on every topic
(in case you can’t figure it out, that’s sarcasm)
It’s true, every single lemmy user secretly supports the second admendment, but doesn’t want you, specifically, to know about it.
I took a shit that made more sense than this.
In a world without nuance, this might be the gotcha! you were hoping it would be. But when you add nuance and critical thinking to it-
It just ends up being false equivalence dumbuckery.
You’ve created a false dichotomy. For your argument to work computers would need to only be used to create pornography which is preposterous. Firearms have a single primary use, launch a high velocity projectile at a target. The target varies between paper markers, game animals, human combatants, and school children. Computers however have near unlimited utility and can be used for uncountable benign purposes beyond creating assorted types of pornography. Firearms have no such utility. They can shoot bullets, hang on walls/windows of trucks, validate poor self-esteem, and provide a tinkering stim via modification. Creating csam on a computer represents 0.001% of what computers are used for where shooting and killing civilians is probably close to 30% of what firearms do.
Lemmy doesn’t have a unified opinion on anything. I’d bet you could find some lemmings that are in favor of Altman’s statements about RAM, especially if you venture very far into the pro-AI communities. But it’s been my experience that lemmings tend to have more mature views of complex political issues and I’d bet you’d find that the average user doesn’t fully support either of the artificial binary of positions on gun control.
What’s the deal with people who delete their posts all the time on Lemmy?
FTR gastroglizzy but a lot of people do that, it’s weird.
Bro you fetishize guns and it’s weird, just stop it. I don’t need a gun because it doesn’t turn me on, it’s so easy to live your life gun free but i get it you can’t get horny without it and that’s OK too.
