schizoidmanEU attempt to sneak through new encryption-eroding law slammed by Signal, politicians
š¦šŗšš¦šš„šššš£š šš ššššIf u make privacy illegal then only criminals will have privacy.
That also works for guns.
NaichYou canāt murder a room full of children with pgp.
I already have a chainsaw for that kind of thing, that does this have to do with guns and encryption?
Yeah, thatās the point. What do guns have to do with encryption? I could say āIf you outlaw beards, only outlaws will have beardsā and it will make as much sense as your original post. I appreciate that you have a weird fetish for violence but you donāt have to shoe-horn it into every conversation.
Privacy and guns can be used for defense. Beards generally donāt affect that (though Alexander was of a different opinion and made his soldiers shave so that they couldnāt be grabbed by the beard ; I think same was the reasoning for Roman soldiers shaving their beards and other hair).
You canāt murder a room full of children with pgp.
Iāll 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 āthis also works for gunsā.
Iāve already described specifically how they are similar, it might dawn on you that repetition doesnāt strengthen an argument. Not hopeful though.
What? That they can both be used for defense? Name something that couldnāt 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.
They are both intended for defense.
I think itās safe to say guns are an offensive weapon
Say that again after you sit the same IT exams as I did.
AeonFelisNot with that kind of attitude!
mad_asshatterOnly in the only country that believes that.
What? You think criminals donāt have guns in yours?
By the way, a country canāt believe anything, itās an artificial concept on a map.
So is obtuseness and pedantry.
Sorry I made you fail.
MubelotixYou can be anti-guns but he is still right. Criminals do have weapons where I live, even though itās illegal. Fortunately, we donāt have many criminals since the country is rich
I really donāt think you need to mansplain shit.
I donāt care if you are a woman, I didnāt even know. Also, you are the one being wrong
Sorry for your loss.
You already said that to the other guy, and it was already ridiculous back then
Sorry, once again.
You should ask chatgpt, it would provide better and more constructive comments
The voice of experience, I see.
I AM RUBBER, YOU ARE GLUE
Thatās a weird answer, I didnāt 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.
Sorry for your loss.
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.
Look up stats, because whatās reported in media is always quite different.
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.
Not that hard. Iād say organized crime will have guns regardless. Usual hooligans will do with many things one can imagine.
Yes and those organised crimes are almost non existant and not even close to the violence in US.
Thatās what I think. Thatās 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?
Uhh have you heard? Constitutional rights are ala cart now! Just pick and choose what you want! No big deal.
Iāve 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 āsmart people have said that it should be and made some points in its favorā.
But in general itās a horrid mistake to rely on a paper. Some people you havenāt given any consent will stamp a few saying that you are a slave and oops.
The reality is that thereās 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, youāll always come to the point where itās just āwe all decide thatās lawā and you were not part of that decision. And if you go the opposite way and just accept whatās 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 canāt replace good and evil with legal arguments. Laws will never be sufficiently good for that, even constitutional laws.
So Iām for right to arm oneself, but I donāt think thereās any magic allowing to universally prove that a thing is legally right or wrong.
Which is why, again, a journalism which isnāt outrageous is just public relations, a protest that doesnāt 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.
If u make privacy illegal then only cops, spooks, governments, billionaires and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.
Yep, you just said the same thing with more words š
If u make privacy illegal then only cops criminals, spooks criminals, governments criminals, billionaires criminals and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.
FTFY.