• quaddo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could call it a “fnorplgleek” for all I care.

    Until they figure out how to prevent any and all fnorplgleeks from having the ability to injure, main, or kill another human being when the fnorplgleek operator wishes to harm you unlawfully, they can expend 100% of their thinkbox time figuring out how to do so. Like, pin their wetware CPU to working out a solution. Interconnect them Borg style.

    If the response is “well no, not like that” then we recognize that it’s a compromise that continues to put victims in front of said fnorplgleek operators.

    brb getting a “Down with fnorplgleeks” t-shirt made

    • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you wouldn’t care if the legislation was written to ban anything that has the potential to kill?

      Guns, cars, knives, bleach, rope all could fall into that category. See how words have specific definitions and actually matter quite a bit? Especially when the law is concerned. Why do you think there’s different categories of homicide? Do you think manslaughter and 1st degree murder should carry the same penalty?

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So large jacked up trucks have a use? Butterfly knives and swords have practical uses? What about cars with more than 200 hp? Not like you can do 120mph anywhere legally, so why have them? Or alcohol, more people are killed 10 fold via drunk drivers than all rifles combined… sounds like alcohol should go back to prohibition era and the gov. poisons it.