feddit.org

report

[ - ]

5 points

2 days ago

“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.

report

[ - ]

capital@lemmy.world

-2 points

2 days ago

It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.

Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.

You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.

report

[ - ]

3 points

2 days ago

Was my statement wrong in any way?

If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.

report

[ - ]

intensely_human@lemm.ee

-2 points

2 days ago

Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.

A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.

A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 day ago

The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”

report

[ - ]

-2 points

2 days ago

Was my statement wrong in any way?

Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.

It’s like if I said “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” and you coming along and saying “omg swimming and flying are the same now???/”

I even spelled it out - it’s about preparedness.

report

[ - ]

2 points

2 days ago

Was my statement wrong in any way?

Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.

That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.

You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.

Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.

report

[ - ]

capital@lemmy.world

-2 points

2 days ago

You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.

No. It doesn’t do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.

The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.

Edit: Y’all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?

report