4 ms·

Do you have any rebuttal that isn't an obvious reduction-to-the-absurd fallacy? Or you are you seriously making the equivalence that information on a hard driv

Do you have any rebuttal that isn't an obvious reduction-to-the-absurd fallacy? Or you are you seriously making the equivalence that information on a hard drive is equivalent in danger, scope, or really anything else to a nuclear fucking bomb? Smallpox and nukes are not "inert" even when sitting unused. At least try to continue this discussion in something resembling good faith?

freehunter 10y ago
You didn't start it in good faith so I haven't seen any reason to try to steer it in that direction. You argued that bits on a hard drive could never hurt anyone. I provided examples showing the opposite. You responded by saying that those examples can only hurt someone if they're being used, to which I reminded you that any weapon can only hurt someone if it's being used. It's not reduction to absurdity, it's the exact and obvious truth. Stuxnet is completely harmless until it blows up a centrifuge in an Iranian nuclear facility. Which is its only designed purpose it has. And there is no way to argue that you weren't planning to commit a crime with those bits and bytes. We used a cyber weapon to physically stop someone from developing a nuclear weapon and it worked. How's that for "bits on a hard drive"? Now tell me: how many times have we used a nuclear weapon against another human in the past 50 years? Even though we have thousands of them scattered across the country, and thousands more across the world, they haven't hurt a single soul since WWII. Sounds pretty god-damn inert to me. Meanwhile people are using "just bits on a hard drive" as weapons constantly. Not just being used by the military like with nuclear weapons. Civilians attacking governments, civilians attacking civilians, governments attacking civilians, governments attacking governments. Every single day. So no, I'm not arguing that information on a hard drive is equivalent to a nuclear fucking bomb. I'm saying it's worse.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  You didn't start it in good faith Right. We're done here.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I guess it's easier to say the argument is unfair than to admit you're wrong.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      There is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with someone who insists that you are discussing in bad faith.

freehunter 10y ago

You didn't start it in good faith so I haven't seen any reason to try to steer it in that direction. You argued that bits on a hard drive could never hurt anyone. I provided examples showing the opposite. You responded by saying that those examples can only hurt someone if they're being used, to which I reminded you that any weapon can only hurt someone if it's being used. It's not reduction to absurdity, it's the exact and obvious truth. Stuxnet is completely harmless until it blows up a centrifuge in an Iranian nuclear facility. Which is its only designed purpose it has. And there is no way to argue that you weren't planning to commit a crime with those bits and bytes. We used a cyber weapon to physically stop someone from developing a nuclear weapon and it worked. How's that for "bits on a hard drive"? Now tell me: how many times have we used a nuclear weapon against another human in the past 50 years? Even though we have thousands of them scattered across the country, and thousands more across the world, they haven't hurt a single soul since WWII. Sounds pretty god-damn inert to me. Meanwhile people are using "just bits on a hard drive" as weapons constantly. Not just being used by the military like with nuclear weapons. Civilians attacking governments, civilians attacking civilians, governments attacking civilians, governments attacking governments. Every single day. So no, I'm not arguing that information on a hard drive is equivalent to a nuclear fucking bomb. I'm saying it's worse.

Karunamon 10y ago
You didn't start it in good faith Right. We're done here.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I guess it's easier to say the argument is unfair than to admit you're wrong.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    There is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with someone who insists that you are discussing in bad faith.