| ▲ | samrus 14 hours ago |
| Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening? |
|
| ▲ | furyofantares 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem. A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that. |
| |
| ▲ | samrus 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread |
|
|
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not gp, but if they were exceptionally large problems... Yeah. |
| |
|
| ▲ | drivingmenuts 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal. |
| |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal. FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them. | | |
|