Wow good job Spain.

I guess this works because email doesn’t exist.

I guess this works because file sharing applications and websites don’t exist.

I guess this works because VPN’s free and paid don’t exist.

I guess this works because Tor, i2p, Freenet, and Yggdrasil don’t exist.

I guess this works because torrenting doesn’t exist.

I guess this works because black markets don’t exist.

I guess this works because chat applications don’t exist.

To be a fly on the wall of these government meetings where they talk about this shit would surely be the funniest fucking thing in the world.

True but it also depends on where you go. In Canada for example, this detail is explicitly taught to anyone who goes through the process of getting a firearms license.

That is interesting, I’m curious what the payload is.

Unless it’s a shotgun firing birdshot. This is why in many places you can hunt birds, it’s really the only type of firearm you’re allowed to use, because when shot at an upward trajectory, the pellets do not maintain enough velocity to be harmful when coming down and harmlessly fall to the ground. Anything rifled though is a different story, because its that spin on a bullet or a slug which allows the projectile to maintain its velocity and be dangerous when coming back down.

Then invent the technology that makes what you want to do reasonable, otherwise don’t blame a drill for being incapable of hammering nails fast enough for you.

if your point is “No one wants a digital console”, then no, you are wrong.

Nothing of the sort, it was a legitimate question in which I didn’t intend to make a statement out of subtext.

Thanks for answering it.

What the fuck is the selling point? Less features for a color??

Yeahhhhh, I don’t want a company which itself previously settled for a hundred million dollars in a gender discrimination suit to have every persons intimate personal data.

I think both of you are in more agreement than opposition.

I think you are right.

True, consoles are rapidly approaching being indistinguishable from Kiosk moded, locked down miniature PC’s.

Because they don’t want to face that their multi million/billion dollar investments are not going to pay off.

Ok but hear me out, what happens if you inject it into your feet?

No, but arguably anyone driving a car is.

So the debate is about what words mean, but when asked to examine what any dictionary defines those words as to understand and agree upon their meanings, you fold immediately?

If the debate was about this, and I offered this to you, then if we follow your anecdote, it was actually me who lead you to the pacific ocean but then you decided to sit on the beach instead of swimming.

I guess you don’t believe your argument is predicated on facts in that case since you dropped it the moment you were faced with scrutinizing it against a reputable source.

Goodbye.

Go through a dictionary of your choosing and post the cited definitions of:

Ad hominem

Character

Attribute

Idea

Attack

Stupid

Intelligence

And I’ll prove to you by your own cited definitions why you’re wrong without going outside of the definitions.

I trust Merriam Webster if you do.

Please go ahead and explain what the difference is between calling a person stupid and calling a persons ideas stupid, given stupidity refers to a persons intelligence by definition.

If you call someone’s idea stupid, then by definition, you are calling them stupid by extension because that’s what that word means.

If used in a colloquial manner I can understand how referring to someone’s socks, or a device, or some inanimate object can allow one to call those things “stupid”, but the fact of the matter is that referring to ones ideas as stupid is redundant to calling the person stupid directly because they both refer to the intelligence and original thoughts of a person and therefore literally mean the same thing by definition.

Furthermore, the notion that saying for example “Your shirt is stupid” or “Your idea is stupid” or “your feelings are stupid” instead of “You are stupid” is not ad hominem due to the colloquial usage is laughable as a fallacious argument only needs to attack the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument to be considered ad hominem, and if a persons ideas are not considered an attribute of them, I don’t know what is.

I think I’m pretty brushed up on how this works, but perhaps you should take your own advice, thanks.

“I only took a bite out of the bread, therefore I didnt eat any bread.”

If it provably disabled all functionality and features of the AI, then I would find that acceptable.

I’ll usually debate people as well, but not those who resort to a logic fallacy as boring as ad hominem for lack of an argument. Seeya.