Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
:FediPact: vanta, the fedipact girl :FediPact:'s posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
iam-py-test :unverified:

@jiub Why is a vehicle causing more harm better?
The persons child and other people who just happen to be in the car aren't at fault for the vehicle being dangerous; they didn't choose to buy it. It's not like the 1 year old had a say in the purchasing process.
But even then, just because someone made a bad decision (buying a dangerous vehicle) or supports a bad person (Musk) doesn't mean they deserve to be harmed.
I am not saying that knowingly driving a dangerous vehicle is acceptable; they should be responsible if the vehicle harms someone in another vehicle, a pedestrian or cyclist, or anyone in the CyberTrunk (the 1 year old) - just as Tesla should be responsible for making dangerous vehicles.
However, one should never wish harm onto another.
Thank you

7 September at 22:13 | Wall-to-wall | Open on infosec.exchange
6 comments
Jiub :verifiedenby:​ :verifiedtrans:​ :verified_estrogen:​

@iampytest1 why shouldn't i wish harm on people who endanger other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc with their stupid choices? same for the other grotesque pickups. it's not like my my complaining on the internet has any real world impact

7 September at 22:19 | Open on tech.lgbt
iam-py-test :unverified:

@jiub I understand this specific toot has no real world impact, and thus I understand if you do not wish to debate this.
Firstly, the original comment states you believe it justified people other than the driver are harmed, while they may not have had any say in the original purchasing decision, or even have no say in what vehicle they travel in (i.e. very young children).
Moreover, you assume everyone knows of the flaws in CyberTrucks. While I can not support my claim with evidence, I would imagine many are not aware.
Also, since police use CyberTrucks, someone could be arrested and put in an unsafe CyberTruck; they have no ability to object, and their concerns would likely be ignored.
This also could be a rental or company car, meaning the driver had no say in the original purchase or ongoing use, though one could argue they could refuse to travel in the CyberTruck and either choose alternative means or request a different vehicle.
As for drivers who knowingly buy and use CyberTrucks...

@jiub I understand this specific toot has no real world impact, and thus I understand if you do not wish to debate this.
Firstly, the original comment states you believe it justified people other than the driver are harmed, while they may not have had any say in the original purchasing decision, or even have no say in what vehicle they travel in (i.e. very young children).
Moreover, you assume everyone knows of the flaws in CyberTrucks. While I can not support my claim with evidence, I would imagine...

7 September at 22:37 | Open on infosec.exchange
Jiub :verifiedenby:​ :verifiedtrans:​ :verified_estrogen:​

@iampytest1 frankly, i don't care. i'm not wasting my empathy on rich idiots who make stupid decisions and their families

7 September at 22:40 | Open on tech.lgbt
iam-py-test :unverified:

@jiub It is not the child's fault they are born into a rich family, or to parents who engage in unethical or unsafe practices. They should not be punished for it.
Moreover, should someone's socioeconomic status determine their worth as a person? Does someone's poor or uncaring decisions mean their life is less valuable?
Obviously, this is an oversimplification.
Finally, not all CyberTruck owners are rich*, not not everyone who drives - or just happens to be in - a CyberTruck even owns the vehicle.
Thank you

* I don't have any evidence to support this, so pure speculation.

@jiub It is not the child's fault they are born into a rich family, or to parents who engage in unethical or unsafe practices. They should not be punished for it.
Moreover, should someone's socioeconomic status determine their worth as a person? Does someone's poor or uncaring decisions mean their life is less valuable?
Obviously, this is an oversimplification.
Finally, not all CyberTruck owners are rich*, not not everyone who drives - or just happens to be in - a CyberTruck even owns the vehicle.

7 September at 22:47 | Open on infosec.exchange
Jiub :verifiedenby:​ :verifiedtrans:​ :verified_estrogen:​

@iampytest1 i stand by what i said, your tone policing is tiresome

7 September at 22:52 | Open on tech.lgbt
iam-py-test :unverified:

@jiub I apologize; you are correct that my response, regardless of it's validity, was tone policing.

7 September at 23:22 | Open on infosec.exchange
Go Up