Because what could possibly go wrong.

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, sorry, I don’t think I’m smart enough to explain it in a way you’d understand….for…reasons.

          • smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was asking in earnest but seems you just want to be an asshole and insult my intelligence for trying to understand what you mean.

            • money_loo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you defending makers of murder bots at me right now buddy?

              Yeah, totally in earnest. 🙄

              • smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes exactly. To me they are makers of murder bots, but to you they are not. For me to understand why you feel this way I have to ask right.

                For me if a company has a contract in place to provide robots to any entity that are going to be weaponized they should be held responsible.

                It doesn’t seem to be the case for some people and that’s what I was wondering about. But now I’m just kind of tired of responding to a bunch of non answers.

                • money_loo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If somebody uses a bat to kill someone, do you think Louisville Slugger should be held responsible? Yes or no and why.

                  • smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No because Louisville doesn’t have a contract in place to provide Sluggers to said hypothetical lunatic.

                    BD does have a contract in place to provide these to the Military though do they not?

          • smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean it sounds to me like you guys are saying that since its not BD strapping the guns themselves we should accept it?

            I don’t get why people are being assholes about this I’m genuinely trying to understand your viewpoints and nobody wants to explain just call me an idiot.

            • Astarii_Tyler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Should we stop selling computers because people use them to hack and attack people and businesses? Should we abandon AR because they are trying to adapt it for military use?

                • metallic_substance@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Of course it isn’t. Nobody is arguing that. People do stupid, horrible, and hateful things. However, that will be the case with or without robots.

                  So, for example, there’s this thing that gets used by African warlords a lot called a “technical.” There are different versions of it, but the most popular configuration is a Toyota pickup truck with a large machine gun mounted in the bed. You’ve probably seen it if you follow world news. They are very effective tools for warlords to oppress local populations because they can carry a lot of dudes, lay down fire, and they’re really mobile. It’s kind of the perfect tool for the job.

                  Now, Toyota didn’t sell the truck with this purpose in mind and almost certainly doesn’t condone it. Think about it though. Is Toyota responsible for this? Should they stop selling their pick ups because of it? I say no, but your milageay vary. Especially if you drive a 2005 Toyota Tacoma; 21 city / 27 highway.

                  • smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The difference is Toyota doesn’t have a contract with African Warlords to buy fleets of Hilux’s.

                    You see how there is a difference in these two things?