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.
So say they have a contract to provide them to Phillies fans via a stadium deal, and then someone bludgeons a guy to death in the parking lot, what about now?
Depends I suppose those really aren’t comparable and I’d think there would be liability for it somewhere, but probably with the stadium. But that’s not a bat that’s been modified outside of specs, certainly not with prior knowledge to Louisville.
This is more like should Louisville be held responsible for striking up a deal with a nail company that turns their sluggers into maces and then somebody gets bludgeoned. In which case yes they should be held responsible.
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.
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?
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.
By having a contract in place where they are supplying the platforms that are used to be weaponized they are part of the production line for them. By knowingly doing this they shouldn’t get a pass with a sly wink and playing dumb.
In your analogy Toyota can’t even really stop it. It’s a mass marketed civilian vehicle that is probably stolen and shoddily retrofitted. That’s not the same thing as Toyota handing a cargo ship of trucks over to warlords and saying, “You behave now.” knowing full well they are gonna mount .50s to the crossbar. That’s what is happening with Boston Dynamics still selling these.
Can you explain it then?
No, sorry, I don’t think I’m smart enough to explain it in a way you’d understand….for…reasons.
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.
Yeah, totally in earnest. 🙄
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.
If somebody uses a bat to kill someone, do you think Louisville Slugger should be held responsible? Yes or no and why.
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?
So say they have a contract to provide them to Phillies fans via a stadium deal, and then someone bludgeons a guy to death in the parking lot, what about now?
Depends I suppose those really aren’t comparable and I’d think there would be liability for it somewhere, but probably with the stadium. But that’s not a bat that’s been modified outside of specs, certainly not with prior knowledge to Louisville.
This is more like should Louisville be held responsible for striking up a deal with a nail company that turns their sluggers into maces and then somebody gets bludgeoned. In which case yes they should be held responsible.
The fact that you don’t understand this is baffling to me. I don’t think the explanation can possibly be simplified
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.
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?
I’m not saying anything like that.
I’m saying strapping rockets to robots is not what we should be doing.
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.
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?
No, I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Can you explain it another way?
By having a contract in place where they are supplying the platforms that are used to be weaponized they are part of the production line for them. By knowingly doing this they shouldn’t get a pass with a sly wink and playing dumb.
In your analogy Toyota can’t even really stop it. It’s a mass marketed civilian vehicle that is probably stolen and shoddily retrofitted. That’s not the same thing as Toyota handing a cargo ship of trucks over to warlords and saying, “You behave now.” knowing full well they are gonna mount .50s to the crossbar. That’s what is happening with Boston Dynamics still selling these.