Ah, the “guns kill people” argument that’s only uttered in the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths.

You would have a point if your vision for a self regulating society included easily accessible mental healthcare, a great education system and economic safety nets.

But the “guns kill people” crowd generally rather sees the world burn.

> the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths

I am begging you to learn what “per-capita” means, and to not deceptively include self-inflicted deaths in your public-safety arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Here you go, from the same page you posted, gun ownership correlated to gun homicides in all developed countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

You didn't read the second part of my sentence. It's illegal to kill yourself, because doing so would deprive your government owner of some of its Human Capital, thus doing so is technically Criminal Homicide lol

Your greyed out comment history perfectly illustrates why it is futile to train an LLM mostly on 4Chan and Twitter messages: if it's bad for humans it's also bad for AI.

Haha, you don't have an actual response so you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem

"Again, when a man in violation of the law harms another (otherwise than in retaliation) voluntarily, he acts unjustly, and a voluntary agent is one who knows both the person he is affecting by his action and the instrument he is using; and he who through anger voluntarily stabs himself does this contrary to the right rule of life, and this the law does not allow; therefore he is acting unjustly. But towards whom? Surely towards the state, not towards himself. For he suffers voluntarily, but no one is voluntarily treated unjustly. This is also the reason why the state punishes; a certain loss of civil rights attaches to the man who destroys himself, on the ground that he is treating the state unjustly."

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book Ⅴ http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html

I think you don’t fully understand what your citing.

The trouble is that censorship hastens the collapse of modern free and liberal civilization, it doesn't protect it.

And equating speech with guns is going to tie you up in some intellectual knots.

Of course, “we shouldn’t restrict things I like because they definitely don’t matter for… reasons.”

I think the free access to that information in those cases is an exacerbating factor that is easy to control. That’s really not as complicated as you want to pretend it is.

I also advocate not restricting things I don't like, and would appreciate it if others returned the favor.

I agree that the principles are not complicated, though.

Would be hard to roll my eyes harder. I get not wanting to respond to the substance, but maybe I can help:

Do you advocate 'not restricting' murder? I assume not, which means you recognize that there's some point where your personal freedom intersects with someone else's freedom - you've simply decided that the line for 'information' should be "I can have all of it, always, no matter how much harm is caused, because I don't care about the harm or the harm doesn't affect me directly and thus doesn't matter. Thoughts and prayers."