@BenGOTK@MuuziFernandes @riverport_ @UB1UB2 designed to cause harm or destruction, even if used for defense. This diff in primary function is what makes the comparison a false equivalence. Also, international arms sales often come with significant geopolitical and ethical implications, which further complicates the analogy
@BenGOTK@MuuziFernandes @riverport_ @UB1UB2 Benjamin, while I understand your point about defense mechanisms and occasional misuse, it's crucial to consider the primary intent and design of these items. Cars are fundamentally designed for transportation, with misuse being an aberration. In contrast, weapons are inherently-
@BenGOTK@MuuziFernandes @riverport_ @UB1UB2 What's the intended use of a car? To drive.
What's the intended use of weapons? To kill.
This is an example of a false equivalence ๐