It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.
I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg.
That is a skills issue.
I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time.
And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.
Some people lack that skill. So it's clearly a skills issue.
Specifically it's a lack of inclusivity and empathy skills.
And I'm not flexing. I just shared my stance on robot rights.
The people who are flexing are people who think AIS deserve full human rights, even though AIS don't feel pain or have human needs.
My argument is that people who depend on cybernetics at a deep and profound level should have access to the cybernetics they need to have quality of life.
That's not a flex. That's just human rights in the context of technology.
If you think people who need technology should instead be given dangerous and inaccessible technology, we have a problem. Because then you're in an opposite cult.