D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Oh, and I wrote a review of the fantasy floating bathtub encounter, sort of:
Water, Water, Everywhere, Nor Any Stop to Think
Water, Water, Everywhere, Nor Any Stop to Think
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
It's always been among my most favoured cutting implements. I stowed it in his case about ten seconds before the word 'twat' fell out from my fingers. I don't go there lightly. It wasn't like he was given no latitude whatsoever.
When the snivelling starts, a razor is no longer the appropriate tool. I have no patience for playing the victim. It's the worst sort of bullying, gaslighting-adjacent behaviour.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yes SD, I do not get it.
How can you decide on a goal post, or anyone else for the matter, if I did not set one in the first place?
How can you decide on a goal post, or anyone else for the matter, if I did not set one in the first place?
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
You should be thanking god everyday that this forum is online instead of fighting with your Atheist brothers. Some of them very intelligent and well educated. In this giant world of shit we live in, it's nice of them to keep a forum open so they can explain what they have learned to others. They have been doing it for a long time and I doubt any of them get paid to do it.
You...did...set...one
Then it was burned to the ground because it was demonstrably false.
You then decided to bag up it's ashes and scatter them anywhere you thought there was unoccupied space.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Why would I feel any kinship towards random strangers on the basis of what they believe or do not?
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Okey, what was the goal post I set?
Oh FFS, REALLY? Now I think you're just trolling tbh. You can't possibly be fucking serious.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
No, I am honestly asking.
The intent behind this was not "Prove me wrong" or "Change my mind", but "I hope you get the idea, help me get it across".
The intent behind this was not "Prove me wrong" or "Change my mind", but "I hope you get the idea, help me get it across".
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Does anybody have a number for a whaaambulance? Is it still Whine-one-one?
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
I don't know a whole lot about him actually. Though I am automatically suspicious of other Christians, I'm sure he is probably a better guy than I am.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
No. Trust me, he isn't. He's a cancer. A pox on all our houses. The damage he is personally responsible for in STEM education in the US is not easy to estimate, but it's huge.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Having read through this thread, I'd like to add my tuppence-worth.
A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to fire a projectile with enough force to destroy its target.
To call it a "tool" is the same sort of linguistic dancing-round-the-mulberry-bush as the military indulge in when they refer to bombs and missiles as "ordnance", and bombers and launchers as "ordnance delivery systems".
Hunters shoot to kill, not injure. And it should be noted that shooting birds on country estates was referred to as "sport".
The fact that modern uses include non-lethal ones - IDPA, etc - does not change the original, intended purpose of guns.
*
The term "premeditation" is somewhat applicable in that, in buying a gun for self-defence, one has to be aware that one may have to pull the trigger in certain circumstances. Not realising this is similar to the character in the film Under Siege during a fire-fight, declaring, "I didn't join up for this! I joined for the college program!". Anyone joining the armed forces would be extremely naïve not to realise that they may end up on the front line in a war. One has to give very careful consideration that one may have to shoot to kill.
In civilian environments in the US, one is only legally allowed to shoot to stop the threat. However, the recommended target is centre-of-mass - essentially the sternum. Any shots above the pelvis are likely to be fatal - thus, even if you don't intend killing someone, using a gun in self-defence is likely to be fatal.
*
On a side note, the AR is the natural successor to the traditional bolt-action rifle.
I'm astonished that no-one in the gun lobby has explained this - or how it arose.
For example...
One of the problems of the traditional rifle is that the stock is of a fixed length - you have to find one whose stock is just right for you. Clearly a stock that you could lengthen or shorten would be better. Thus the reason for the telescopic stock. This sort of explanation would help convince TPTB in the US not to ban telescopic sights.
Another item on the ban list is the barrel shroud. The name gives the wrong impression - that it's intended to hide the barrel to make it easier for snipers, etc., to use an AR to commit murder. In fact, the shroud is nothing more that the equivalent of the forward stock of the traditional rifle, allowing the person to hold the barrel without burning their hand when they shoot due to the barrel getting hot.
The main reason the AR became so popular is that the traditional rifle is not easy to handle - either in terms of recoil or cycling the bolt. Those with a weaker frame and/or hands - mainly women but also the elderly or those with weaker grip due to injury or illness - are able to handle the AR, Being semi-automatic means you don't have to keep cycling the bolt for each shot. Being lighter, as well as having a forward grip attached to the shroud, makes it easier to control the recoil. This is why it's the favoured rifle for women, and is the main reason why women have entered the gun lobby in droves, changing the gun culture from a "real-men" one.
There are parts that I don't see any need for in a civilian environment.
1) Bayonet mount. I see no reason for such - it only has usage on a battlefield, not a civilian setting.
(Don't you just hate it when you're lining up your rifle on a buck, and a bunch of maniacs in orange come rushing out of the woods, screaming their heads off, as they charge the buck with fixed bayonets?)
2) Grenade/rocket launcher. Again, what possible use is this in a civilian setting?
*
The gun culture in the US is often mistaken as being monolithic - it's not.
There's the old/traditional, rural-based one centred on rifles and shotguns for hunting (and "home defence", which is really personal defence in the home). And there's the new, urban-based one centred on handguns (almost exclusively for personal defence).
Due to the 2A, it's a right for every American to keep arms - weapons, in fact, not just guns.
Though as one gun organisation put it, it's a right for everyone to have a gun but it's not right for everyone to have a gun.
I don't agree with the modern interpretation of the phrase "bear arms". This, properly speaking, is a term used in the context of war: one "bears arms" in war, not peace. The modern idea that this allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to wander about with a weapon is false. If you want to do that, you need the community's permission - just like members of law enforcement. IF anything happens that causes the community to lose confidence in an officer's trustworthiness with a weapon, then s/he is put on desk duty until the incident has been investigated, and the officer cleared to go back on the streets with a weapon. If the incident is so unacceptable that that's not possible then the officer may be let go.
I agree with Sparhafoc's earlier point about the police's role, rather than be judge, jury, and executioner.
*hides behind chair*
Kindest regards,
James
Having read through this thread, I'd like to add my tuppence-worth.
A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to fire a projectile with enough force to destroy its target.
To call it a "tool" is the same sort of linguistic dancing-round-the-mulberry-bush as the military indulge in when they refer to bombs and missiles as "ordnance", and bombers and launchers as "ordnance delivery systems".
Hunters shoot to kill, not injure. And it should be noted that shooting birds on country estates was referred to as "sport".
The fact that modern uses include non-lethal ones - IDPA, etc - does not change the original, intended purpose of guns.
*
The term "premeditation" is somewhat applicable in that, in buying a gun for self-defence, one has to be aware that one may have to pull the trigger in certain circumstances. Not realising this is similar to the character in the film Under Siege during a fire-fight, declaring, "I didn't join up for this! I joined for the college program!". Anyone joining the armed forces would be extremely naïve not to realise that they may end up on the front line in a war. One has to give very careful consideration that one may have to shoot to kill.
In civilian environments in the US, one is only legally allowed to shoot to stop the threat. However, the recommended target is centre-of-mass - essentially the sternum. Any shots above the pelvis are likely to be fatal - thus, even if you don't intend killing someone, using a gun in self-defence is likely to be fatal.
*
On a side note, the AR is the natural successor to the traditional bolt-action rifle.
I'm astonished that no-one in the gun lobby has explained this - or how it arose.
For example...
One of the problems of the traditional rifle is that the stock is of a fixed length - you have to find one whose stock is just right for you. Clearly a stock that you could lengthen or shorten would be better. Thus the reason for the telescopic stock. This sort of explanation would help convince TPTB in the US not to ban telescopic sights.
Another item on the ban list is the barrel shroud. The name gives the wrong impression - that it's intended to hide the barrel to make it easier for snipers, etc., to use an AR to commit murder. In fact, the shroud is nothing more that the equivalent of the forward stock of the traditional rifle, allowing the person to hold the barrel without burning their hand when they shoot due to the barrel getting hot.
The main reason the AR became so popular is that the traditional rifle is not easy to handle - either in terms of recoil or cycling the bolt. Those with a weaker frame and/or hands - mainly women but also the elderly or those with weaker grip due to injury or illness - are able to handle the AR, Being semi-automatic means you don't have to keep cycling the bolt for each shot. Being lighter, as well as having a forward grip attached to the shroud, makes it easier to control the recoil. This is why it's the favoured rifle for women, and is the main reason why women have entered the gun lobby in droves, changing the gun culture from a "real-men" one.
There are parts that I don't see any need for in a civilian environment.
1) Bayonet mount. I see no reason for such - it only has usage on a battlefield, not a civilian setting.
(Don't you just hate it when you're lining up your rifle on a buck, and a bunch of maniacs in orange come rushing out of the woods, screaming their heads off, as they charge the buck with fixed bayonets?)
2) Grenade/rocket launcher. Again, what possible use is this in a civilian setting?
*
The gun culture in the US is often mistaken as being monolithic - it's not.
There's the old/traditional, rural-based one centred on rifles and shotguns for hunting (and "home defence", which is really personal defence in the home). And there's the new, urban-based one centred on handguns (almost exclusively for personal defence).
Due to the 2A, it's a right for every American to keep arms - weapons, in fact, not just guns.
Though as one gun organisation put it, it's a right for everyone to have a gun but it's not right for everyone to have a gun.
I don't agree with the modern interpretation of the phrase "bear arms". This, properly speaking, is a term used in the context of war: one "bears arms" in war, not peace. The modern idea that this allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to wander about with a weapon is false. If you want to do that, you need the community's permission - just like members of law enforcement. IF anything happens that causes the community to lose confidence in an officer's trustworthiness with a weapon, then s/he is put on desk duty until the incident has been investigated, and the officer cleared to go back on the streets with a weapon. If the incident is so unacceptable that that's not possible then the officer may be let go.
I agree with Sparhafoc's earlier point about the police's role, rather than be judge, jury, and executioner.
*hides behind chair*
Kindest regards,
James
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
Hovind isn't much better - when I read that he'd been a science teacher for eleven years in high school...
Kindest regards,
James
I want to quickly disavow belonging to any association of atheists, let alone such a tight knit association as to consider them 'brothers' over and above the same consideration being lent to all human beings.
I am a bit of a miserable misanthrope sometimes, but an idealist misanthrope who really believes that while we all have our roles to play, each and every one of us has the capacity to never stop growing: intellectually, morally, emotionally. While I can't fully express my reasons in just a few words - if there is any purpose to being a human, I would say that is it.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
You should at least be respectful enough to try to not act like idiot. What is it exactly you want someone to say so that we can continue here in a meaningful matter?
Lets pretend you did not posit that killing someone with a firearm is always murder and that Americans are too stupid to know what guns are for.
Do you have any ideas about what you think the policies concerning weapon ownership or gun control or anything like that should be?
I believe your expectations in this regard are wrong.
Although I have no doubt that he believes he is a better guy than you are.
I think Hovind is a proper snake oil salesman. Ham is a true believer, and you can watch his face when something arises which is uncomfortable for him, but Hovind has his patter that's mostly kept him financially afloat for years... along with all the tax evasion!
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
I know what you mean.