• 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

Guns and Intent

  • Thread starter Deleted member 42253
  • Start date
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Dont be jealous.
Click to expand...

Now you really are just being a fucking twat, an obnoxious one at that.

You've utterly failed, 10 pages in and you still think you're making sense. DG is the only one to make a post in this thread that could sort of make you think you're making sense and you think that because one poster said something that sort of agrees with you in part means you're now making sense and the rest of us are all wrong.

Try addressing my response to him, I'm sure he will in due course, which he's more than welcome to do.

Stop crying.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
You started it.

And to quote myself ..
Click to expand...

What did I start? Giving you a list of reasons why you're wrong? Yes, I started that.

From page one, about 3 posts in I think -

Gladly.

Target sports
Plinking
Olympic Sports
Collecting
Items of historical interest
Pest Control
Recreation
Cinematic Reenactment

None of which have anything whatsoever to do with killing humans. The only one that has anything to do with killing anything in that list is pest control. And this is just off the top of my head, as a firearms owner.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
And I told you I have no problem with those, though some of them are pretty frivolous reasons for the possession of a lethal weapon SD.
Does not change the purpose of a gun and its classification as a weapon.

And I would totally agree with you, if we lived in a reasonable world with reasonable people. But we dont. We are surrounded by assholes and idiots.
And yes, I know .. Florida Man is low hanging fruit.

And you know what? I am not scared of the assholes, but I am terrified of the idiots.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
And I told you I have no problem with those, though some of them are pretty frivolous reasons for the possession of a lethal weapon SD.
Does not change the purpose of a gun and its classification as a weapon.

And I would totally agree with you, if we lived in a reasonable world with reasonable people. But we dont. We are surrounded by assholes and idiots.
And yes, I know .. Florida Man is low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

The only fucking idiot here is you. Take a break. Seriously. Go somewhere else, do something else.

"Low hanging fruit" lol - behave.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
psikhrangkur said:
I would like to assume full responsibility for the International Atheist Association, the organization behind this website as well as the radicalization of youths everywhere, as well as publicly announce my status as CEO of Atheism.
Click to expand...

Aha!

I knew someone would volunteer to get the drinks in at some point.

Mine's an atheist pear cider, please! Make sure it's not a theist cider - they taste funny!
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
psikhrangkur said:
I wouldn't describe this forum as being spicy. I mean, I'm used to places where there's constant white supremacist dogwhistling.
Click to expand...

Really? Why do you stay there?

psikhrangkur said:
Also, y'all have Dragan, and he's downright classy. I didn't realize before interacting with him that it's physically possible to be that nice on the internet.
Click to expand...

Actually, insofar as can be known, Dragan Glas is WHY the internet cannot be nice - he monopolizes civility so there's none left for the rest of us... the unfailingly pleasant bastard!
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Translation: as others pointed out - I've just been seeking validation, so even though people have dismantled my claims and exposed the asinine thinking underlying it, the fact that you don't outright disagree with one tiny part of the argument means I was right all along!
Click to expand...
Some lovely weather we are having Sparhafoc.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
hackenslash said:
There are no ideas concerning a global flood in the history of the Earth extending well before humans that are better or worse than any other, because they're all exactly as wrong. It never happened. Demonstrably. No global floods in all the time encapsulated by this diagram:
View attachment 275
The bottom of the diagram is 4.5 billion to 4 billion years ago, and no global floods in all that time.
Click to expand...
Interesting but I dont really understand why this is what it says it is. Is there a single consistent test is used to determine one Period from another or is it just a mix-mash of different tests? A quick wiki read tells me that the Ordovician Period was determined by its fossil fauna.

I also dont understand why a geologist would say basalts could not be deposited during a global flood. Doesnt basalt come from undersea volcanoes? The biblical flood only lasted about a year. We have geological evidence of speciation in every single year here since the Permian Period?

Sadly there is too much I dont know to be able to make much sense of this at the moment.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
No problem SD, but that should go both ways, you cant expect me to just take something like that lying down.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
Interesting but I dont really understand why this is what it says it is.
Click to expand...
Well, what it is is a diagram of the geologic column with a key showing what discoveries have been made in which strata.
Led Zeppelin said:
Is there a single consistent test is used to determine one Period from another or is it just a mix-mash of different tests? A quick wiki read tells me that the Ordovician Period was determined by its fossil fauna.
Click to expand...
Well, the distinctions between the periods aren't really important. They're simply arbitrary names we give to periods in geological time utilising names that reflect what's found there. As for the tests, there's an entire battery of tests, all consilient and overlapping in effective ranges, building up a consistent picture. Most of the tests for these periods utilise radiometric dating in some isotope or other.
Led Zeppelin said:
I also dont understand why a geologist would say basalts could not be deposited during a global flood.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you read that.
Led Zeppelin said:
Doesnt basalt come from undersea volcanoes?
Click to expand...
It comes from volcanoes, certainly. No requirement for them to be undersea, afaik. I do know that the lunar mares are basaltic flows, so I doubt any requirement for a sea.
Led Zeppelin said:
The biblical flood only lasted about a year.
Click to expand...
Well, it lasted about five paragraphs. It didn't actually happen.
Led Zeppelin said:
We have geological evidence of speciation in every single year here since the Permian Period?
Click to expand...
Every single year? Not sure what you're reaching for here, or why speciation would be important to the existence of a consistent global sedimentary layer commensurate with a global flood.
Led Zeppelin said:
Sadly there is too much I dont know to be able to make much sense of this at the moment.
Click to expand...
The debunk of Ham I linked earlier will answer all your fantasy fludd questions nicely, I think. It never happened.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
Interesting but I dont really understand why this is what it says it is. Is there a single consistent test is used to determine one Period from another or is it just a mix-mash of different tests? A quick wiki read tells me that the Ordovician Period was determined by its fossil fauna.

I also dont understand why a geologist would say basalts could not be deposited during a global flood. Doesnt basalt come from undersea volcanoes? The biblical flood only lasted about a year. We have geological evidence of speciation in every single year here since the Permian Period?

Sadly there is too much I dont know to be able to make much sense of this at the moment.
Click to expand...

There's really no credible way to believe in a global flood; you can do it on pure faith, but empirical evidence doesn't just not support the idea, but actively shows it to be false and, in fact, impossible.

My suggestion would be to consider that the genitors of the story had very little knowledge about the world, so when their local region got flooded, they thought of it as the world being flooded.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing 21DL's case, although it may appear that I am due to certain similar points,

I should also point out that I'm not anti-gun - although I haven't served myself, both sides of my family are military going back several generations.

*SD* said:
Semantics aside (I'm not bothered about the weapon/tool distinction, I find tool more befitting for reasons I've already gone into, but whatever) but this is still incorrect, and with respect, just as false as the claim made by the OP on page one.
"Destruction" is one use or function, and when the subject matter is that of humans as per the OP, this is not even the most common usage. But even if it were, no odds, destruction isn't the only function or purpose, as has been demonstrated over and over again in this thread.

To shoot a paper target (for example) is no more "destruction" than when you or I throw a dart at a dart board in a pub, something I'm confident we're both at least somewhat familiar with. The idea is accuracy, for self gratification, sport, competition, or just a friendly "who can outperform the other" kinda thing.

It's not dancing around. A "gun" is usually a tool in much the same respect as any other "tool" you might care to mention. Can it be misused? Yes. Can it cause harm? Yes. So can a spoon.
No one (I hope) wants to ban spoons because someone could potentially scoop your eyeball out with one.

Shoot to kill, yes, the second part is a red herring.

The original "intent" of inventing guns is irrelevant, as already discussed in this thread, but even granting that the original intent was to do nothing other than kill humans, so what?
The original intent of crafting wooden spoons might have been to scoop the innards out of kiwi fruits, it doesn't matter and is another red herring.
Click to expand...
The point I was making is that people tend to try to gloss over the fact that guns are weapons.

Calling it a "tool" is a euphemism, in the same way that "ordnance", and "ordnance delivery systems" are euphemisms. We have a compunction against killing, and this is reflected in our attempts to gloss over the fact that weapons are intended for killing. This is similar to our tendency to deny our mortality.

As I said before, the fact that there are other uses for weapons, which have been developed in the modern era, does not change the fact that their intended purpose is for violence. Tools - such as hammers, screwdrivers, chisels, etc. - might be used for violent purposes but they are not weapons per se.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I'm not sure there's really a valid distinction here. All weapons are tools - an object crafted to extend one's ability to affect the environment. I don't see that as a euphemism at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top