posted
Interesting idea, but a) it'd be easy to fake - plenty of amateur model photos on the internet already, how do you prove that you actually know/knew the person depicted? Also, b) Charles takes a dim view of pictures with risque content being posted here: as MIB discovered to his cost; we hardly want to descend to the level of the SFA Forums, do we?
Then there's the moral implications. Has the person(s) granted you permission to publicise the material? Do you feel that, if you're no longer associated with them, it's quite all right to publish them? Nope, best to just let the idea die quietly, Shikky.
posted
Not to wander off of this facinating tangent, but...
quote: you've been brainwashed by a socialist government (and everyone knows that socialist governments are scared to the common man have a firearm) so you don't know this, and i guess you just swallow the crud that is fed to you.
I really am slightly amazed here. But if I have indeed been brainwashed, then thank god there are people like you to save me. Praise the lord indeed!
quote:where is Winston Churchill when you need him?
Dead. Like all evil right-wing people.
quote: there aren't any rugged individualists in power anymore. not trying to get into an argument with you, PsyLiam (despite this being the flameboard) but you don't know what you are talking about.
And, not to get into an argument with you, Edi, but you have even less idea of what you are talking about. I wasn't making any sort of comment on whether guns prevent crimes or not. I was merely saying that the alleged main point of civilians owning guns is that it cuts down on crime, whereas the alleged main aim of a camera is to take photos of people and objects, and that those two design requirements do not really mesh enough to allow for a metaphor such as this to make sense.
And, of course, the original gun ban came in under the Tories. Labour merely extended it after they came to power. But that's probably just brainwashing at work again.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Except for the fact that they both can be used for differing ends. The item, in and of itself, is harmless, it is the people that make them item harmful or not.
Cigarette lighters can be used to start fires that can keep you warm, or burn down a forest and homes. I have seen a TV remote used as a weapon, a woman threw it at her large son when he was getting in to her face, took a gouge of skin out of him.
I know it is the usual fall back, the people make the gun kill, not the gun itself, and most dislike that fall back. The only thing is, it is true with almost all items.
If a person doesn't have a gun, then a ballbat, with a nail driven through it as an option, or a lead filled people, or a fist.
The camera, can't use a digital, so we go with a Polariod 1 Setp and a scanner, then they get banned and we use a standard 35mm with our in home dark room and someone else's scanner....
Why educate when you can ban???
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The difference with a gun is that it has no other use. A tv remote turns your tv off, well I guess you could do that with your gun but only once, the remote can turn it back on again.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A baseball bat has no other use but to smack things with. A knife has no other use but to cut things with.
How about a bow and arrows? How about swords?
No points awarded.
Abort/Retry/Fail?
Actually, I have used my gun for other purposes than to kill. I have used it to test my hand steadiness and aim and eyesight. I have also used guns to make many small recreational holes in a large number of nonliving objects. I have also seen one used to slay a hazardous (rabid) animal, thus protecting local human and nonhuman life and preventing the spread of a fatal disease.
Therefore -10 points for perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Pardon me old man, it's nothin' personal, understan' but I've just gotta run this lead pipe on someone...
I could old the camera buy the starp and beat people too....
It is truly a lethal weapon....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
But that's just it. My first two examples are NOT just weapons. (Ask a baseball player or a butcher)
My second two examples ARE weapons, JUST weapons, and yet they're perfectly all right.
Therefore both aspects of the "it only has one use" argument are dispelled.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I could concievably kill my family with celery. I know that's your point, I'm just wondering where the argument is that your rebutting to.
Perhaps the notion that a Baseball bat is designed to hit baseballs and yet can kill people, while a gun is designed to kill people and yet can save a population from the aliens in ID4 is the sticking point.
Regardless, a gun is designed to kill, and whether or not that's is use, that's what it's intent is.
That's why the article is inanalogous. Sure cameras can make child pornography, but the design specs at the Kodiac design firm didn't include a "Child Pornographer XV-750" as a priority design useage. Guns are designed to kill a dude. There's why the article isn't reason enough for Snay to become all silly like he has been.
[ May 25, 2002, 12:42: Message edited by: The Ulcer Mongoose ]
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I'm just wondering where the argument is that your rebutting to.
Dude, are you high? It's right above my post!
A gun is designed to propel a small projectile (not always lethal - rubber bullets) with a certain amount of force and accuracy. A well-designed gun fulfils this task very well.*
This design can be put to several different uses. The use you choose determines what the gun does.
As with any tool, it can be used, properly or improperly, in accordance with law and in abeyance of it, for good or for ill purpose.
As I said before, knives are designed to be effective killing instruments. It's inherent, as much as it is in a gun. More so with swords (special knives designed even more primarily for combat), and bows and arrows. Therefore the "use" argument is null.
*Some guns (starter pistols, for one) are designed specifically NOT to fire projectiles.
[ May 25, 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
