Jesus_lol Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1257911229' post='2000169'] I am laughing my wings off. [/quote] yeah i know, im getting lazy. i should probably be put out to pasture before it is too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='10 November 2009 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1257911059' post='2000163'] lol, like how you assumed it was a "her"[/quote] I try to be equal-opportunity. [quote]and yes, for almost everyone it keeps them off the street. the people who drive without one are very much the exception around here, the law keeps 99% of the teenagers, etc who cant drive off the road. and the people who break that rule, they get arrested. you cant stop everyone, but that doesnt mean it is futile to try, especially if it catches most of the people. it works.[/quote] Are they being arrested because they are driving dangerously, or because they don't have a piece of plastic with their photo on it? The two are not identical. [quote]i mean banning abortion isnt gonna stop the people who will resort to back alley abortionists, but that doesnt mean it is pointless. praying at an abortion clinic has way less success at stopping abortion than a nationwide ban would, but it isnt exactly pointless either. [/quote] You won't see abortion banned abortion until most people are against it. If you convince someone not to commit infanticide, you won't have to physically prevent her. [quote]you would have no reason to suspect anybody of anything, cause you would have only seen them for the 5 seconds they have been in your store. its simply idiocy to not bother with something a little more effective. [/quote] That logic is does not follow. Unless you're willing to do a background check on gasoline, which can kill far more people far more quickly. It can even be done from a distance, a circumstance about which you expressed fear in an earlier post. If I have no reason to suspect malicious intent, there's no moral problem in selling him a firearm. As I said, if he's known to be dangerous, what is he doing on the street at all? Why is he not dead or in prison? Don't put your burden on me because you can't keep a known violent offender in prison. [quote]so, is it immoral for me to own nuclear device or other large explosive device? im serious, you gotta draw a line somewhere, where is yours? [/quote] If you could use it for self-defense, or perhaps defense of your geographical area, I would see no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon. However, can you? Isn't that a tad like owning a biological weapon? Rather indiscriminate? How would you use that to defend yourself? Or anyone else? The State has nuclear weapons aimed at cities, and we know that is not a moral use. Even if individuals could own them, State agents should not have access to nuclear [or any] weapons. ~Sternhauser Edited November 11, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='10 November 2009 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1257911978' post='2000183'] yeah i know, im getting lazy. i should probably be put out to pasture before it is too late. [/quote] Wings is a double euphemism. Srsly, it made me laugh. Edited November 11, 2009 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1257912014' post='2000184'] I try to be equal-opportunity. [/quote]Also, women are crappy drivers. It's science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1257912076' post='2000186'] Also, women are crappy drivers. It's science. [/quote] True Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 hells yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1257912014' post='2000184'] Are they being arrested because they are driving dangerously, or because they don't have a piece of plastic with their photo on it? The two are not identical. [/quote] typically they are being arrested for both. and given harsher punishment [quote] You won't see abortion banned abortion until most people are against it. If you convince someone not to commit infanticide, you won't have to physically prevent her. [/quote] and most people are against people driving without a license or insurance. same with gun control here in canada. [quote] That logic is does not follow. Unless you're willing to do a background check on gasoline, which can kill far more people far more quickly. It can even be done from a distance, a circumstance about which you expressed fear in an earlier post. If I have no reason to suspect malicious intent, there's no moral problem in selling him a firearm. As I said, if he's known to be dangerous, what is he doing on the street at all? Why is he not dead or in prison? Don't put your burden on me because you can't keep a known violent offender in prison. [/quote] gasoline actually has uses beyond killing people, and it is far from its intended purpose.and i would like to see you kill someone with gasoline from a bigger distance than a gun, that would take skill. but the distance thing doesnt really matter. [quote] If you could use it for self-defense, or perhaps defense of your geographical area, I would see no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon. However, can you? Isn't that a tad like owning a biological weapon? Rather indiscriminate? How would you use that to defend yourself? Or anyone else? The State has nuclear weapons aimed at cities, and we know that is not a moral use. Even if individuals could own them, State agents should not have access to nuclear [or any] weapons. [/quote] like i was saying, somethings the military shouldnt use either, i was just curious. i would also put a tank and a flamethrower in the indiscriminating killing machines category. i mean only a complete dumbass would defend his home or property with a flamethrower. [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1257912016' post='2000185'] Wings is a double euphemism. Srsly, it made me laugh. [/quote] im not getting the wings part. local expression? hehe, good to know. and i thought you were just being sarcastic, which with you is generally a fairly safe assumption. [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1257912076' post='2000186'] Also, women are crappy drivers. It's science. [/quote] i present for your approval: [media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ[/url][/media] Edited November 11, 2009 by Jesus_lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='10 November 2009 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1257913801' post='2000219'] -something about sarcasm-[/quote] No. I think you're funny. I disagree with you, but there's affection here. Wings cover the feet of the seraphim. Feet is a euphemism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now