Welcome to Gaia! ::

Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.

Posties
...but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol

I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
Quote:
It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.
Fermionic
posties
Holy s**t, this is still going on...

Fermionic: He didn't think your joke was funny because you're on the internet and didn't consider that nobody can account for your tone in a serious-natured thread. ********, get over it.

Posties: You don't need to justify why you didn't think the joke was funny and the fact you're trying so hard is just childish and pathetic.

Now shut up and stop hijacking the thread.
shinigami ryukie's avatar

O.G. Player

9,900 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Junior Trader 100
duldol v3

1.) Sources are pointing out that we have a major background check loophole in the current gun acquirement process anyway. The Virginia Tech Shooter passed two background checks because his state did not enter his mentally ill status into the NICS database, or the National Investigation of Criminal Background Check Systems


Cho didn't use any scary black assault wepinz though. So it wouldn't stop him from killing those kids with assault bullets loaded into assault clips.
Cassini Senpai's avatar

Aged Conversationalist

Why not just ban all guns? Wouldn't that make the country safer??
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.

Posties
...but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol

I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
Quote:
It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.


Oh, so you didn't listen then. If you will.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Cassini_X
Why not just ban all guns? Wouldn't that make the country safer??


If banning them would keep them out of the hands of criminals, perhaps.

But just like banning marijuana people seem to have no trouble getting illegal things through smuggling routes.


Since the Mexican drug cartels are currently the world leaders in the illegal contraband trade, and they supply a huge bulk of what's going into the U.S., being right next to the U.S., at around 90% of the stuff going into the U.S.

We could stop them, but like then a power vacuum would erupt and another cartel would replace like, like the Mexican drug cartels replaced the Columbian drug cartels.


Long story short we'd have to stop the flow of illegal smuggling and even with a border wall, to say stop the flow of smuggling across our border, even if we kicked out 90%, a huge amount goes through regular traffic unnoticed.

So in essence, we'd have to ban it in America, collect all the guns, and then shut off any potential capacity for people to get into our country, to get rid of guns. Which there would still be some around, likely. You'd more or less just be leaving law abiding citizens unarmed.


Now if you could create a weapon that didn't kill but could incapacitate in fractions of a second?

I'd be all for that. Then we could ban guns in the hands of citizens. But then criminals could just shoot you and rob you easier without having to resort to such brutal tactics, so that also would be a problem. So we'd need force fields.


Really, if people had force fields, that could stop say 30 bullets in a general time frame, we could be relatively safe.

If you made it based off of speed, say the force field was only activated if a certain velocity was achieved, than you could still say, with the police, stop a guy by say, tackling him to the ground. That would in turn force things into melee combat, with low velocity, short range weapons. But, while I'm gunning for those force fields, it still wouldn't be a perfect solution.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.

Posties
...but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol

I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
Quote:
It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.


Oh, so you didn't listen then. If you will.
You're such a contrarian. Ruin your points if you want, makes it easier for me to make mine.
Epsy's avatar

Wheezing Genius

Before every major dictator ship rises to power, the first thing they do is attempt to disarm the populace. That is the real issue we are facing here.

Also, when you think about it, organized crime would surge if the general populace were disarmed, as they would have no proper way to defend themselves.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Epsy
Before every major dictator ship rises to power, the first thing they do is attempt to disarm the populace. That is the real issue we are facing here.

Also, when you think about it, organized crime would surge if the general populace were disarmed, as they would have no proper way to defend themselves.


Which is the problem.

Since you're more likely to die or be injured, from a gun, from suicide or accidents, I'd say that guns are doing a pretty good job stopping crime.


In any case, disarming civilians in no way is going to disarm criminals.

I support sensible gun laws, but an assault weapons ban is in no way sensible in it's own right since it's not even targeting more dangerous or weapons more frequently used in crime.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

If I was going to add to gun laws?

I'd make a manufacturer have to fire the weapon 10 times, then photograph the shell, to get the firing pin mark on the shell.


This would both make sure the weapon works, and allow guns to be more traceable, since shells fired recovered at the crime could be immediately linked to guns, rather than waiting to have to recover the gun in the first place before matching it up to the crime.

Also, I would require serial numbers on all shells. Since most manufacturer's can change what they want to imprint on them, changing around the machines wouldn't be so bad.


I'm not entirely sure how many bullets are sold per year, in that I don't have exact figures, mostly since it's measured in money. But, it stands to reason it's not over a trillion per year.

That means a six 3 digit serial number would last for the next 1000 years, which seems pretty okay. Therefore putting serial numbers on all shell casings would allow them to be traced to each buyer and which date and place it was bought from etc.


Since all that info, date, etc. could be traced to the serial number, it wouldn't need to hold a lot of information. Would this help?

A little. But since shell casings, say in revolvers, which are used frequently in crime, at over 25% of all crime, won't be left behind, or a person could just pick up the shell casing, it really wouldn't matter. As well, since guns are damaged over time, and these damages are what leave behind a unique fingerprint, the fingerprint would change over time so 100% matches would take the recovery of the actual gun (but it would give you a general way to look).


It would make tracing to certain guns easier, however. But since most criminals don't use these guns, it wouldn't do much.

But you could at least prove that criminals wouldn't be using these guns. When 94% of shells found at crime scenes or whatever don't' even have real serial numbers on them, you'll start realizing it's not legal sales. But it could help stop a small amount of crime and wouldn't be too hard to implement since gun manufacturer's basically have to do this anyways. Test the weapon, photographically record stuff; this would just be an extension of what most manufacturer's do anyways.
duldol v3
I mean what about Australia and the U.K?


When after that terrible shooting the PM of Au just...did a huge buyback of the U.S equivalent of about seven million guns or so?

And they haven't had a dispute since.

Anyone want to go up against me on warrants or fact check that? I'd love to hear other opinions and learn some more about it


in the u.k. you are twice as likely to be assaulted with a knife than you are to be assaulted with a gun in america. and we have 6 times the population of that s**t hole. for every 1 person getting stabbed in america, there are 12 getting stabbed in britain.

less gun crime equals more violent crime with any other ******** weapon because if somebody wants to rape, murder, or pillage, they will do so. not to mention that violent crime in both the u.k. and australia sky rocketed after the gun bans. in fact, around 2001-2002, about 5 years after the ban, violent crime in australia reached a peak of over 40% more violent crime than the year before the gun bans took effect. 5 years no guns, 40%+ increase in violent crime?

of course, i'd also like to take a look at japan. what guns? what violent crime? they have virtually no guns and their murder and violent crime rates are diminutive. they also have the highest or second highest suicide rate in the world.

why is britain such a ******** scary and dangerous place to walk down the streets in but japan probably has cute little 18 year old female escorts in pink for everybody? and if japan has all those cute girls, why are they all killing themselves?

all kinds of mass shootings exactly when a warlord president wants to ban guns? a president that wants to be able to kill american citizens because they might be terrorists. a president that passed a bill that makes free speech illegal while he's making a public anything. we can throw all kinds of conspiracy theories at you. we can also show historical proof of where similar things have happened.


violent crime of all kinds has been going steadily down in america for years...ever since that assault weapons ban was lifted...
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Anyways, my main point is, pistol grip, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds do not make weapons any more dangerous, and are common features on weapons, and that grenade launchers and military weapons are already illegal according to the 1934 ban which was further expanded upon in 1968, meaning something close to an "assault rifle" is already banned and other details were further expanded upon a long time ago.

Knowing this, would this change your opinion about an "assault weapons" ban?
Suicidesoldier#1


So, in short, an assault weapon ban would be a bad idea.

I'm not going to question this one so long as we come to the same conclusion. I like my assault weapons, you like 'em too. Sounds good to me.
logan the god of candy

why is britain such a ******** scary and dangerous place to walk down the streets in but japan probably has cute little 18 year old female escorts in pink for everybody? and if japan has all those cute girls, why are they all killing themselves?

Japan will put you into a very depressing place in its society if you choose to be a part of it.

Quote:
all kinds of mass shootings exactly when a warlord president wants to ban guns? a president that wants to be able to kill american citizens because they might be terrorists. a president that passed a bill that makes free speech illegal while he's making a public anything. we can throw all kinds of conspiracy theories at you. we can also show historical proof of where similar things have happened.

For some reason, it all boils down to whether or not people are willing to believe that their own government would do them wrong. Some dumb ******** just won't.
l_Shamrock_l
A Harvard study shows that the places in the world with the highest rate of gun ownership actually have the least crime, while the places with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the most crime. I don't see how people keep rejecting the correlation when the numbers are so obvious...


Because America has such a low crime rate compared to Scandinavia, lol

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games