Currency re-vamp (1 Viewer)

Rich · Jul 18, 2006

Bodisathva said:
Uh...yes, actually. With all but the best of friends, the rule of thumb is no discussion of politics or religion and if you consider sports to be a close relative of either of the two, leave that off the table as well. (Of course, this rule normally only applies when visiting drinking establishments or activities in which alcohol will be part of the festivities)

But that only leaves women as a debatable subject

Bodisathva · Jul 18, 2006

Rich said:
But that only leaves women as a debatable subject

of course...we can't watch them on TV, you know

Rich · Jul 18, 2006

dan-cat said:
What Georgey's claim? What the hell do you think I am, brainwashed or something?

A lone voice out of millions, well it's been a long hard uphill struggle, but we're getting there.
Now where's the other 100 million?

Rich · Jul 18, 2006

Bodisathva said:
of course...we can't watch them on TV, you know

Is that why you have the largest number of porno sites in the World, that's the whole World by the way, not just the American world?

Bodisathva · Jul 18, 2006

Rich said:
Is that why you have the largest number of porno sites in the World, that's the whole World by the way, not just the American world?

Then how come all the porn I download is either in Dutch or that crappy Italian voice-over stuff?

Rich · Jul 18, 2006

Bodisathva said:
Then how come all the porn I download is either in Dutch or that crappy Italian voice-over stuff?

They nicked it and have overdubbed it, it's thirty years out of date or you're not allowed to download from American sites in the States.
I suspect the latter

The_Doc_Man · Jul 18, 2006

Matt:

Arming everyone doesn't cure anything, it makes people more inventive and raises the scale of the problem.

Actually, I don't disagree with that. BUT... eventually what happens is that folks get tired of the escalation or realize that it is a never-ending cycle as long as you never stand down.

Let me work my argument from a different angle, if you don't like the previous presentation. The solution is to educate people that violence is not the answer. BUT the problem with that solution is that until all sides embrace (not just verbally acknowledge) that fact, you need to be able to deter the other side from trying to prove to you that violence IS TOO the answer, just like a petulant child who is going to have his way come Hell or High Water. (Here in New Orlean's, we've had the "high water" part, and it was Hell anyway, so to me that has become a less meaningful phrase.)

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that as long as folks THINK that violence is the answer, you must be prepared to meet violence with violence. And therein lies the REAL task. Convincing others that without violence, there IS such a thing as a win-win solution. WITH violence, there is only win-lose or worse, lose-lose.

Therefore, if you want REAL gun control, ignore guns and go after the real problem - the people who use those guns inappropriately. By the way, this is true at the personal level and at the level of terrorist states.

ColinEssex · Jul 19, 2006

Bodisathva said:
'cause god said so

more than a couple but less than too many. Shall I really start listing the normally accepted uses for various gauges, caliburs, and configurations or are you being rhetorical?

the French

Bod - If my questions were rhetorical I would say so. I like many UK people have never seen a real gun, so I'm interested in your way of thinking

Repeat - why do you need guns?

How many have you got? and for what purpose?

Who are you wanting protection from? (apart from the French)

Dan-Cat, nobody has successfully proved god exists, therefore until something tangeable comes along to change that, one must assume god does not exist and its all a fairy story. Its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to prove it does if thats what you think. . . . . .and you can't prove it, which is why you're squirming out of it with these picky nonsensical comments about x, y and z

There are many people (mostly Yanks) who believe god exists but have no proof.

I would like you to explain though, how I can be both picky and non-attentive to your posts though

Its a clever trick that you have mastered very well.

Col

Bodisathva · Jul 19, 2006

ColinEssex said:
Bod - If my questions were rhetorical I would say so. I like many UK people have never seen a real gun, so I'm interested in your way of thinking

That comes as close as I've ever seen to an honest, non-combative question on the subject, so I'll humor you

(Although the rolleyes leads me to believe I probably shouldn't)

This is not a complete list, but enough to make a point:

A Compressed CO2 pellet pistol - comes in real handy from removing those nasty little squirrels from the attic. No holes in the roof, but the squirrel is removed...and that's exactly why I bought it (traps don't work on the *#$&* things and they'll chew through the wires)

.22 cal rifles w and w/o scopes - small, rimfire cartridge, sufficient for small game (squirrels, rabbits, turkey, groundhogs, etc). Relatively quiet with no recoil to speak of, so it's also a favorite for target practice or general "plinking" around.

Shotguns (various gauges) - used mainly for small game if you're not accurate enough to use the .22

eek: ) or if you are concerned about distance (shot is only dangerous for about 250ft whereas rifles will go up to 2 miles). Also good for hunting geese, pheasant, grouse, etc. where the quarry is fast and usually moving. The smaller the number of the gauge, the bigger the wad of shot thrown.

Large Caliber rifles (in the .20-.30 cal range or roughly 7-10mm) Large Game, long distance. Elk, moose, deer. Careful with those...you'll hurt your little arm

I have a Walther PPKS (9mm Kurtz) and a .45acp in the pistol rack. Applications range from just "plinking" to kill shots--I reload my own ammo and it's much cheaper than using a second round from a rifle.

ColinEssex said:
Who are you wanting protection from? (apart from the French)

I was trying to be funny...damn British humor.

You'll notice that there is no mention of protection anywhere in that list because I don't see them that way (Although any one would do the job). I do not live in fear, I am not paranoid, and I don't sleep with a gun under the pillow. I hunt and I enjoy target shooting (skeet, bench, freestyle)...and before you ask, I don't use silhouettes, just regular bullseyes.

Any further insight you'd like?

Rich · Jul 19, 2006

Is this arsenal kept securely locked up and do you supply the national guard?

Matt Greatorex · Jul 19, 2006

Bodisathva said:
I have a Walther PPKS

I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents.

Rich · Jul 19, 2006

Matt Greatorex said:
I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents.

How about insects and bloody seagulls

Bodisathva · Jul 19, 2006

Rich said:
Is this arsenal kept securely locked up

Always.

Rich said:
do you supply the national guard?

Hmph! Politely answer someone's question, get a "rolleyes" and sarcasm...coming from you, Rich, I'm not surprised.

Remind me again why no one takes you seriously

Matt said:
I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents.

I have to admit...I'm a fan. But the 'S' denotes stainless steel as opposed to 007's standard blueing.

Rich said:
How about insects and bloody seagulls

...and lippy Brits

Matt Greatorex · Jul 19, 2006

Rich said:
How about insects and bloody seagulls

One of the lesser-known storylines, perhaps?

ColinEssex · Jul 19, 2006

Bodisathva said:
That comes as close as I've ever seen to an honest, non-combative question on the subject, so I'll humor you

Nice that you decided to take the time to answer.

Thank you

Col

dan-cat · Jul 19, 2006

ColinEssex said:
Dan-Cat, nobody has successfully proved god exists, therefore until something tangeable comes along to change that, one must assume god does not exist and its all a fairy story.

I hate to sound picky...

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?

What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?

ColinEssex said:
Its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to prove it does if thats what you think. . . . . .and you can't prove it, which is why you're squirming out of it with these picky nonsensical comments about x, y and z

Errm you were the one who brought up the idea of God's existance or not as the case may be. God's existance has got nothing to do with any of my arguments only with yours .... That's why you have to support it with facts.

ColinEssex said:
There are many people (mostly Yanks) who believe god exists but have no proof.

Any facts to show that the majority of theists in the world abide in the US?

EDIT: You see without proof I'm going to have to assume that this is a fairy tale

ColinEssex said:
Its a clever trick that you have mastered very well.
Col

I'll take that as a compliment

ColinEssex · Jul 19, 2006

dan-cat said:
I hate to sound picky...

no change there then

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?
What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?

I have no idea what posessed them to do it.

Errm you were the one who brought up the idea of God's existance or not as the case may be. God's existance has got nothing to do with any of my arguments only with yours .... That's why you have to support it with facts.

I just said it was make believe

Any facts to show that the majority of theists in the world abide in the US?

I have no idea how many "theists" there are in the USA.

I'll take that as a compliment

It was

Col

dan-cat · Jul 19, 2006

ColinEssex said:
It was

Excellent. Thank you. You won't mind if I don't change my spots then will you

Matt Greatorex · Jul 19, 2006

dan-cat said:
I hate to sound picky...

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?

What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?

Attempts can be made to prove or diisprove any assumption. I would be perfectly justified in assuming that my chair would burn if I held a match to it. That assumption could be proven to be true or false by my actually trying it.

If I assume God doesn't exist, it's just as valid as someone else assuming he does. Since the fact can't be proven or disproven, it comes down soley to faith. If any decisions are to be made solely on proven fact, one must assume God doesn't exist, however if they are to also take into account unproven beliefs that may be factual, one must assume he does.

The latter is a slightly more risky stance to take, since there are people out there who believe in many different gods, ghosts, aliens, etc. Many of these people look to such things for 'protection'. Unless one is willing to take the stance that someone else's beliefs - although no more unproven - are somehow less valid than their own, in order to not discriminate against these individuals, the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought.

dan-cat · Jul 19, 2006

Matt Greatorex said:
Attempts can be made to prove or diisprove any assumption. I would be perfectly justified in assuming that my chair would burn if I held a match to it. That assumption could be proven to be true or false by my actually trying it.

Yes and that is why I think the adventurers decided to launch themselves into the unknown. They decided not to assume. Look at what they achieved.

Matt Greatorex said:
If I assume God doesn't exist, it's just as valid as someone else assuming he does.

Yes, so as a supporting argument it's worthless because of what you say here:

Matt Greatorex said:
Since the fact can't be proven or disproven, it comes down soley to faith.

Matt Greatorex said:
If any decisions are to be made solely on proven fact, one must assume God doesn't exist, however if they are to also take into account unproven beliefs that may be factual, one must assume he does.

I would argue that it is the attempt to gain the proof that yields the positive results. Which is why I argue that the assumption route is wrong. ie. The world is flat because you can't prove otherwise so issue the command to Columbus to turn back after 5 days.

Matt Greatorex said:
The latter is a slightly more risky stance to take, since there are people out there who believe in many different gods, ghosts, aliens, etc. Many of these people look to such things for 'protection'. Unless one is willing to take the stance that someone else's beliefs - although no more unproven - are somehow less valid than their own, in order to not discriminate against these individuals, the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought.

Ye Gods

you applied your post to the original topic. Nice one

Currency re-vamp (1 Viewer)

Rich

Guest

Registered User.

Rich

Guest

Rich

Guest

Registered User.

Rich

Guest

Immoderate Moderator

Old registered user

Registered User.

Rich

Guest

Registered User.

Rich

Guest

Registered User.

Registered User.

Old registered user

Registered User.

Old registered user

Registered User.

Registered User.

Registered User.

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread