American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Diahon]

this week, in appellate courts functioning... as intended?

and in line with the above, here's a writ of certoriari asking the supreme court to overtule its own 1971 decision on holding violations of constitutional rights by federal officials to account, effectively giving federal officials absolute immunity from lawsuits

[Ifreann]

Do you oppose the use of lethal force in self defence or the defence of others?

No, I believe the only exception to my beliefs is to end a life to save a life.

What if the threat isn't to life, specifically? Can a person kill to defend themselves against a thief or kidnapper or rapist or assailant with unknown intentions?

[Great Algerstonia]

No, I believe the only exception to my beliefs is to end a life to save a life.

What if the threat isn't to life, specifically? Can a person kill to defend themselves against a thief or kidnapper or rapist or assailant with unknown intentions?

No, especially not against a thief. Injury will do just fine although I don't blame them if they unintentionally kill as part of a spur of the moment.

[San Lumen]

What if the threat isn't to life, specifically? Can a person kill to defend themselves against a thief or kidnapper or rapist or assailant with unknown intentions?

No, especially not against a thief. Injury will do just fine although I don't blame them if they unintentionally kill as part of a spur of the moment.

There is a dedicated abortion thread

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491265&start=4275

[Great Algerstonia]

No, especially not against a thief. Injury will do just fine although I don't blame them if they unintentionally kill as part of a spur of the moment.

There is a dedicated abortion thread

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491265&start=4275

I know, I was just answering Ifraenn's question am happy to move.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Do you oppose the use of lethal force in self defence or the defence of others?

No, I believe the only exception to my beliefs is to end a life to save a life.

The trolley problem

[Ors Might]

What if the threat isn't to life, specifically? Can a person kill to defend themselves against a thief or kidnapper or rapist or assailant with unknown intentions?

No, especially not against a thief. Injury will do just fine although I don't blame them if they unintentionally kill as part of a spur of the moment.

If a human trafficker makes clear their intent to sell me or someone else into slavery, I can’t see the moral quandary of using lethal force to prevent just that. If someone attempts to tale your freedom, they don’t have much ground to complain about you taking their freedom to continue living.

[Grave_n_idle]

Or, the more likely answer, you just don't know much about the topic but want to feel smart

I don't need to feel smart. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are just trotting out poorly-thought out spin.

I don't blame you, you're obviously just repeating stuff you heard.

...and it's why you keep cutting posts out and being snarky instead of bringing anything of value to the thread or rebutting things people say.

Not at all. You're the guy that tried to suggest guns aren't designed to kill, and you think I'm the one that isn't bringing anything of value.

Your argument was bad. I assumed you were apologizing, because I find it hard to believe anyone is going to argue that guns really were designed to be hammers.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yep, your argument was bad and you should feel bad.

I'm not mad, just disappointed.

You used to do a lot better than this. Now you're seriously arguing engines were designed to kill people just so you can support someone's dumb 'actually, guns aren't designed to kill' argument.

Sad.

[Punished UMN]

Or, the more likely answer, you just don't know much about the topic but want to feel smart

I don't need to feel smart. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are just trotting out poorly-thought out spin.

I don't blame you, you're obviously just repeating stuff you heard.

...and it's why you keep cutting posts out and being snarky instead of bringing anything of value to the thread or rebutting things people say.

Not at all. You're the guy that tried to suggest guns aren't designed to kill, and you think I'm the one that isn't bringing anything of value.

Your argument was bad. I assumed you were apologizing, because I find it hard to believe anyone is going to argue that guns really were designed to be hammers.

And again, your argument is primarily based on the idea that intention of the designer is more important than the function something is used for.

[Grave_n_idle]

And again, your argument is primarily based on the idea that intention of the designer is more important than the function something is used for.

Nope. Not at all, and I already explained it.

Go back and read my comments or stop pretending you have.

[Punished UMN]

And again, your argument is primarily based on the idea that intention of the designer is more important than the function something is used for.

Nope. Not at all, and I already explained it.

Go back and read my comments or stop pretending you have.

I have, and your argument is that because guns are designed to kill, that that alone is good enough reason to regulate them more than anything else that is functionally capable of the exact same thing. Many guns aren't even very good at killing people and haven't been for decades. In the context of mass murder, a knife or car would be a much better weapon than even most guns designed for the military prior to 1945.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nope. Not at all, and I already explained it.

Go back and read my comments or stop pretending you have.

I have, and your argument is that because guns are designed to kill, that that alone is good enough reason to regulate them more than anything else that is functionally capable of the exact same thing. .

Would you like to try again?

You're embarrassing yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't SAID you'd read it.

[Punished UMN]

I have, and your argument is that because guns are designed to kill, that that alone is good enough reason to regulate them more than anything else that is functionally capable of the exact same thing. .

Would you like to try again?

You're embarrassing yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't SAID you'd read it.

You're acting like a child, I'm done being your entertainment for the day.

[Galloism]

Yep, your argument was bad and you should feel bad.

I'm not mad, just disappointed.

You used to do a lot better than this. Now you're seriously arguing engines were designed to kill people just so you can support someone's dumb 'actually, guns aren't designed to kill' argument.

Sad.

Such engines were in fact designed to kill people.

Learn some history. First turboprop engine was designed by the Hungarians to power their long range bomber - the Varga RMI-1 X/H (this project wound up cancelled for internal reasons). Germans of course built on this to create the first jet powered fighter aircraft.

It was Nazi improvements to the design and allied studying of their designs that brought about the jet age - fighters and bombers powered by jet engines. All this research to carry weapons to kill eventually made it back to the civilian market, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t designed originally to kill.

Learn some history.

EDIT: Rockets, like what we use to go to space and put our satellites in orbit so you can post on nationstates from anywhere in the world or kids play with in the field, is also a fun subject, although you have to go back a bit further to the Mongol/Chinese wars in the 1200s. The Chinese appear to have developed rockets to use as weapons against the Mongols. The Mongols then seem to have started using them as well for their wars over the next couple of centuries.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not mad, just disappointed.

You used to do a lot better than this. Now you're seriously arguing engines were designed to kill people just so you can support someone's dumb 'actually, guns aren't designed to kill' argument.

Sad.

Such engines were in fact designed to kill people.

Learn some history. First turboprop engine was designed by the Hungarians to power their long range bomber - the Varga RMI-1 X/H (this project wound up cancelled for internal reasons). Germans of course built on this to create the first jet powered fighter aircraft.

It was Nazi improvements to the design and allied studying of their designs that brought about the jet age - fighters and bombers powered by jet engines. All this research to carry weapons to kill eventually made it back to the civilian market, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t designed originally to kill.

Learn some history.

I'm well aware. Cute attempt at being patronising and assuming I didn't know any history, but why skip 2000 years of it (I'm guessing you didn't go to a very good school) and what, jump straight to World War Two? And we're just going to Whittle's design that preceded Ohain's design by a decade (I have an unfair advantage, here - I literally lived for a decade within just a few miles of Whittle's college) and pretend that the allies copied the Nazi designs rather than the other way around?

That's the problem with trying to patronise someone when you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You could have walked away from this just looking ignorant, but you wanted to double-down.

[Grave_n_idle]

Would you like to try again?

You're embarrassing yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't SAID you'd read it.

You're acting like a child, I'm done being your entertainment for the day.

You misrepresented my argument and I told you you were talking bullshit.

I'm not acting like a child. It's just that people refusing to let you act like a brat often feels like disrespect to people who are used to getting their own way.

And no, you're not done being my 'entertainment'. Just because you're not adding anything else (that remains to be seen, previous form suggests otherwise) doesn't mean I won't be laughing at your posts for quite a while, yet.

[Odreria]

You're acting like a child, I'm done being your entertainment for the day.

You misrepresented my argument and I told you you were talking bullshit.

I'm not acting like a child. It's just that people refusing to let you act like a brat often feels like disrespect to people who are used to getting their own way.

And no, you're not done being my 'entertainment'. Just because you're not adding anything else (that remains to be seen, previous form suggests otherwise) doesn't mean I won't be laughing at your posts for quite a while, yet.

[Galloism]

Such engines were in fact designed to kill people.

Learn some history. First turboprop engine was designed by the Hungarians to power their long range bomber - the Varga RMI-1 X/H (this project wound up cancelled for internal reasons). Germans of course built on this to create the first jet powered fighter aircraft.

It was Nazi improvements to the design and allied studying of their designs that brought about the jet age - fighters and bombers powered by jet engines. All this research to carry weapons to kill eventually made it back to the civilian market, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t designed originally to kill.

Learn some history.

I'm well aware. Cute attempt at being patronising and assuming I didn't know any history, but why skip 2000 years of it (I'm guessing you didn't go to a very good school) and what, jump straight to World War Two? And we're just going to Whittle's design that preceded Ohain's design by a decade (I have an unfair advantage, here - I literally lived for a decade within just a few miles of Whittle's college) and pretend that the allies copied the Nazi designs rather than the other way around?

That's the problem with trying to patronise someone when you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You could have walked away from this just looking ignorant, but you wanted to double-down.

You well know whittle’s design was not operational, and while it was good work, it doesn’t have a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine.

It’s also worth note Whittle was RAF, and originally intended for his design to be used for military purposes (hence the initial reach out to the Air Ministry to try and get them to fund his design for war aircraft). So yes, his engine design was also intended to kill people. Would you care to try again, maybe further back this time to even less relevant designs to modern jet engines?

Abort/Retry/Fail?

[Picairn]

That's the problem with trying to patronise someone when you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You could have walked away from this just looking ignorant, but you wanted to double-down.

There's some delicious irony in this paragraph.

[Duvniask]

You're acting like a child, I'm done being your entertainment for the day.

You misrepresented my argument and I told you you were talking bullshit.

I'm not acting like a child. It's just that people refusing to let you act like a brat often feels like disrespect to people who are used to getting their own way.

And no, you're not done being my 'entertainment'. Just because you're not adding anything else (that remains to be seen, previous form suggests otherwise) doesn't mean I won't be laughing at your posts for quite a while, yet.

This shit's really petty. Log off, dude.

[Grave_n_idle]

You well know whittle’s design was not operational, and while it was good work, it doesn’t have a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine.

Ohain literally based his design on Whittle's design, which was operational enough that they flew a replica of the prototype by the Cranwell base just a few years ago to commemorate the 70th anniversary.

If you're going to claim that the German engine was the predecessor of modern jets, then Whittle's design that Ohain was inspired by obviously 'had a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine'.

You just didn't know about Whittle's engine, and rather than admit it, you're also doubling down.

[Grave_n_idle]

You misrepresented my argument and I told you you were talking bullshit.

I'm not acting like a child. It's just that people refusing to let you act like a brat often feels like disrespect to people who are used to getting their own way.

And no, you're not done being my 'entertainment'. Just because you're not adding anything else (that remains to be seen, previous form suggests otherwise) doesn't mean I won't be laughing at your posts for quite a while, yet.

This shit's really petty. Log off, dude.

I didn't ask for your opinion. If UMN doesn't want me to call him on his bullshit, he can stop his bullshit.

[Galloism]

You well know whittle’s design was not operational, and while it was good work, it doesn’t have a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine.

Ohain literally based his design on Whittle's design, which was operational enough that they flew a replica of the prototype by the Cranwell base just a few years ago to commemorate the 70th anniversary.

If you're going to claim that the German engine was the predecessor of modern jets, then Whittle's design that Ohain was inspired by obviously 'had a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine'.

You just didn't know about Whittle's engine, and rather than admit it, you're also doubling down.

No, rather the first operational jet engine was Ohain’s, thus its the first “designed” jet engine to actually exist, and was designed to kill.

But this tangent is irrelevant. Whittle’s engine that didn’t become operational until later was ALSO designed to kill, something you cut out from my post because it was inconvenient to you. So either way, we are talking about a device designed to kill.

I'm well aware. Cute attempt at being patronising and assuming I didn't know any history, but why skip 2000 years of it (I'm guessing you didn't go to a very good school) and what, jump straight to World War Two? And we're just going to Whittle's design that preceded Ohain's design by a decade (I have an unfair advantage, here - I literally lived for a decade within just a few miles of Whittle's college) and pretend that the allies copied the Nazi designs rather than the other way around?

That's the problem with trying to patronise someone when you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You could have walked away from this just looking ignorant, but you wanted to double-down.

You well know whittle’s design was not operational, and while it was good work, it doesn’t have a lot to do with what we know as the modern jet engine.

It’s also worth note Whittle was RAF, and originally intended for his design to be used for military purposes (hence the initial reach out to the Air Ministry to try and get them to fund his design for war aircraft). So yes, his engine design was also intended to kill people. Would you care to try again, maybe further back this time to even less relevant designs to modern jet engines?

Abort/Retry/Fail?

It must be tiring to run away from the point so hard.

[Galloism]

This is either a bad argument, or a disingenuous one. Guns are designed to kill people.

That's why cars and machetes are a red herring - just because you CAN kill someone with a car or machete doesn't mean you're using it for what it was designed for - the gun was literally designed to kill.

If anyone tells you that guns were designed to shoot targets, unless they are handing you either a laser tag or paintball gun, they are selling you a fiction.

Tell me you know nothing about the topic without actually saying it. There are entire companies whose product line is guns whose sole purpose is competitive target shooting in a team environment, I've used them in sport before. If you don't have any actual experience with the industry or the sports in question please do not talk about it because it just makes you look silly.

I like the fact you started your post with the words "This is a particularly bad argument". You're not wrong.

But self-awareness is good. At least you've got that.

But Gallo isn't wrong. Vast amounts of things designed for warfare and combat now see other usages unrelated to that. Blades are the best example, there are still combat ready blades being made whose sole purpose and function is to be really good at killing humans but most knives aren't that anymore. Likewise with guns, most of them are made for you to go to the range and shoot paper and then go home. Unless you're an 07/02 FFL you're likely never going to come into contact with weapons actually made for combat.

Didn’t you know that you can buy weapons of war on Amazon? Even children play with literal rockets, and rockets were designed to kill.