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

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Sound of shifting goalposts?

You said: "whittle’s design was not operational" - it was. It was also designed a decade BEFORE Ohain's engine.

Now you're saying that the operational model for Ohain's design was produced before the operational model of Whittle's. While that IS true, it's irrelevant AND it's not what you were talking about earlier.

But this tangent is irrelevant.

This part, I 100% agree on. I really rather wondered why you started the hijack, and how far you intended to carry it. I guess I have my answer now.

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.

But Whittle's engine wasn't the first innovation of the jet engine - it's literally a millennia-old concept. You wanted to limit the discussion to the applications used for warfare, so you could pretend it was an invention designed for warfare.

That's not a matter of inconvenience for me.

So either way, we are talking about a device designed to kill.

Nope.

Funny, though, that you want to ignore all the non-war prior applications for jet technology, but want to endorse UMN's hilarious 'guns are actually hammers, yo' nonsense.

[Galloism]

1) gun manufacturers aren't designing their guns for that reason either, they're designing them to either be fun guns to shoot at a target range or for hunting. Handgun manufacturers do design with self-defense in mind, but again, completely legal and licensed.

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.

So I had no idea of the origin of the machete, as we understand it today. So I googled that.

There’s a long history of using them as weapons of war and revolution, but the origin (either as an agricultural tool or a weapon) is more than a little murky due to the extreme passage of time, and it’s really rather unclear if they were designed to cut brush, cut people, or both.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

Lmao

[Immortan Khan]

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.

So I had no idea of the origin of the machete, as we understand it today. So I googled that.

There’s a long history of using them as weapons of war and revolution, but the origin (either as an agricultural tool or a weapon) is more than a little murky due to the extreme passage of time, and it’s really rather unclear if they were designed to cut brush, cut people, or both.

Most likely both since a lot of agricultural tools were also designed to be used as weapons if need be since raiders, bandits, etc were a real threat historically.

[Kilobugya]

Every abortion prevented is a life saved. I put life over all other priorities.

No, it's a life f*cked up, or even utterly lost because illegal abortions mean unsafe ones.

And if you count "life saved" as a potential future life created, then "a rupture condom is a life saved" would also work.

And if Texas really cared about lives wouldn't they... push for vaccination ? Push mask mandates ? Fight against air or water pollution ? Oppose eviction ? Give free healthy meals to school children ? All those would save more lives... but "pro-life" people strangely forget everything about saving lives once they are born.

[Galloism]

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.

Sound of shifting goalposts?

You said: "whittle’s design was not operational" - it was. It was also designed a decade BEFORE Ohain's engine.

Now you're saying that the operational model for Ohain's design was produced before the operational model of Whittle's. While that IS true, it's irrelevant AND it's not what you were talking about earlier.

But this tangent is irrelevant.

This part, I 100% agree on. I really rather wondered why you started the hijack, and how far you intended to carry it. I guess I have my answer now.

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.

But Whittle's engine wasn't the first innovation of the jet engine - it's literally a millennia-old concept. You wanted to limit the discussion to the applications used for warfare, so you could pretend it was an invention designed for warfare.

That's not a matter of inconvenience for me.

So either way, we are talking about a device designed to kill.

Nope.

Funny, though, that you want to ignore all the non-war prior applications for jet technology, but want to endorse UMN's hilarious 'guns are actually hammers, yo' nonsense.

There’s plenty of non war applications for jet technology. The fact that the first functional jet engines were first designed for war, funded for war, built for war, and used for war is irrelevant to the fact we have many many non war uses today.

This is also true of things like rockets. Iron/steel hulled ships. Transponders. Radar. Sonar. Lots of things.

And guns, incidentally.

[Immortan Khan]

War has been one of the great drivers of innovation this is trve.

[Galloism]

So I had no idea of the origin of the machete, as we understand it today. So I googled that.

There’s a long history of using them as weapons of war and revolution, but the origin (either as an agricultural tool or a weapon) is more than a little murky due to the extreme passage of time, and it’s really rather unclear if they were designed to cut brush, cut people, or both.

Most likely both since a lot of agricultural tools were also designed to be used as weapons if need be since raiders, bandits, etc were a real threat historically.

That seems likely.

IE, it was likely both designed to kill, and do other agricultural stuff.

[Galloism]

War has been one of the great drivers of innovation this is trve.

Indeed.

One of my favorites is night vision. I have some night vision binoculars I really love. Really handy for certain things.

Of course, they were developed by the German military then the Allies in order to kill, so I guess under Grave n idle’s logic they can’t be used for anything else.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovati ... 180963357/

[Galloism]

So I googled “war inventions you use every day”, and huh…

I didn’t know all this.

Canned food was invented for warfare, to help get the food a long way to troops so they could keep fighting and killing. Thanks Napoleon! Every time you buy a can of food, know you are holding something designed to support killing.

Duck tape, used to open ammo boxes for getting quick acquisition of the ammo within in order to kill. So when you fix something with duct tape, know you’re using something designed to make killing people faster and easier.

And of course, the Internet - designed to stay online and facilitate military communication even in the event of major war, in order to coordinate the killing and kill more efficiently and effectively, even if lots of infrastructure had been bombed out.

Edit: huh, stainless steel was invented due to the British military seeking better materials to make gun barrels out of. That wasn’t what we used it for right off - we used it to make newer more powerful aircraft engines as weapons of war - but that was the intent behind its creation.

While radio communication was not apparently invented for war, the aviation headset (used by basically every pilot today) was.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26935867

[Punished UMN]

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.

I didn't misrepresent your argument, everybody else saw it as the same argument too, and you refuse to elaborate further on the argument to clarify what you mean and acting like we're fucking dumbasses because you're bad at communicating.

[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.

I didn't misrepresent your argument, everybody else saw it as the same argument too, and you refuse to elaborate further on the argument to clarify what you mean and acting like we're fucking dumbasses because you're bad at communicating.

Calm your diaper - no need for the angry language, padawan. It's a pg13 forum.

The reason I'm not repeating the explanation is - as I explicitly mentioned - that I already explained it. If you didn't read it the first time, elaborating a second time seems like a wasted effort.

You misrepresented my argument, even if you're now denying it. I don't know whether you really don't understand that, or are doing it deliberately, and it honestly doesn't matter. Same result.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

See, while I mainly focus on stocks nowadays I'm still an 07/02 FFL holder. I've actually drawn up designs for a few firearms myself and I've made more than a couple. I actually have professional experience in this field and every time I've set out to draw up plans for something it's never been from a mindset of "how can this kill the best", no, it's mostly been from a "how can this theoretically push small arms technology forward" or "how can I reattempt this design that failed in the past". If you wanna keep embarrassing yourself then feel free I guess but you're way out of your element here and it shows.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.



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.

See, while I mainly focus on stocks nowadays I'm still an 07/02 FFL holder...

I've never really been impressed with celebrity, and I've met quite a few famous people, but never anyone quite on the scale of 'the guy who invented guns'. Still not impressed, but it's quite a claim.

I assume that is what you're claiming? Because otherwise that's just another in a long line of ridiculous comments.

"Actually, cars aren't supposed to drive people around. My opinion is important because I designed some decals on one car's grille".

[Punished UMN]

I didn't misrepresent your argument, everybody else saw it as the same argument too, and you refuse to elaborate further on the argument to clarify what you mean and acting like we're fucking dumbasses because you're bad at communicating.

Calm your diaper - no need for the angry language, padawan. It's a pg13 forum.

The reason I'm not repeating the explanation is - as I explicitly mentioned - that I already explained it. If you didn't read it the first time, elaborating a second time seems like a wasted effort.

You misrepresented my argument, even if you're now denying it. I don't know whether you really don't understand that, or are doing it deliberately, and it honestly doesn't matter. Same result.

What am I misrepresenting here? This is your entire argument? There's not much there even to misrepresent:

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.

There is zero elaboration here, only the statement: "the gun was literally design to kill."

[Punished UMN]

See, while I mainly focus on stocks nowadays I'm still an 07/02 FFL holder...

I've never really been impressed with celebrity, and I've met quite a few famous people, but never anyone quite on the scale of 'the guy who invented guns'. Still not impressed, but it's quite a claim.

I assume that is what you're claiming? Because otherwise that's just another in a long line of ridiculous comments.

"Actually, cars aren't supposed to drive people around. My opinion is important because I designed some decals on one car's grille".

See, how are you going to act like you know a lot about policy on guns when you don't even know what an FFL is, it's an incredibly basic thing to know about firearm policy in the US. Not knowing what an FFL is while arguing about gun policy is on the level of arguing about driving laws without knowing what a driver's license it. You either need one or at least need to be acquainted with the concept to even purchase a gun legally.

[Kowani]

Police and Firefighters sue Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) over vaccine mandate

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) is being sued by Oregon State Police officers and firefighters over the state's vaccine mandate.

The lawsuit in a Jefferson County court seeks to block the state from enforcing Brown's executive order mandating all employees of the executive branch to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

The plaintiffs argue that the order is "unenforceable because it conflicts with Oregon statutes, would result in a common law wrongful discharge of the Plaintiffs, conflicts with the Oregon Constitution's guarantee of free expression, and conflicts with the United States Constitution guarantee of equal protection, free exercise, and due process."

The complaint was first reported by KOIN in Oregon. A spokesperson for Brown told the news outlet that the governor is "responding to a public health crisis."
Vaccine requirements are "critical to protect state workers, workplaces and facilities, as well as members of the public who use state services," the spokesperson said.

Brown's office declined to comment on pending litigation to The Hill.

The suit was filed by the Oregon Fraternal Order of Police and the Kingsley Firefighters Association. Brown and the state of Oregon are named as defendants.



Brown's order, signed Aug. 13, required executive branch workers to show that they have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by Oct. 18.

Exceptions can be granted to people with disabilities, qualifying medical conditions or truly held religious beliefs. Employees who failed to comply with the directive will face "personnel consequences up to and including separation from employment."

The complaint alleges that state law prohibits employers from requiring workers to be "immunized" as a condition of employment, unless otherwise required by federal or state law. The lawsuit further alleges that the lawsuit forces put workers in an "untenable situation."

"Forcing them to decide between their livelihoods and vindicating their statutory and constitutional rights is unconscionable and wrong," the suit states.

[Vassenor]

Police and Firefighters sue Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) over vaccine mandate

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) is being sued by Oregon State Police officers and firefighters over the state's vaccine mandate.

The lawsuit in a Jefferson County court seeks to block the state from enforcing Brown's executive order mandating all employees of the executive branch to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

The plaintiffs argue that the order is "unenforceable because it conflicts with Oregon statutes, would result in a common law wrongful discharge of the Plaintiffs, conflicts with the Oregon Constitution's guarantee of free expression, and conflicts with the United States Constitution guarantee of equal protection, free exercise, and due process."

The complaint was first reported by KOIN in Oregon. A spokesperson for Brown told the news outlet that the governor is "responding to a public health crisis."
Vaccine requirements are "critical to protect state workers, workplaces and facilities, as well as members of the public who use state services," the spokesperson said.

Brown's office declined to comment on pending litigation to The Hill.

The suit was filed by the Oregon Fraternal Order of Police and the Kingsley Firefighters Association. Brown and the state of Oregon are named as defendants.



Brown's order, signed Aug. 13, required executive branch workers to show that they have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by Oct. 18.

Exceptions can be granted to people with disabilities, qualifying medical conditions or truly held religious beliefs. Employees who failed to comply with the directive will face "personnel consequences up to and including separation from employment."

The complaint alleges that state law prohibits employers from requiring workers to be "immunized" as a condition of employment, unless otherwise required by federal or state law. The lawsuit further alleges that the lawsuit forces put workers in an "untenable situation."

"Forcing them to decide between their livelihoods and vindicating their statutory and constitutional rights is unconscionable and wrong," the suit states.

...Being able to catch and transmit a deadly disease is free expression now?

[Grave_n_idle]

See, how are you going to act like you know a lot about policy on guns...

I'm not even discussing policy, except tangentially. Go back to where I joined the discussion and see what my point was.

This is like watching someone trying to make a snowball out of dominoes.

...when you don't even know what an FFL is,

You have decided to leap to another bad conclusion. I'm not responsible for your bad choices.

[Kilobugya]

...Being able to catch and transmit a deadly disease is free expression now?

Well, technically the mRNA of the virus is information so... a lawyer could try to plead that

[San Lumen]

https://www.wdel.com/news/biden-appoint ... 26995.html

Biden appoints former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell to special position settling Afghan refugees in US

Delaware’s current Governor said the state would accept Afghan refugees.

[Galloism]

See, while I mainly focus on stocks nowadays I'm still an 07/02 FFL holder...

I've never really been impressed with celebrity, and I've met quite a few famous people, but never anyone quite on the scale of 'the guy who invented guns'. Still not impressed, but it's quite a claim.

I assume that is what you're claiming? Because otherwise that's just another in a long line of ridiculous comments.

"Actually, cars aren't supposed to drive people around. My opinion is important because I designed some decals on one car's grille".

It's actually worth note that there are a lot of cars out there not designed for transportation (which was the original intent of cars in general).

Like this one and this one or any of these.

Hell, this car is literally incapable of carrying people around at all.

Especially if you look at the last one and claim it was designed to "carry people around" because "cars are designed to carry people around" even though it's literally incapable of doing such, people are rightly going to call you out as being incorrect.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Hell, this car is literally incapable of carrying people around at all.

What even is this lol, since when is this a thing

[Galloism]

Hell, this car is literally incapable of carrying people around at all.

What even is this lol, since when is this a thing

It's a robotic race car. We now design robot drivers with AI and pit them against each other to see which AI is the best driver. Then use that info to improve driver AI.

Also there's been some funny incidents. Computers are weird.

[Torrocca]

I've never really been impressed with celebrity, and I've met quite a few famous people, but never anyone quite on the scale of 'the guy who invented guns'. Still not impressed, but it's quite a claim.

I assume that is what you're claiming? Because otherwise that's just another in a long line of ridiculous comments.

"Actually, cars aren't supposed to drive people around. My opinion is important because I designed some decals on one car's grille".

It's actually worth note that there are a lot of cars out there not designed for transportation (which was the original intent of cars in general).

Like this one and this one or any of these.

Hell, this car is literally incapable of carrying people around at all.

Especially if you look at the last one and claim it was designed to "carry people around" because "cars are designed to carry people around" even though it's literally incapable of doing such, people are rightly going to call you out as being incorrect.

I

I kinda want to ride on top of that last one.

Also regarding the gun talk: guns are cool and based. The people who use them for mass-murder or whatever need help, whether that's through deradicalization or whatever other option that would be specific to their case. And people in general just naturally need more safety training regarding them, to limit accidents as well.