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

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

[Thermodolia]

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.

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

[The Alma Mater]

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.

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

Just bring back robot wars and battle bots.
Sir Killalot ftw.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

Just bring back robot wars and battle bots.
Sir Killalot ftw.

Sgt Bash for the win

[Kowani]

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.

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

We really should just ban cars

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

I'd watch that.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

I'd watch that.

I'm holding out for Cyberball 2072 becoming real.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'd watch that.

I'm holding out for Cyberball 2072 becoming real.

Glorious metallic destruction!

[Kowani]

This New York Times story, initially titled “Biden, in invoking his son Beau, finds not everyone wants to hear about it”, might be the most domestically ghoulish thing they’ve done in a while


Elite media continues to cope

[Galloism]

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.

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

I didn’t bring up cars when talking about original purpose controlling all purpose forever - Grave n idle did. Maybe you should complain at him.

Maybe you should read back a little further and understand the conversation.

You are correct about racing being about advertisement, not transport. The car usage there has nothing to do with transport. Nvidia’s driverless car that doesn’t have a space for passengers is the same purpose as the other race cars - to show off and thereby sell their technology (in this particular case, graphics processing technology and AI).

[Punished UMN]

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.

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.

This is what you said in response to someone saying they have an FFL, so I don't know how else you expect someone to take that except that you don't know what the claim that someone has an FFL is. You're making incredibly vague posts, refusing to elaborate, and then acting smug when no one but you knows what you mean. You're not smarter here, you're just bad at communicating your ideas. When everyone else involved thinks your argument is something is not, that is just a sign you have worded your argument poorly, not that everyone else is too stupid to get your argument (which is like one sentence that you refuse to elaborate on further).

[Punished UMN]

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.

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

Lots of guns also require licenses and you need to have a license to ship or receive them in the mail.

[Genivaria]

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

We really should just ban cars

In certain cities I'd be okay with this, I really am tired of urban planning being based around cars and not people.

[Cannot think of a name]

Sort of disengenious. First of all, a lot of your examples actually are cars that were meant for the road, just in race trim.

Also, racing is an expensive proposition and not something manufacturers invest in on a whim or just for the funzies (save perhaps Ferrari).

Racing exists on the principle of 'Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday'. A ton of the innovations that are commonplace today on road cars were developed and tested via racing. Even your 'slam dunk' example is a test bed for future cars and also-more importantly to probably this dumbass discussion-is not commercially available, same as the rest of your examples that weren't GT cars.

Also more notably, any asshole can't drive these. You need a superlicense (I didn't name it) for a lot of them and some variation of it for another. Furthermore, all of these cars are used in a highly regulated environment with strict safety protocols and rules that everyone agrees to when they're using them. Not a one of them is road legal and in the trim presented couldn't be registered for the road in any country you've heard of. Unless there's a rally car in there I didn't see, but even then most of the rest applies and you'll note, they're pretty good at moving a person super quick in shitty conditions under a strictly controlled event.

Gun apologists really need to stop trying to use cars as their counter example. It's not the home run they think it is.

I didn’t bring up cars when talking about original purpose controlling all purpose forever - Grave n idle did. Maybe you should complain at him.

Don't care. If it wasn't 'you' (you just, you know...ran with it) then play on. I don't give a fuck.

Maybe you should read back a little further and understand the conversation.

As if it's not going to be the same tired tune.

You are correct about racing being about advertisement, not transport.

You spelled development wrong. You know, that bit about how race cars are used to develop and test technologies that go into passenger cars. Or the bit where most of the cars you showed were in fact passenger cars done up in race trim. Because avoiding that makes the comparison not look completely fucking stupid.

The car usage there has nothing to do with transport.

You know, except again for the fact that a lot of those are race trim passenger cars that are meant to develop transport cars. Maybe we can just save time and everyone can put pots on their head and bang on them really hard if we're just gonna skip over the relevant bits so you can make this belabored and misguided comparison.

Nvidia’s driverless car that doesn’t have a space for passengers is the same purpose as the other race cars - to show off and thereby sell their technology (in this particular case, graphics processing technology and AI).

To be used on...


...oh never mind. You'll just keep banging away at this as if being 'technically correct' is somehow going to make the issue of gun violence go away. Masturbation doesn't need multiple participants.

[Galloism]

...oh never mind. You'll just keep banging away at this as if being 'technically correct' is somehow going to make the issue of gun violence go away. Masturbation doesn't need multiple participants.

Again, when you enter conversations without knowing what they’re about, you’ll bang on about the wrong thing just like you did here. This conversation had absolutely zero to do about gun violence, was only discussing the concept of “original purpose” being controlling forever, and if you had read it you would know that.

Come back when you have read and understood the discussion.

[Giovenith]

if somebody tells me the way out of that fucking morass is to appeal to the free fucking market as well, i will do indescribable atrocities to their fucking person

Let's tone it back a bit, okay? You've already been racking up a recent record.

[Lord Dominator]

This New York Times story, initially titled “Biden, in invoking his son Beau, finds not everyone wants to hear about it”, might be the most domestically ghoulish thing they’ve done in a while


Elite media continues to cope

Since I can’t tell, you’re criticizing NYT rather than Biden I believe?

[Haganham]

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.

Ok hear me out. Robot demolition derbies

isn't that basically battle bots?

[Cannot think of a name]

...oh never mind. You'll just keep banging away at this as if being 'technically correct' is somehow going to make the issue of gun violence go away. Masturbation doesn't need multiple participants.

Again, when you enter conversations without knowing what they’re about, you’ll bang on about the wrong thing just like you did here. This conversation had absolutely zero to do about gun violence, was only discussing the concept of “original purpose” being controlling forever, and if you had read it you would know that.

Come back when you have read and understood the discussion.

No, you're pretending it's not about gun violence by getting into a semantic argument. Again. And in the process misrepresent cars and racing in order to make your stupid semantic point.

[Giovenith]

Again, when you enter conversations without knowing what they’re about, you’ll bang on about the wrong thing just like you did here. This conversation had absolutely zero to do about gun violence, was only discussing the concept of “original purpose” being controlling forever, and if you had read it you would know that.

Come back when you have read and understood the discussion.

No, you're pretending it's not about gun violence by getting into a semantic argument. Again. And in the process misrepresent cars and racing in order to make your stupid semantic point.

for you to return to the actual topic of discussion at hand.

[Kowani]

This New York Times story, initially titled “Biden, in invoking his son Beau, finds not everyone wants to hear about it”, might be the most domestically ghoulish thing they’ve done in a while


Elite media continues to cope

Since I can’t tell, you’re criticizing NYT rather than Biden I believe?

Yes

[Giovenith]

This is a particularly bad argument. Any number of things were built with the original purpose of killing people that are now used for other means.

A short and not nearly complete list:

Swords
Daggers
Jet engines
Identification friend or foe (now used in most modern private and commercial aircraft, rebranded a transponder)
Radar
Sonar
Iron (and later steel) hulled ships.

All of them, including firearms, are now used for other purposes.

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.

Tell me you know nothing about the topic without actually saying it.

I accept your apology.

Ignorance isn't something to be celebrated anon.

I agree, which is why I appreciate your apology.

I assume it's an apology, because it would be a ridiculous comment if you meant it as anything else. So I'm going to be charitable and assume it was your way of expressing that your words were poorly chosen, and the argument you were making was, frankly, silly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*** Warned for Flamebaiting ***

That's enough. While mild snark is to be expected in NSG, it is clear at this point that you are more concerned with digging in as many condescending dismissals and "gotchas" as you can rather than putting forth any real arguments or rebuttals. Either pack up the attitude and get back to the issues or take a break from posting.

[San Lumen]

https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-hos ... n/37474780

Gov Chris Sununu of New Hampshire has been released from the hospital due to a bleeding ulcer.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-hospital-flu-like-symptoms-evaluation/37474780

Gov Chris Sununu of New Hampshire has been released from the hospital due to a bleeding ulcer.

They released him because he had a bleeding ulcer?

[Lord Dominator]

https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-hospital-flu-like-symptoms-evaluation/37474780

Gov Chris Sununu of New Hampshire has been released from the hospital due to a bleeding ulcer.

They released him because he had a bleeding ulcer?

Looking at the article, it sounds like the release was after he was admitted to be treated for that