Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
dude I think you are causing him to have some kind of episode that the meds aren't helping "Fungi can have thousands of sexes" da-fook?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
you could just define in the law how fast the gun is allowed to be shot. if it shoots too fast, then it's banned.
nope you sure couldn't, that's just an impossibility, semi autos fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Light triggers with really short resets = faster shooting (again youtube it)
the potential is always there, and even a smaller amount of lives is worth the effort.
so says the people who want an outright ban LOL
if you believe that, then you should be putting your energy and effort into banning tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools (how long a list would you like?) since those deaths far exceed those of bump stocks and or rifles.
Anyway since it doesn't appear anyone can come up with a specific idea or way to ban it, I really don't have much else to say on the matter, so until then gl.
if you've never playing a fps i'm sure there's even online target ranges so you can check how many targets you can hit in a given time, but aiming and shooting (semi auto) vs full auto or uncontrolled semi (which is what a bump stock is imo) and see how many targets you hit in each case, but you probably already know the answer as I have educated you on this subject for a few years now :) you're welcome.
Do you remember the answer to why do Military rifles have select fire capabilities? meaning they can use them semi or full auto, why do you think that is?
Created:
Posted in:
is the "blacks only" online dating racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I've seen things like that, pretty cool and innovative imo, would like to use one, but as far as spending MY money on something like that.....naw. You probably know but there is a crank style thing you can put in the space where your finger goes and just crank the handle, i forget what it's called or if it's even legal, but anyway there's several ways to accomplish the same affect.
We haven't chose wisely imo as to which battles to fight, which has accelerated things like 3d printed guns and bump stocks. Much like telling kids no or they can't have something, if not done correctly it will make them desire it more and be creative on how to get it or circumvent you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Abortion isn't about the unborn but the living, who have rights. The non-living (unborn and dead) are not citizens under the Constitution. You are legistaling religion.
just to clarify you mean the unborn vs born since regardless of how you label the unborn, it is alive, at the very instant of fertilization it is alive (whatever it is), to that end do you think there should be any limits to abortion, if so what should they be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
you still have to have your finger on the trigger, so actually you are pulling the trigger (I've used a slide fire stock before, similar thing) and the trigger is pressed and released causing the gun to fire semi automatically as legally defined. Similar effects can be done with rubber bands, belt loops and other ways all on youtube.
If this was something I desired, personally I'd go the cheaper route, almost free, than to purchase a bump fire or slide fire stock. The plans will probably come out for 3d printers soon anyway.
one thing to keep in mind when dealing with these controversies, basically the company is getting free advertising and has probably sold more than they would have otherwise, like guns during Obama. Not all fights have to be fought or should be, just something to think about.
If you've never used one before it has short lived entertainment value and pretty much zero usefulness. Very hard to control and or aim. Many ranges don't allow them for safety reasons (see squib load)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this is that racism where you help shit hole countries (and ones that even hate you) in times of disasters/war and even allow them to immigrate and or enter the country legally. The racism is so subtle and clever it's very difficult to see, in fact it's done so well it has no negative affects at all, but it's real. Sure no one can point to any specific examples but that's because it's so subtle, you must take it on faith that it exists in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Again I ask, change it how? I don't think it's possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The definition of semiautomatic has already been established, the bumpstock meets it, that's why it's legal, it was challenged during Obama presidency but again, it meets the definition. If there's someway the language could be changed to out law the stock and not all semiautos,I haven't heard it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
so answer my questions in post #8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
this sums it up best, from another thread, but to the same person....
I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all.
enough said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
answer the questions I posed since you seem to be so intelligent as to have a solution or can you only post tard comments?
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
colors are described to the blind and or color blind, that might be a good place to start, as how that's done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I thought that was well done and informative, didn't someone post a test on DDO? Seems I took one on there, anyway cool beans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
I don't have time to decode your autism.
omg I love you in a non sexual way, please continue.
Created:
Posted in:
How many crimes have been committed with them?
Under what law would you ban them?
Give your example for the wording of the law that would ban them w/o infringing on other legal things and the 2A.
How do you guard against the work around that will happen if they are banned? (this happened with the cosmetics ban in NY fyi)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
As anyone with half a brain knows the US is multi everything with regards to people. So it's futile to respond to someone like him, but that's your choice to waste your time :)
Created:
Posted in:
The obama doj found they did not meet the definition of automatic, if you don't understand the definitions and differencsd between the two then you are arguing from ignorance. Obviously they were deamed legal when first created, even against challenges, perhaps you should understand how and why, then attempt to make your argument.
Let's start with cars that can go much faster than the average and cause accidents that kill people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
Most of the replies speak for themselves, and adequately address your attempted argumens.
How do the stats look if you take out all the criminas and gang members that kill each other in places like chicagC? TBH if bag guys kill each other, i don't much care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I expect you to.But my opposition to abortion is not theoretical. It is clear now that we have an artificial womb, the reasons put forth as justification for abortion were bogus.
as imperfect as it may be, this solution is better than no solution, better to save some, than none, if you are opposed to abortion, it's just a matter of perspective, and at some future day maybe an even better solution will present it self, like not having unprotected sex lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
you are delving much deeper into the "what ifs" than I can really do in this thread, I never said the solution presented was perfect, and since this is all just theory anyway, I still stand by what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That is naive. The objection murderers have now is not the 9 month gestation in the womb, it's the being saddled with a kid for the next 18 years. Who's going to take and pay for her kid?Here is the killer though. If the baby in the artificial womb is not a person, it can be killed with no moral issue to contend with. What if the woman giving the egg, or the government who is to pay for the child, says, abort? What happens then?You would still have the murderers clamoring for the death of the baby based on their old claim that it isn't a human person.They will say;*What kind of life will the child have with no mom and no dad? Abort it now before its a person.*Why should society go through the expense for a child no one wants? Abort it now before its a person.*The egg donor has a right to request an abortion. The embryo isn't a person anyway. Abort it now before its a person.Is an embryo in an artificial womb a person? Can the atheist answer that question?
those are valid concerns to be sure, which is why I qualified my statement by saying "there are many tangents and rabbit holes we can explore, but those would all need their own thread."
the solution presented imo only addresses the 2 issues I mentioned and as you pointed out there are many, many more, but those are secondary. Here's why, if the abortion occurs all those things you mentioned are moot. So the very first step is to not have an abortion right? Then secondary is all the things that need to be dealt with because there is no abortion, things like you listed. But getting into those really needs to be done separately and individually to keep focused on one issue at a time, otherwise the conversation just bounces all over the place.
the title "Abortion Has Now Been Eradicated" is actually achieved by the solution presented by 3RU7AL.
at no time did I was this was the best or only solution either.
If in fact abortion was eradicated then we could go on to the now what? what about a,,b,c.....etc and all the hypotheticals everyone can dream up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
They say it is climate change, not global warming. But every time they talk, it's about warming.Why are they afraid to talk about warming?
the stopped using global warming a while ago when it was clear they couldn't and wouldn't be able to prove it. So when that fails you, you change the name. It was time for a different spin. Doesn't matter anyway, how is anyone going to get the Chinese to cut back? It's like the b.s. plastic in the oceans thing, look where 90% of it comes from, and they want to ban the grocery bags in the U.S. Is it any wonder why no one takes this stuff seriously and just ignores it? The boy who cried wolf applies to so many progressive the sky is falling rants, they are just tuned out.
Created:
Posted in:
why is it a race and not a "noun: breed" a sort or kind of person or thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Having read more and a better understanding,on it's face, this is in fact the perfect solution to the abortion issue. Setting aside the unintended and unforeseen consequences, this meets all the requirements of those who wish to have a stake in the issue.
1. the woman is no longer pregnant and has no child to worry about
2. nothing is killed (insert your own object noun)
there are many tangents and rabbit holes we can explore, but those would all need their own thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Obviously, I don't understand Dread's position and he has no desire to continue so I really don't see the point of arguing with you about it.
that's because I'm not really taking one, you are looking for motives and things that just aren't there, then applying them to me, all you have to do is read what is written and take it at face value.
A "position" I've taken is calling a pregnancy a foreign invader is incorrect. The opinions I have given are mostly, what I think are inaccurate or totally wrong labels and word usage. Other than that I've been asking questions, form a conclusion based on the answers, then ask if it is correct, since I don't wish to put words in people's mouths.
3RUTAL have done that, I think respectfully, even though a bit heated at times and for some things we've arrived at a consensus. I hope that clears things up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Finally, we agree.This is the whole reason I've been trying to promote ectogenesis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that does seem to solve all the problems......interesting. Though the other problems that would be caused and potential unintended consequences would be a different can of worms, guess I'll have to go re-read that thread :)
(out of curiosity, is that something you really promote, if it was a reality, or just for arguments sake?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you don't want to provide clarification when asked, then perhaps you don't want to be understood. I have no correction for that. Best of luck to you!
when I have to constantly point out what you incorrectly claim I said that's beyond simple clarification. If me not wanting to clarify your assumptions and false claims frustrates you, that's all you buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The primary motive for abortion is deportation.The primary motive for abortion is not "killing".
Ok so given your statements above, then you would agree if the pregnancy is far enough along that the child should be birthed alive and then adopted out or whatever. Because a baby of that size has to be delivered vaginally or via c-section whether it's killed or not. Even still born babies have to be delivered by either of those 2 methods.
To that end delivering the baby alive, via induction meets your requirements of "deportation" and there is no need to kill it, since that is not a primary motive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
another poster was incorrectly using the term foreign invader, then comparing it to cancer or other abnormal things. I never said denying the right to abort a pregnancy (3rd time correcting you now) perhaps go back and read from the beginning as I don't wish to constantly repeat myself.Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is wrong. Evolution is geared towards genes, not individuals. Survival is a tool used by evolution to ensure reproduction. If every individual merely survived, the species would quickly become extinct. Notice that in most species, evolution has no use for the individual after reproduction.
remember that species that survived but didn't reproduce? Me either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
who said anything about every conception? This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you, I clearly said there are too many exceptions to deal with so i'm not going there.The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
point is, the embryo must be part of the woman/woman's body for the woman to have personal sovereignty over it right? If it's not part of her body, then it's something independent separate entity or unique individual (single; separate)
we've agreed earlier that in an abortion something is killed, so is what's being killed part of the woman or something foreign?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?
the biological purpose, don't omit the words I use because it takes what I say out of context.
Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.
checks like starvation and disease? I don't see a point here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you did in post #234Who said anything about after birth?
Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.Not every single human is capable of and or inclined towards reproduction.
by that definition the object in question must be part of the woman's body and can not be it's own separate thing. "Personal" refers to self, like my, me, mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
conversations are never one sided, those are called lectures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
there are plenty of things selectively ignored that didn't go unnoticed ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what happens after birth is irrelevant to the conversation, all that is relevant is 2 people/animals had sex and the female is pregnant.
PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.
is that definition acceptable or would you like to provide a different one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are animals not driven to reproduce? If not they wouldn't exist right? Do you think human's are that far removed from animals with regards to biological drives and urges? Those that are incapable of reproduction are not the norm. The norm is 2 sexes that are capable of reproduction. There are far too many exceptions to deal with so I'm not going there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm speaking from an evolutionary stand point not modern times. Ancient man wasn't that much higher than animals, their purpose was to reproduce and survive, they didn't know anything else, or do you disagree? Our mind have changed but our basic biological function and needs have not.
You get getting into the weeds, I'm talking about pure biology, at this point morality is irrelevant.
if you are going to insist on misusing invader we'll just forget about that then.
(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].
except that the comparison is grossly inaccurate, abortion in the context of what we are speaking is for convenience, choice, whatever the non medical reason is, removing a tumor is totally unrelated.
if you'd like to pick a position of whether it is or is not part of the woman's body we might be able to continue, but bouncing back and forth between the 2 isn't anything I'm interested in doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce? Abandoning infants is irrelevant, that action does not negate or invalidate a primal biological purpose. Human bodies are designed to reproduce and create offspring, do you deny that?
You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.
never said it was right, wrong or undesirable did I?
Many things are considered unnatural w/o any moral judgement.
invader noun
- a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place."it is a country that has repelled all invaders"synonyms:attacker, aggressor, raider, marauder;occupier, conqueror;intruder, interloper"invaders surprised them at dawn"
now your insistence that it is a foreign body/invader means it's not part of the woman's body, and because it is foreign and not part of her body, she should be able to kill it, or are you claiming that it's both her body and foreign at the same time, which seems rather impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that's all well and fine, but again, nature and evolution have sought to protect it as similar things like normal flora. The context of foreign invader I don't believe is correct in your usage. Foreign invader is generally a pejorative. If you'd like to call it a foreign body that may be more appropriate. Regardless, a voluntary abortion is an unnatural thing going against the primary purpose of humans and evolution, which is to reproduce. Or do you disagree that it's natural for humans to reproduce as it is their primary purpose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused. Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim. Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim? Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is it though? The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm. The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system. Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does. Consider organ transplants for example.(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I ask simple questions and you get all pissy, are you on your period or just a natural jerk?
Voluntary not your casting a bad light on every truth/fact of Ive stated.
I cast nothing, you are putting your defensive emotion into a simple question/statement, that's on YOU, not me
Do you even know what pollution is? You really appear to be sort of brain dead and a religous funadmentalist on these issues Ive addressed.
(see first sentence)
Pollution = toxic substances in places where humans would rather they did not exist.
gee thanks captain obvious, or should I call you Bill Nye?
Please share when you want to have a rational, logical common sense discussion on any the issues Ive disscussed. Ive seen little to none of that from you, or many others here at DArt.
please don't post when on your cycle, you come off all emotional and bitchy, which you can't seem to control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
how do you deal with the lack of body heat? that would seem to be a bit of a put off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
guess that's a huge time saver, no need for dating, spending money etc, you maybe on to something there......
Created: