I thought you should know.

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

Magnus de Silentio
 

I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:36 pm

Tell all your friends: rape is no longer consistently advisable.

The worst thing ever:

_________________________

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 ... 57944#jump

"We should rather focus our energy on changing men's mindsets and behaviour towards women."

Ehlers, of Kleinmond, who has worked for the South African Institute for Medical Research, said she had been seeking a way to help women since meeting a rape survivor 20 years ago who commented that she wished she had teeth in her vagina.

"Over the past three years I have been working on this device. It is now completely safe and ready to be manufactured and distributed," she said.

It had been designed with engineers, gynaecologists, psychologists and urologists. It was "hygienic - no human hands will be involved in the manufacture".

In the event of rape, the device folds itself around the rapist's penis, attaching to the skin with microscopic hooks. It is only when the rapist withdraws that he will realise the device is clamped around his penis.

"Its design will also go a long way towards lowering HIV infection as semen is contained in the device ... as well as preventing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies," Ehlers says.

As it is impossible to remove the device from a penis without medical help, hospitals and clinics will be able to alert police when assistance is sought.

"This will rule out any possibility of the rapist's escaping arrest and speed up conviction."

If the rapist tries to remove the device, it will only embed itself further.

"He will have to be put under anaesthetic to have it removed. He will not be able to leave it as he will be unable to urinate."

A woman would have to wear the device every day.

"We never know when we might be raped. This device should become a part of every woman's daily routine, just like brushing her teeth."

Last year, there were 52 733 reported rapes. In a study, the Gender-Based Violence Programme at the CSVR analysed 162 rapes in Johannesburg's inner city and found that one in four had been a gang rape. The study found that 56 percent of the victims had been raped by two men and 23 percent by three.

Although Ehlers is optimistic that the device will go a long way towards reducing the high incidence of rape in this country, rape organisations are not so sure.

"Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped," Vetten says.

"I am concerned at how normal rape has become that we would even consider a device like this."

Chanaz Mitchell, spokesperson for the National Network on Violence against Women, says although it is a good idea for women to protect themselves, men should take responsibility for their actions.

"We still need to focus on men as perpetrators of this heinous crime."

Mitchell is also concerned that the device might lead to further violence against victims.

"Once the rapist realises this device is attached to him, he is more than likely to take his anger out on his victim."

Mbuyiselo Botha, spokesperson for the Men's Forum, said anything that could empower women should be welcomed.

"I would encourage my wife and two daughters to wear this device. It would send a signal to would-be rapists that they won't have it easy."

Ehlers intends launching the prototype next month.

"It will be available at supermarkets, chemists, anywhere where one would be able to buy tampons," she says.

The device is to cost R1 and also be available in bulk packs.


Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=magnusdesilentio@rpgww60462>Magnus] at: 7/13/05 22:44

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:46 pm

"If the rapist tries to remove the device, it will only embed itself further."
Wow.

Thanks for posting this, by the way. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">WITTY QUOTE.</div></p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:52 pm

... I don't know whether to be impressed or frightened. Surely the article is a joke. I can see the call for it, but...

Good god. It could never be legal. o_o ... Could it?


User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:55 pm

... a bear trap for penises. Kinky.

*masochists line up around the block for theirs* <p>--------------------
Remember, even God has a sense of humour. Just look at the platypus.

-Kevin Smith</p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:43 pm

Well, I mean, if you are going to rape a girl, probably tiny hooks should go into your penis.

Probably.

Look, I'm no Catholic. I don't know these things.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:54 pm

Logistic issues time!

What if the woman later gets it on, consensual-like, with someone? Oops I just fishhooked your junks, now we have to deal with the legal hassle and hospital bills.

Application. How does this thing get in there? How easy is it to fuck up the process? What happens if you put it in backwards by accident? How do you take it out without maiming someone? How long can one last inside the vagina; what are the risks of leaving it in too long?

Realism. If most rapes are gang rapes, that means only the first guy is getting his dick pierced. The others, hey, let's have a party.

How is the hook mechanism preventing the guy from urinating, anyway? I'm envisioning like a plastic bag anchored by these hooks, and, like, the guy could either just piss into this little baggie or just cut off the top of the bag. Not that it wouldn't still suck a lot and hurt like hell, but. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:37 am

If it folds around him, it's possible it constricts the urethra closed. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:30 am

In any case, I'd like to see some design specs on this madness before I believe it to be worthy. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:53 am

There's also all the social issues the article brings up. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:20 am

I don't know. Seems to me that a slong as this country insists on having an amendment that lets people have guns, with which you can brutally murder people, something that hurts rapists -- or, just somebody a chick happens to not like, who she doesn't warn about the device -- would be difficult to argue against.

Let's hear it for our legal right to totally hurt each other!


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:26 pm

...I'm fairly certain that's a gross oversimplification of the Second Amendment, but all right. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:29 pm

Describing the second amendment as "the right to have guns" is a gross oversimplification?

Or do you object to the idea that handguns exist solely to harm human beings?


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:41 pm

Or possibly to hunt game? Which you eat in order to not die?

I dunno about you, but I've gone hunting with handguns before, and I've yet to shoot another human being with one. <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:31 pm

You can hunt game with a frying pan pretty successfully. Doesn't mean that's what it's for.

Guns are for hurting people. We kill our food in-house now.

But politics have turned what ought to be a fairly uncontroversial statement (actually, a fairly incontrovertable fact) into an argument-starter! "Guns are for hurting people." Crazy thought, I know.


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:34 pm

It is, because it's not true. I have never used a gun for hurting people, and I don't plan to in the near future. I know, I COULD just go off and get ground beef from the store, but what if I want moose? Or rabbit?

Or what if I'm going hiking? Stop there, bear, or I'll ward you off with this pocket knife! ARRR!

No, I just get irritated at all the random anti-gun sentiment.


EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread like that, this sort of thing is just one of my button-pushers. <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flamingdeth>FlamingDeth</A] at: 7/14/05 20:37

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:10 pm

~laugh~ "Random anti-gun sentiment..."

That's cute.

If you honestly want bear protection gear, I can hook you up with some pretty hot shit. You'd be amazed how easy it is to outsmart something without opposable thumbs.


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:21 pm

Oh, I'm all ears. Tell me of this "hot shit" you speak of. <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:35 pm

Actually, you can figure it out for yourself, or alternately you can tell me when in the hell you are going to run into a bear.

Alternately we could not have this conversation because it is already looking pretty inane!


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:39 pm

Hey, don't complain, you're the one that decided to bring up the "LOL GUNS ARE BAD" argument.

Where will I run into a bear? I've seen one or two around Granite Tours, and some of my little jaunts around Denali. Some of us don't exactly live in urban areas, you know. <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:18 pm

Magnus. You're dumb. Shut up. You started the argument, you're losing, take it like a man. Just shut up and acknowledge the fact that you don't have the SLIGHTEST IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.

Of note: This isn't because you're arguing against the second amendment. This is because you've yet to make a SINGLE VALID POINT. NOT ONE.

Thank you.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:23 pm

Magnus also needs to *read* the second amendment before he starts throwing it around like a frisbee. It allows people to bear arms *as a part of an organized militia.* Thanks. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:00 am

I didn't feel like introducing myself to the majority of you with an argument, so I posted my feelings on the subject to my blog!

Now I'll post them here!

Feel free to continue pretending handguns are awesome! I will just be over here not shooting things and living reasonably well in spite of it.

_______

I've never actually engaged in an argument over the second amendment in part because I do not feel, strictly speaking, that it needs to be repealed. Rather I can say at this rather preliminary juncture in my hopefully long life that I think it clearly needs reconsideration and likely revision.

What I would like to talk about for the moment is what happens every time I describe a handgun as a tool for killing. People look at me as though I were out of my mind. Isn't that incredible? I think it is. It's also good news for the NRA. Congratulations, gentlemen, your money was well spent! What people think a gun is at this point I honestly can't say, but apparently you've convinced the majority that it is definitely not meant to help kill people. Good for you. Your mother would be proud.

Normally when I ask what it's for if not killing, people point at the gun as a tool for providing food or defending your family.

The first argument doesn't pass the laugh test. I get my food from a supermarket just like everybody else in a Wal-Mart, and while the gun is occasionally used to facilitate this process, that's called a hold-up and it's against the law.

Furthermore, the fact that you were once actually stupid enough to go out and shoot at rabbits and deer with a device so wildly inaccurate as a handgun does not, in fact, mean that's what the handgun was meant for. You'd do much better with some good running shoes and a frying pan.

The handgun, which is in an entirely different class from the hunting rifle -- a weapon I strongly suspect is used less in murder than knives, bricks, or even the passenger side doors of hatchbacks -- is wildly inaccurate at any range, and it was designed explicitly to shoot the shit out of other human beings.

The second argument -- it is a family defender -- is shitty in other ways, though it is at least not wholly absurd. I will concede that some lives have probably been saved by gun ownership. Of course, the whole argument looks pretty sorry as soon as somebody brings up the fact that guns kill family and friends far more often than they protect them, which is always brought up, because everyone knows it, which makes it all the more pathetic and sick that anybody buys guns purportedly for protection in the first place!

But what we should really do here is get at the real basis of this argument, the famous motto, "If guns are illegal, only the criminals will have them". Well, I can't deny that! It is categorically true! However, that doesn't make it a very good defense of my right to own deadly weapons.

The assumption here seems to be that without a multi-billion dollar industry producing deadly weapons and pumping them down our nation's throat as hard as they can, illicit gun violence would somehow continue at roughly the same rate.

What the fuck?!

I will admit that if you are actually dim enough to take the view that the average criminal is a career criminal, this sounds pretty good. Certainly if I were going to make a living at something I would do it right, and being a criminal correctly most certainly involves the use of guns to harm others. But allow me to be bold for a moment and assert that organized crime is not the only crime in the world. Let me suggest for a minute something you already know, if you really think about it: Crime, more than anything, is a symptom of economic desperation. If you are too poor to afford bread you are also probably too poor to afford an illegally manufactured killing machine.

The fact that there are a few countries out there with no such thing as the second amendment and shockingly low levels of gun violence (Japan, for instance, where a cartoon about a guy running around and hitting people in the head with a bat -- not even killing them -- was considered a legitimately upsetting idea) would seem to support my view here. If you were to stop the industry from manufacturing billions of guns that could then be obtained legally by pretty much any idiot, I am pretty sure there would be significantly less gun violence!

I know, crazy thought!

But my favorite argument, because it's the easiest to defeat, is the "strict constructionist" standpoint. "FUCK WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND DIE!"

Fair enough. Generally speaking I agree, although history has shown a few examples of some very good constitution fucking that I strongly support. Anyway, you're right, and you win.

Of course you realize that if nothing is allowed to change legally from several centuries ago, you're going to have to restrain yourself to guns available in that era. After all, those are what The Founding Fathers were referring to with the right to bear arms. They had no idea the kinds of killing machines we'd have on the market today.

So, you know, go for it. Brandish a musket. I'll come after you with a brick, and chances are about 50/50 on who wins.

______


I realize the above post does not address what you are to do if you are assaulted by a bear. I'm sorry for not figuring this one out for you. You'll have to work that one out yourself. So far, my system -- remembering that bears randomly eat people about as often as lightning randomly strikes them -- has been working out fine!

Also: Militias are lame?


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:05 am

I stopped reading halfway through so I could start quoting you. Let's begin.

Quote:
being a criminal correctly most certainly involves the use of guns to harm others.
So that leaves out piracy, drug dealing, theft, embezzlement, arson, abuse of almost any kind, rape, racketeering, smuggling, forgery, and most kinds of assault. This doesn't sound like a career with very much upward mobility!

Quote:
there are a few countries out there with no such thing as the second amendment
Like, all of them except the United States? I'm going to stop making fun of you for this one, simply presuming that you meant 'right to bear arms' instead of 'second amendment,' because that shit's pretty silly.

Quote:
Crime, more than anything, is a symptom of economic desperation.
Not just economic desperation, mind you. People kill other people because they pissed them off, or because they know too much, or because whatever whatever. Rich people sometimes commit violent crimes, too.

Furthermore, you're not going to stop this by banning guns. Have you ever lived in a low-income area? I have, and while my particular section wasn't too bad on the crime front, the threat still loomed like a cliche. Try going to your nearest downtown urban area sometime, and leave your car behind. Carry no weapon. Walk three miles, and then come back. Is your car still going to be there? Will you be shot by a random gang driving by? Will someone decide you're on their turf and you deserve to be made an example? Probably not, but this shit *does* happen and if you're caught unawares, the cops are not going to care about your sorry ass.

When the chips are down, guns sound like *really* good ideas. I'll grant to you that people probably should use pepper spray or mace or a tazer or some shit like that, but the fact of the matter is that if an area is sufficiently dangerous, you need to either find a way out or find a way to defend yourself and what you value.

Let me also toss down this fact: If you obtain a license to possess automatic weapons, you voluntarily forfeit your right against being searched without a warrant. The police can just be driving by and decide it would be fun and you can't do shit about it. There are a few checks and balances in this system.

You're also overblowing the problem as it exists in America. Sure, there are fewer gun-related crimes in Japan or Spain or Germany or Canada by comparison, but there are also a lot less people in those countries. Try doing the math sometime and find out how many gun-related crimes are committed in proportion to the nation's populace. If memory serves, they turn out to be pretty even between most countries. Also, stop basing your lifestyle on Michael Moore films. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 7/15/05 1:40

User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:44 am

Quote:
You'd be surprised how easy it is to outsmart something without opposable thumbs


I had no idea that thumbs = Brainpower.

Furthermore, seeing as how bears are stronger than people, faster than people, and can't be reasoned with...Outsmarting it's not going to do much. IF it wants to break you in two, your ass is gonna be broken in two. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:46 am

There are a lot of interesting assumptions in your post. One of them is that I like Michael Moore. I think he's a lying idiot! (Because he is.) Also I suspect that he smells bad. I am minty fresh and it is possible to fuck me without crying the next day.

Another seems to be that I am unfamiliar with the idea of being poor, since I don't think guns are the best. Actually I am pretty intimately familiar with the concept. While I have personally never been shot -- like most of the poor people I know -- I have found bullets in my driveway. I have heard shootings. The night of my SAT test, I was up until four in the morning because a police helicopter was circling my neighborhood! I wish I was kidding! It was all black and using a search light. Also one time I was threatened by a bunch of guys for walking on sidewalk they were pretty sure they owned. Also, no one can sell a house in my neighborhood because it is so chock full of drugs. Also, this is the best area I have ever lived in.

And yet I have a problem with guns. Go figure.

I don't think I need to respond to most of the rest of your post. I'm happy to let it stand for what it is. But pretending not to be smart enough to immediately know that I realize that whatever laws relating to gun rights would not be called "the second amendment" in other countries is kind of cute. Of course, I know it's just pretend because you didn't electrocute yourself to death trying to make that post.

And let's keep in mind that I'm not actually arguing for a ban on guns to begin with! I'm not totally sure that's wise! It seems a more nuanced middle ground, between "no guns for anybody" and "ridiculously overpowered killing machines for everyone" might be a wise route to travel.

What I'm saying is that guns, excluding hunting rifles, are for shooting people.

THESIS STATEMENT: Guns = For shooting people.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=magnusdesilentio@rpgww60462>Magnus] at: 7/15/05 1:53

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:51 am

Fine, I'll resolve the fucking bear red herring.

Bears can be defeated with:
--Fire
--Tazers
--Machetes
--More fire
--Pretty much anything that makes you look remotely difficult to kill, such as a large hat
--Rap music. (This is just a guess.)
--Star Jones. (Also a guess.)
--Tranquilizer guns (true story!)
--A hell of a lot of other things not explicitly designed for killing people

I don't know. Maybe I'm biased by all the times I went out into the woods and a bear didn't eat me, and all the information I've received over the years on how this is normal, and the time I saw on TV about how bears basically can't be bothered with anything half their size, but I just don't think bears are a major concern here!


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:54 am

Next time you go for a 'middling,' golden-mean viewpoint, you might consider making the tone of your prose much less fanatical and emanatory of the infamous 'fucking crazy' vibe. People tend to listen to you more when you don't sound like you're preaching from on high to the lowly idiots who would also come to the same conclusion if only they could see.

I didn't necessarily need to know the status of your fuckability, by the by, but I'll bear that in mind the next time your ass looks pretty.

I didn't address this in my last post, so this is a good time for it: "lame" is a bad reason to be against anything, ever, and it makes people make fun of you. We're still making fun of you, quite a great many of us, over IM. Stop abusing your capacity for hyperbole and present some rational solutions, and then maybe we'll see that you *do* have a brain in there somewhere.

Guns are not just for shooting people. Many people collect guns. Some people use guns in competition. Some people hunt, some people are in rifle clubs, some people go to shooting ranges. Riflemanship is a Boy Scout merit badge. Guns *can be used* to injure people, yes, but so can a myriad of other things. The solution is not to get rid of guns, but to fix the reasons that people have to use them against other people. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:55 am

Yeah, I know alot of people that take tazers out in the woods with them. Also realize that tazers are meant to stun humans. They would probably just annoy a bear.

Fire in woodland areas, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!

As is getting close enough to a bear to use a machetie!


Magnus, I am truely interested to see you handle a bear someday. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:58 am

Quote:
The solution is not to get rid of guns, but to fix the reasons that people have to use them against other people.


So, you're saying it would be more practical to remove all conflict from human interactions than to simply stop manufacturing guns?

I just want to be clear.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:59 am

I bet if we wanted, we could totally design a tazer that would knock out a bear. (This is just a guess. Bears are admittedly pretty badass.)

Also: The ridiculousness of carrying a tazer in the woods outweighs the thorny moral issues of gun ownership?


User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:00 am

Okay. Without guns, people'll just get boards with nails in them, and solve their conflicts that way!

Conflicts can't always be resolved without violence.

Furthermore: Yes! We could design a tazer that would stun a bear! Although I hope you fancy carring around a car battery, because that's about what it would take.

Furtherfuthermore: Jesus H Christ, just admit that you've lost every argument you've started like a man and move on. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=shinigoriv2>Shinigori]&nbsp; Image at: 7/15/05 2:01

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:02 am

Yes, actually. That would be nice.

However, it's more likely that what we'll end up doing is preventing situations from escalating to that extreme level of violence and desperation. It's one thing to get angry, it's another thing to sincerely wish death upon a human being. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:04 am

You're sure a car battery is necessary? I'm afraid I'm going to need some hard numbers on this. Science is almost as badass as a bear.

I am also glad that you brought up the fact that violence is not exclusive to guns. I recognize this, actually. But I'm not sure it breaks my argument. It seems to me that there is a big difference between standing twenty feet away from somebody and pulling a trigger a few times, and smashing someone's face with a rock.

One of them is a lot easier and a lot cleaner than the other.

I tend to think that if somebody is going to do something as awful as killing somebody else, they should have to really get their hands dirty. You know, experience it in all its glory.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:05 am

Quote:
However, it's more likely that what we'll end up doing is preventing situations from escalating to that extreme level of violence and desperation. It's one thing to get angry, it's another thing to sincerely wish death upon a human being.


That's a pretty cool idea.

Now do it for everyone in America and you'll only be a bit more effective than a gun ban.

...go!


User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:07 am

You know what else is easy?

Explosions. Threats. Fear!

FURTHERMORE:

Tazers are conveniant in that they put the electric charge of a battery into something else. That's how they work! How much electricity would be needed to stun a bear? Alot! Bears are tough!

needless to say, you'd need alot of batteries to stun a bear. A pair of Double-As aren't going to cut it. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:08 am

It's already started. Bartenders will tell people who are being violent to leave. Lawsuits are easier to file than ever before. It's becoming harder and harder to escalate to blows, and easier and easier to find a less bloody solution to your qualms. Progress!

Also, as for the bear thing.

If you're going to be carrying around a taser that can K.O. a bear, what makes you think, in any universe, that such a device would be incapable of outright destroying a human being's life functions? At least with a firearm the victim has a really good chance to survive! <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 7/15/05 2:11

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:13 am

It seems to me that the basic argument you guys have going is that

A) We need guns because of terrorists and bears, and

B) We need guns because people are becoming so peaceful that soon we won't need them.

I'll extricate myself from this thread until you two can work that one out, or somebody comes in with a new argument. It seems you guys have as much to argue about as I do with either of you, and my dirty liberal presence is just a distraction from the consensus you could be building between the "guns will protect us from ridiculously unlikely events" and "guns will protect us from the kindness of people" factions.


User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:14 am

Actually, I never really argued much about guns. I was just saying that you're dumb for saying the best way to deal with such an animal is to outsmart it.

After all, you must be far more intelligent, what with your opposable thumbs and all. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:16 am

You know, actually, if you'd bothered to read you'd realize that what I was working towards was a solution--or at least the evidence that a solution has been wrought and is in the stages of implementation--rather than arguing specifically against you. Guess what? You didn't lose the argument. Neither did I. You trivialize yourself by showing your inability to distinguish between rational discourse and a rival system of 'yuh-huh' 'nuh-uh' quabbling. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 7/15/05 2:23

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:17 am

Oh: Thanks for the custom post rank. I feel special and bear-eaten. (Continues not to argue anymore.)


Next

Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron

Yalogank