New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Famine]

Slings are weapons to, like other ammo delivery system.

If it's your contention that the delivery system is the weapon then not only is the bullet still the weapon (they contain the chemical energy store) but so is the person wielding the sword, knife, or hammer, and not the actual tool.

The weapon is the thing that delivers the force: the hammer, the knife, the club, the sword, the arrow and the bullet.

One could argue that it evolved from knives as a tool to cut meat, cloth etc,

Like bullets, knives have different designs depending on what they are for. You can still skin a deer with a butter knife, like you can still kill a person with an air rifle pellet, but really you want the right tool for the job.

To say swords for combat "evolved from knives" chronically misunderstands knives. The word you're looking for is "daggers", a group of short knives with a thrusting point for deep tissue penetration and sharp edges for slashing skin and flesh.

To kill an animal (including a human) you need the right bullet too. It needs to be heavy enough to impart significant force while also being able to penetrate the outer layers but not so penetrative that it passes through the whole body. Of course if you can hit the heart or brain, or major blood vessels, it doesn't matter, but really you need the bullet to get inside and stay inside to deliver all of the force in order to do damage.

Right tool for the job and all that.

 

[PocketZeven]

If it's your contention that the delivery system is the weapon then not only is the bullet still the weapon (they contain the chemical energy store) but so is the person wielding the sword, knife, or hammer, and not the actual tool.

The weapon is the thing that delivers the force: the hammer, the knife, the club, the sword, the arrow and the bullet.

Like bullets, knives have different designs depending on what they are for. You can still skin a deer with a butter knife, like you can still kill a person with an air rifle pellet, but really you want the right tool for the job.

To say swords for combat "evolved from knives" chronically misunderstands knives. The word you're looking for is "daggers", a group of short knives with a thrusting point for deep tissue penetration and sharp edges for slashing skin and flesh.

To kill an animal (including a human) you need the right bullet too. It needs to be heavy enough to impart significant force while also being able to penetrate the outer layers but not so penetrative that it passes through the whole body. Of course if you can hit the heart or brain, or major blood vessels, it doesn't matter, but really you need the bullet to get inside and stay inside to deliver all of the force in order to do damage.

Right tool for the job and all that.

You are being very arbitrary now. With that logic it isn’t cars themselves that are used for transport or race but the wheels. The engine is only delivering the force or the wheels?

In other news:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/10/asia/new-zealand-gun-law-reform-intl/index.html

 

[Famine]

You are being very arbitrary now.

Nope, I'm entirely consistent. You're changing how you class things according to your purposes - which is the very definition of arbitrary.

If it's your contention that the delivery system - where the force comes from - is the weapon, you must classify the sword-wielder as the weapon. The weapon is actually the thing that causes the damage by force amplification, which is the sword. Inconveniently for you, the bullet both provides and delivers the force.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope, I'm entirely consistent. You're changing how you class things according to your purposes - which is the very definition of arbitrary.

If it's your contention that the delivery system - where the force comes from - is the weapon, you must classify the sword-wielder as the weapon. The weapon is actually the thing that causes the damage by force amplification, which is the sword. Inconveniently for you, the bullet both provides and delivers the force.

No it isnt. I never claimed the force deliverer is the weapon. I stated guns, swords etc. are weapons. You just chose to twist that statement into your own narrative. You just entirely made up that I was claiming the force delivery system is the weapon?!?! Also I wasnt the only one proclaiming swords are designed to kill.

edit:

I am happy that the 119-1 in NZ parliament share my view in contrary to yours. Hopefully it will outweigh the cons. I am pretty sure in the UK victims of misuse of guns are also small. Yet in your opinion people should be able to obtain them freely. Have you really thought about the consequences for the UK of such premise just to free the UK from "tyranny"?

 

[Famine]

No it isnt. I never claimed the force deliverer is the weapon.

You just entirely made up that I was claiming the force delivery system is the weapon?!?!

Meanwhile, three posts earlier...

Slings are weapons to, like other ammo delivery system.

It's all well and good making sweeping statements like this, but you haven't spent a moment to think about it:

If it's your contention that the delivery system is the weapon then not only is the bullet still the weapon (they contain the chemical energy store) but so is the person wielding the sword, knife, or hammer, and not the actual tool.

The weapon is the thing that delivers the force: the hammer, the knife, the club, the sword, the arrow and the bullet.

I haven't claimed anything you haven't actually said (that's your trick), and there's no need to twist anything - you're just not thinking things through.

Also I wasnt the only one proclaiming swords are designed to kill.

A point you then argued against by claiming the delivery system is the weapon and not the thing designed to create damage by imparting force.

And still, the bullet does both.

 

[PocketZeven]

Meanwhile, three posts earlier...

It's all well and good making sweeping statements like this, but you haven't spent a moment to think about it:

I haven't claimed anything you haven't actually said (that's your trick), and there's no need to twist anything - you're just not thinking things through.

A point you then argued against by claiming the delivery system is the weapon and not the thing designed to create damage by imparting force.

And still, the bullet does both.

Uhmm, but ammo delivery system and force delivery system are 2 totally different statements. I did not claim that only ammo delivery system (or delivery systems) are the weapons??? How did you conclude from my statement "ammo delivery system are weapons too" to "only the force delivery system is the weapon"?? Read more carefully please. A weapon is a tool purposefully designed to kill/destroy. Like ammo delivery systems, swords etc.

edit:
It might caused confusion when I misspelled "too"with "to".

 

[Famine]

Uhmm, but ammo delivery system and force delivery system are 2 totally different statements.

Do you remember that post I wasted my time on because you completely ignored it? Go back and actually read it.

Force is provided to an object, which amplifies the force to cause damage. In the case of a hand weapon, the force comes from the wielder and the weapon amplifies it (by weight or sharpness) to cause damage. For a slingshot a human provides energy by whirling it about, the sling acts to lengthen the axis (like a longer handle on a sledgehammer) to increase the force the person can provide and that releases the projectile. The projectile then causes the damage.

If it's your contention that the sling is the weapon, then for someone wielding a sword their arm is the weapon. They occupy the same spot in the force amplification system. The weapon is actually the thing that causes the damage - the sword or the shot.

Amusingly you agree that the thing designed to cause damage is the weapon, so you have to agree that the sword and shot are the weapon, not the arm and the sling.

And it is still the case that the bullet both provides the energy and causes the damage, so it's the weapon in both cases. But you cannot see that because you cannot approach the subject objectively. It's just "guns are bad" and when you run out of things to say we get links about gun-related deaths.

How did you conclude from my statement "ammo delivery system are weapons too" to "only the force delivery system is the weapon"??

Nice job reinventing your posts...

Slings are weapons to, like other ammo delivery system.

Read more carefully please

Yeah you don't get to play that card AND the 'English is not my first language' card. Especially not when misquoting yourself.

A weapon is a tool purposefully designed to kill/destroy.

Like some kinds of bullet, yes.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you remember that post I wasted my time on because you completely ignored it? Go back and actually read it.

Force is provided to an object, which amplifies the force to cause damage. In the case of a hand weapon, the force comes from the wielder and the weapon amplifies it (by weight or sharpness) to cause damage. For a slingshot a human provides energy by whirling it about, the sling acts to lengthen the axis (like a longer handle on a sledgehammer) to increase the force the person can provide and that releases the projectile. The projectile then causes the damage.

If it's your contention that the sling is the weapon, then for someone wielding a sword their arm is the weapon. They occupy the same spot in the force amplification system. The weapon is actually the thing that causes the damage - the sword or the shot.

Amusingly you agree that the thing designed to cause damage is the weapon, so you have to agree that the sword and shot are the weapon, not the arm and the sling.

And it is still the case that the bullet both provides the energy and causes the damage, so it's the weapon in both cases. But you cannot see that because you cannot approach the subject objectively. It's just "guns are bad" and when you run out of things to say we get links about gun-related deaths.
Nice job reinventing your posts...


Yeah you don't get to play that card AND the 'English is not my first language' card. Especially not when misquoting yourself.

Like some kinds of bullet, yes.

I disagree that the force determines the "weapon". The tool that is used for is the weapon. I am not sure but is a bullet a tool?

English is not my first language. I speak dutch, english, german, chinese (in 2 different dialects) almost daily. As a result I am prone to making mistakes. At least make a little effort to relate to multilangual people.

 

[Famine]

I disagree that the force determines the "weapon".

Then you don't understand what weapons are for and haven't read the post I babied you through.

The point of a weapon is to deliver more force than the human body can alone, in order to create damage. They're heavy and/or fast to increase kinetic energy and/or sharp to increase pressure. If that wasn't the point, we'd still be using our hands...

English is not my first language. I speak dutch, english, german, chinese (in 2 different dialects) almost daily. As a result I am prone to making mistakes.

If you recognise you can make mistakes in your writing because it is not your first language, why insist other people are at fault in their reading?

You can play one card or the other, not both.

At least make a little effort to relate to multilangual people.

 

[PocketZeven]

Then you don't understand what weapons are for and haven't read the post I babied you through.

The point of a weapon is to deliver more force than the human body can alone, in order to create damage. They're heavy and/or fast to increase kinetic energy and/or sharp to increase pressure. If that wasn't the point, we'd still be using our hands...

If you recognise you can make mistakes in your writing because it is not your first language, why insist other people are at fault in their reading?

You can play one card or the other, not both.

Because you tend to misrepresent my writing. The point of a weapon is not just to deliver more force, the point is to kill the enemy. A dagger for example only uses the force of a human. It does not enhance the force, unlike maybe a sword. Why is that difficult for you to acknowledge? What other purpose do weapons have?

 

[Famine]

Because you tend to misrepresent my writing.

Yeah, you tried that one before, and it came down to using quotation marks, which you do more often (including your previous post). Nothing I have quoted you as saying is something you haven't said - although you've tried to say I've said things other than those I've said three times in this thread and could not back them up when requested to provide quotes. And you've tried to do it once for your own posts, on this page.

The point of a weapon is not just to deliver more force, the point is to kill the enemy.

By delivering force. That's literally how they work. I babied you through this.

A dagger for example only uses the force of a human. It does not enhance the force, unlike maybe a sword.

A dagger uses a sharp point to stab and a sharp edge to slash. Both provide their force over a smaller area, resulting in increased pressure at the point, which creates the damage. If they were not sharp, they would not cause any damage from stabbing and slashing, because there would not be an increase of pressure.

Literally been through this already, including in the post you quoted and the post I babied you through. It's about as basic as physics gets - even infant school kids get taught that sharp things hurt more, because force over area equals pressure.

Why is that difficult for you to acknowledge?

Why would I want to acknowledge something that nobody's said and which is wrong? How would I acknowledge it if no-one's said it?

What other purpose do weapons have?

Strange question to ask, given that no-one's asserted any other purpose for weapons.

Tools exist to magnify the amount of force (up and down) a human can exert alone. Weapons do that to cause harm.

 

[Danoff]

I think at least there is common ground in that the majority of guns are bought to be used as weapons, but that not all people buy them to kill people.

At best that describes 2 out of 6 of mine. At worst it's zero. You seriously needed to heed my advice when I said that this was not going to get you anywhere.

Let's talk about what it means for a thing to have a purpose. Oooooh, and I'll take a shot at some of our car enthusiasts with this one while I'm at it.

Does a sports car have a purpose? Let's take a specific sports car, like a C6 corvette. What is its purpose? To be driven fast right? I mean that's what it's good at is it not?

Not so fast (sorry for the pun). When the C6 is first sold, it's sold by the company that designed and manufactured it, to a consumer who purchased it and effectively financed its design and manufacture. So which of those two parties gets to say what it's for? The company that made it? Or the person that it was made for? What if they don't agree?

Let's say GM thinks the purpose of the car is to go fast (it doesn't, it says the purpose is to turn a profit, but let's say it does). And let's say the buyer thinks that the purpose is to turn a profit (this is an ironic example). So GM says "we built this car to go fast", and the buyer says "thanks for the car, I'll be shrink wrapping it and putting it in the basement for 50 years and then selling it for more". Who is right?

Let's say that two buyers disagree.

GM says "we built this car to go fast" and sells it to two people. The first one says "I bought this to turn a profit" and the next one says "I bought this to go fast". Now is it built to go fast? What if GM says "we built this car to turn a profit" and sells it to two people. The first one says "I bought this to turn a profit" and the next one says "I bought this to go fast". Now is it built to turn a profit? What if one buyer just wants to look at it? What if one buyer wants to review it? What if one buyer wants to reverse engineer it for the purpose of designing a better car for a different company? What if one buyer wants to race it? What if one buyer just wants to look cool in it but doesn't actually want to go fast? What if one buyer wants to crash test it?

What if GM says "we built this car to satisfy the obligations for a racing event which we want to enter"? What if GM says "we built this car to show the concept of a design we're thinking about maybe someday building differently?" What is the purpose of the car? There are a lot of competing theories here.

Here's another competing theory, which is probably one that you're thinking about right now and using to argue with me in your head. What if the purpose is the objective that the engineers who designed it had in mind? So then the purpose of the car is to go fast right?

Well....

That depends on the engineer. Some of the engineers were probably focused on ride quality, or safety, or longevity, or gas mileage, or meeting indicator regulations. And of course some of the designs were borrowed from previous cars. Which means that if you're going to try to borrow from the minds of the string of engineers that contributed to the design of the car throughout the decades, you're going back to the mental objective of engineers who designed some of the very first modes of transport. Now, let's say that the engineer who first designed the component and the engineer who decides to incorporate that component disagree on what it was for! So let's say for example that the first piston design was for pumping water in a garden. But some moron at GM thinks that the piston is for making a car go fast. Which one is right?

Guns are not different from cars in this conversation. The design of a gun (like cars) has grown and changed over the years, modified by countless engineers for various different purposes, including for ergonomics, longevity, weight, cost, and to satisfy regulations. The modern gun design has components in it that are nothing like the first guns, and they operate very differently on the whole. Not at the most fundamental level of course, but then at the most fundamental level they operate like cars, using an explosion in a cylinder to convert chemical potential energy into translational motion.

So what is the "purpose" of an object? Is it what the engineers had in mind? Well, no. Because no one person engineered it with a single goal in mind. Many engineers contributed in lots of ways for lots of reasons. Is it the purpose of the "first" example of that object in history? Well that just kicks the same problem to a different question, and also how on earth would you figure out what the "first" one was? You'd be putting more weight on one component of the design (which survived revisions) while ignoring some other component (which did not). Is it the purpose of the designer or manufacturer? No, because designers and manufacturers of guns have lots of different purposes. Most of which are usually to make money, but some of which might be R&D, tech demonstrations, or simply reducing cost for for one model compared to another (or to make it good at sport, or for display... etc. etc.). And different designers and manufacturers might disagree from one gun to the next, and between each other when comparing different models. Is it the purpose that the buyer wants to use it for? Well that's a tough one too, because buyers disagree all over the place on what guns are for, but also the gun was produced with knowing exactly what the buyer was going to use it for.

So what is the purpose of an object? It doesn't have one purpose. It exists because of a web of interactions of individuals which each have their own motives.

 

[BobK]

Except for guns. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing people. All guns. Period. Full stop. Resistance is futile.

 

[PocketZeven]

At best that describes 2 out of 6 of mine. At worst it's zero. You seriously needed to heed my advice when I said that this was not going to get you anywhere.

Let's talk about what it means for a thing to have a purpose. Oooooh, and I'll take a shot at some of our car enthusiasts with this one while I'm at it.

Does a sports car have a purpose? Let's take a specific sports car, like a C6 corvette. What is its purpose? To be driven fast right? I mean that's what it's good at is it not?

Not so fast (sorry for the pun). When the C6 is first sold, it's sold by the company that designed and manufactured it, to a consumer who purchased it and effectively financed its design and manufacture. So which of those two parties gets to say what it's for? The company that made it? Or the person that it was made for? What if they don't agree?

Let's say GM thinks the purpose of the car is to go fast (it doesn't, it says the purpose is to turn a profit, but let's say it does). And let's say the buyer thinks that the purpose is to turn a profit (this is an ironic example). So GM says "we built this car to go fast", and the buyer says "thanks for the car, I'll be shrink wrapping it and putting it in the basement for 50 years and then selling it for more". Who is right?

Let's say that two buyers disagree.

GM says "we built this car to go fast" and sells it to two people. The first one says "I bought this to turn a profit" and the next one says "I bought this to go fast". Now is it built to go fast? What if GM says "we built this car to turn a profit" and sells it to two people. The first one says "I bought this to turn a profit" and the next one says "I bought this to go fast". Now is it built to turn a profit? What if one buyer just wants to look at it? What if one buyer wants to review it? What if one buyer wants to reverse engineer it for the purpose of designing a better car for a different company? What if one buyer wants to race it? What if one buyer just wants to look cool in it but doesn't actually want to go fast? What if one buyer wants to crash test it?

What if GM says "we built this car to satisfy the obligations for a racing event which we want to enter"? What if GM says "we built this car to show the concept of a design we're thinking about maybe someday building differently?" What is the purpose of the car? There are a lot of competing theories here.

Here's another competing theory, which is probably one that you're thinking about right now and using to argue with me in your head. What if the purpose is the objective that the engineers who designed it had in mind? So then the purpose of the car is to go fast right?

Well....

That depends on the engineer. Some of the engineers were probably focused on ride quality, or safety, or longevity, or gas mileage, or meeting indicator regulations. And of course some of the designs were borrowed from previous cars. Which means that if you're going to try to borrow from the minds of the string of engineers that contributed to the design of the car throughout the decades, you're going back to the mental objective of engineers who designed some of the very first modes of transport. Now, let's say that the engineer who first designed the component and the engineer who decides to incorporate that component disagree on what it was for! So let's say for example that the first piston design was for pumping water in a garden. But some moron at GM thinks that the piston is for making a car go fast. Which one is right?

Guns are not different from cars in this conversation. The design of a gun (like cars) has grown and changed over the years, modified by countless engineers for various different purposes, including for ergonomics, longevity, weight, cost, and to satisfy regulations. The modern gun design has components in it that are nothing like the first guns, and they operate very differently on the whole. Not at the most fundamental level of course, but then at the most fundamental level they operate like cars, using an explosion in a cylinder to convert chemical potential energy into translational motion.

So what is the "purpose" of an object? Is it what the engineers had in mind? Well, no. Because no one person engineered it with a single goal in mind. Many engineers contributed in lots of ways for lots of reasons. Is it the purpose of the "first" example of that object in history? Well that just kicks the same problem to a different question, and also how on earth would you figure out what the "first" one was? You'd be putting more weight on one component of the design (which survived revisions) while ignoring some other component (which did not). Is it the purpose of the designer or manufacturer? No, because designers and manufacturers of guns have lots of different purposes. Most of which are usually to make money, but some of which might be R&D, tech demonstrations, or simply reducing cost for for one model compared to another (or to make it good at sport, or for display... etc. etc.). And different designers and manufacturers might disagree from one gun to the next, and between each other when comparing different models. Is it the purpose that the buyer wants to use it for? Well that's a tough one too, because buyers disagree all over the place on what guns are for, but also the gun was produced with knowing exactly what the buyer was going to use it for.

So what is the purpose of an object? It doesn't have one purpose. It exists because of a web of interactions of individuals which each have their own motives.

I actually pointed out I agree with your point of view. The purpose of an object is what you make of it. I was merely pointing out that the design purpose of how guns were invented and evolved to where they are now is to use as a weapon. Perhaps I am using the wrong words but in essence the reason why guns were invented and are in the majority are in use today. The current is more efficient in its design purpose then the orginal.

 

[Danoff]

I actually pointed out I agree with your point of view. The purpose of an object is what you make of it. I was merely pointing out that the design purpose of how guns were invented and evolved to where they are now is to use as a weapon. Perhaps I am using the wrong words but in essence the reason why guns were invented and are in the majority are in use today. The current is more efficient in its design purpose then the orginal.

There isn't one. There is no single design purpose. Is the design purpose to satisfy the purchase purpose? Is the design purpose the iterative difference between one model and the previous? For example could the purpose be to make the older one lighter? Can the design purpose be to sell better?

I hope you see that the use of "design purpose" instead of "purpose" does nothing to change the problem you face. In fact, there is no one specific purpose, no matter how you phrase it.

 

[PocketZeven]

There isn't one. There is no single design purpose. Is the design purpose to satisfy the purchase purpose? Is the design purpose the iterative difference between one model and the previous? For example could the purpose be to make the older one lighter? Can the design purpose be to sell better?

I hope you see that the use of "design purpose" instead of "purpose" does nothing to change the problem you face. In fact, there is no one specific purpose, no matter how you phrase it.

Perhaps I am using "purpose" wrong? I didnt mean "single" purpose, but more accurately "primary" purpose.

I dont how to phrase it any other way in english. Perhaps design DNA? Most tools are designed for a primary purpose. Like how a pc mouse was designed to move a cursor on screen, a calculator for calculating, a watch is for telling time, a pan is for cooking, a glass for drinking etc. How do you describe that? What is the correct proper phrasing? I have this feeling that we are miscommunicating, because of a misunderstanding.

For example:
If i buy a fancy glass, the manufaturers purpose is to make money. one could change the size and perhaps improve the design, but ultimately it is still for drinking. Alternatively individuals might use it for storage or other purposes. When I am not home I dont use it at all, because I prefer using a mug. But a glass still clearly has the purpose as a container for liquids to drink out of.

I can be more specific in that for example wine glasses are purposefully designed to drink wine out of. What is then relevant to explore if the purpose was to make the glass lighter or the differences between models etc. ?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps I am using "purpose" wrong? I didnt mean "single" purpose, but more accurately "primary" purpose.

I dont how to phrase it any other way in english. Perhaps design DNA? Most tools are designed for a primary purpose. Like how a pc mouse was designed to move a cursor on screen, a calculator for calculating, a watch is for telling time, a pan is for cooking, a glass for drinking etc. How do you describe that? What is the correct proper phrasing? I have this feeling that we are miscommunicating, because of a misunderstanding.

If i buy a glass, the manufaturers purpose is to make money. one could change the size and perhaps improve the design, but ultimately it is still for drinking. Alternatively individuals might use it for storage or other purposes. But a glass clearly has the purpose as a container for liquids to drink out of.

Objects do not have a purpose. Human beings impart purposes on them, and do so in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, none of which is intrinsic to the object. An object simply is. The purpose of the human that designed it, or of the many humans that contributed to its design is irrelevant to the existence of the object, and it is irrelevant to the purposes of the humans that choose to use the object.

You're not going to get anywhere with this.

By the way, while we were talking about this, I posted in the America thread about a massive Denver area school shutdown over fears of a shooter. I criticized a number of things in US law, such as the ability of an 18 year old to buy a gun on the spot, an 18 year old on an FBI watch list. I criticized schools that allow children to bring backpacks to the school (backpacks can be done away with entirely). I had a lengthy discussion with my wife (and didn't post the results of that till now) about how I'd be perfectly fine with various classes of gun license, which require updated background checks, mental health evaluation, and registration. I don't know that all of our gun-loving fans here would be so on-board with this, I should bring it up in the gun thread to get a response.

But the point I want to make in this thread is this... a discussion of bans (which is lazy) and even a discussion like this one about philosophical purpose of inanimate objects, while interesting and philosophically fun, if done at a national level (which is kinda but not exactly what's happening) distracts from real workable improvements to security. Improvements like banning backpacks from high schools. I we want to really do something about this, we should be talking about this more practically.

 

[PocketZeven]

Objects do not have a purpose. Human beings impart purposes on them, and do so in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, none of which is intrinsic to the object. An object simply is. The purpose of the human that designed it, or of the many humans that contributed to its design is irrelevant to the existence of the object, and it is irrelevant to the purposes of the humans that choose to use the object.

You're not going to get anywhere with this.

By the way, while we were talking about this, I posted in the America thread about a massive Denver area school shutdown over fears of a shooter. I criticized a number of things in US law, such as the ability of an 18 year old to buy a gun on the spot, an 18 year old on an FBI watch list. I criticized schools that allow children to bring backpacks to the school (backpacks can be done away with entirely). I had a lengthy discussion with my wife (and didn't post the results of that till now) about how I'd be perfectly fine with various classes of gun license, which require updated background checks, mental health evaluation, and registration. I don't know that all of our gun-loving fans here would be so on-board with this, I should bring it up in the gun thread to get a response.

But the point I want to make in this thread is this... a discussion of bans (which is lazy) and even a discussion like this one about philosophical purpose of inanimate objects, while interesting and philosophically fun, if done at a national level (which is kinda but not exactly what's happening) distracts from real workable improvements to security. Improvements like banning backpacks from high schools. I we want to really do something about this, we should be talking about this more practically.

I dont agree with that. The reason how the design of a glass came to be is very relevant to its existence. Because without it, it would have never been invented or even existed.

As I said before I think we are pretty close to eachother concerning gunlaws. I did not propose the banning by the way, but was merely applauding NZ for taking action. Banning backpacks is another humanrights thing though. Back packs are just for storing stuff and not dangerous to anyone else. In most countries backpacks are not even thought of being a risk to safety. But concerning the problem you proposed concerning schools, gunlaws should be changed so that it is almost impossible for a child to get acces to one.

Edit:
Also its kinda ironic you suggest banning backpacks at schools to banning guns. (ownership exclusively through licensing)

 

[Danoff]

I dont agree with that. The reason how the design of a glass came to be is very relevant to its existence. Because without it, it would have never been invented or even existed.

Irrelevant.

What implications do the necessary conditions for something existing have to do with anything after it exists? For example, the glass couldn't have existed without the invention of the furnace. Does that have a bearing on its nature? What about my deadbeat parents? I couldn't exist without them, and yet, they don't define my "purpose". If someone invents a hammer to pound nails, and I use it as art (Pink Floyd, The Wall), does that mean I misused it?

Banning backpacks is another humanrights thing though. Back packs are just for storing stuff and not dangerous to anyone else.

Yea you can't ban backpacks in public. But you could ban them in a high school. High schools ban certain t-shirts, certain shorts or skirts, they ban all kinds of things. If you're going to be in high school, you play by their rules. You can't even decide when to go to the bathroom.

Also its kinda ironic you suggest banning backpacks at schools to banning guns. (ownership exclusively through licensing)

Guns are already banned at high schools.

 

[PocketZeven]

Irrelevant.

What implications do the necessary conditions for something existing have to do with anything after it exists? For example, the glass couldn't have existed without the invention of the furnace. Does that have a bearing on its nature? What about my deadbeat parents? I couldn't exist without them, and yet, they don't define my "purpose". If someone invents a hammer to pound nails, and I use it as art (Pink Floyd, The Wall), does that mean I misused it?



Yea you can't ban backpacks in public. But you could ban them in a high school. High schools ban certain t-shirts, certain shorts or skirts, they ban all kinds of things. If you're going to be in high school, you play by their rules. You can't even decide when to go to the bathroom.



Guns are already banned at high schools.

Irrelevant to whom? For the user, seller and pretty much everyone else it is. I dont exclude use of that glass to drinking though,. It is its primary usecase. One could use it as art or for storage etc. But the majority use it for drinking.

I guess high schools are different in the USA. A ban for backpacks would be very strange here.

I get what you mean, but I understand you are somewhat conflicted banning anything at any place, but at least you sunderstand my viewpoint that the absense of guns does reduce the risk of misuse of one. (albeit in a school).

edit: in contrary to the NRA view that more guns will make you safer. (only way to stop a bad guy withy a gun, is a good guy with a gun)

 

[Danoff]

Irrelevant to whom? For the user, seller and pretty much everyone else it is. I dont exclude use of that glass to drinking though,. It is its primary usecase. One could use it as art or for storage etc. But the majority use it for drinking.

So what? If the majority of people who own glasses use them for drinking, what is your conclusion here? Because I'm pretty sure it's not going to follow...

I guess high schools are different in the USA. A ban for backpacks would be very strange here.

What do you mean by strange? I suggested it because backpacks are prevalent here, and can be used effectively to bring firearms into a school by a student of the school.

I get what you mean, but I understand you are somewhat conflicted banning anything at any place,

I'm not really conflicted about banning things in highs school. They already ban guns, and I'm not calling for students to be allowed to open-carry in the hallway. I also don't think their rights are infringed when even an 18 year old student is told that her skirt is too short and that she needs to change.

but at least you sunderstand my viewpoint that the absense of guns does reduce the risk of misuse of one. (albeit in a school).

I'm all for the absence of deadly weapons (of any sort) in the hands of teenagers in schools, including knives, swords, bows, bombs, and cars.

edit: in contrary to the NRA view that more guns will make you safer. (only way to stop a bad guy withy a gun, is a good guy with a gun)

That view is pretty much tautologically correct, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But the way to stop a bad teenager with a gun is not necessarily to arm teenagers, it'd be to have armed police.

 

[PocketZeven]

So what? If the majority of people who own glasses use them for drinking, what is your conclusion here? Because I'm pretty sure it's not going to follow...



What do you mean by strange? I suggested it because backpacks are prevalent here, and can be used effectively to bring firearms into a school by a student of the school.



I'm not really conflicted about banning things in highs school. They already ban guns, and I'm not calling for students to be allowed to open-carry in the hallway. I also don't think their rights are infringed when even an 18 year old student is told that her skirt is too short and that she needs to change.



I'm all for the absence of deadly weapons (of any sort) in the hands of teenagers in schools, including knives, swords, bows, bombs, and cars.




That view is pretty much tautologically correct, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But the way to stop a bad teenager with a gun is not necessarily to arm teenagers, it'd be to have armed police.

That means that a glass was designed for that purpose (or alternatively insert more appropiate word/phrase). If it was irrelevant you could use any other object to achieve the same result.

I actually do think that telling an 18 year old student to change, because her skirt is too short, is infringing her rights. Simply because a short skirt doesnt have a high risk infringing other's rights, unlike weapons like knives, guns etc.

Is it that hard to apply it to your neighbourhood, city, state and perhaps nationwide? If it improves safety on a school level, it isnt that bold to say it would on a national level. Again I am not against proper ownership through licensing.

 

[Danoff]

That means that a glass was designed for that purpose (or alternatively insert more appropiate word/phrase). If it was irrelevant you could use any other object to achieve the same result.

You could use a bowl. Or a plastic cup.

So what if the majority of people use something for that which it was not originally designed? Like what if guns were designed to kill people (hear me out here), and most people didn't use them for that.

I actually do think that telling an 18 year old student to change, because her skirt is too short, is infringing her rights. Simply because a short skirt doesnt have a high risk infringing other's rights, unlike weapons like knives, guns etc.

Voluntary vs. forced.

Is it that hard to apply it to your neighbourhood, city, state and perhaps nationwide? If it improves safety on a school level, it isnt that bold to say it would on a national level. Again I am not against proper ownership through licensing.

Yes. Because one of them is voluntary and one of them is not. You don't have to go to a public school, you can go to a private one, or be home schooled.

 

[PocketZeven]

You could use a bowl. Or a plastic cup.

So what if the majority of people use something for that which it was not originally designed? Like what if guns were designed to kill people (hear me out here), and most people didn't use them for that.



Voluntary vs. forced.



Yes. Because one of them is voluntary and one of them is not. You don't have to go to a public school, you can go to a private one, or be home schooled.

Exactly these objects were also designed to do similar things. If it was really irrelevant I could use a hammer to drink beer. I never tried to claim that all gunusers use them to kill. I was trying to say that guns were designed to kill, but that doesnt mean all gunowners are murderers. Like not all glassowners use them to drink out of. But what if glasses hypothtically were a dangerous object, because it can break very easily or other reasons, would you ban it or listen to protest of the people who love to use glasses for other purposes? And blame the glasusers for misusing the glasses.

Isnt the premise that the girl isnt allowed to wear that skirt? Isnt that forcing her? Or did I misunderstood?

 

[Danoff]

Exactly these objects were also designed to do similar things. If it was really irrelevant I could use a hammer to drink beer. I never tried to claim that all gunusers use them to kill. I was trying to say that guns were designed to kill, but that doesnt mean all gunowners are murderers. Like not all glassowners use them to drink out of. But what if glasses hypothtically were a dangerous object, because it can break very easily or other reasons, would you ban it or listen to protest of the people who love to use glasses for other purposes? And blame the glasusers for misusing the glasses.

You're gonna have to try again on this one. I'm totally not following you. You mean that if an object can achieve a result that less than all other objects can achieve then that is the purpose? Because then a glass is for drinking and also for not drinking, and also for throwing, and killing, and setting on a table, and breaking into pieces of glass, and transmitting certain levels of light, and holding only certain amounts of liquid, and for shooting, and for inclusion in a movie, and for being able to view with the naked eye.

That definition of "purpose" includes almost everything possible as the "purpose". Also, just FYI

Isnt the premise that the girl isnt allowed to wear that skirt? Isnt that forcing her? Or did I misunderstood?

She's not forced to attend that school (as an 18 year old). She's voluntarily attending that school. Children (under 18) can be forced to do many things they don't want to do, but still have some of their rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're gonna have to try again on this one. I'm totally not following you. You mean that if an object can achieve a result that less than all other objects can achieve then that is the purpose? Because then a glass is for drinking and also for not drinking, and also for throwing, and killing, and setting on a table, and breaking into pieces of glass, and transmitting certain levels of light, and holding only certain amounts of liquid, and for shooting, and for inclusion in a movie, and for being able to view with the naked eye.

That definition of "purpose" includes almost everything possible as the "purpose". Also, just FYI

She's not forced to attend that school (as an 18 year old). She's voluntarily attending that school. Children (under 18) can be forced to do many things they don't want to do, but still have some of their rights.

I get what you are saying. Purpose is what you give it. But what is the proper word for the usecase an object was meant to be used for? How would you phrase it? Like if you invented the toothbrush and say its "design purpose" is to clean teeth. Or am I using purpose wrong?


I didnt equate that she has the choice for another school.

edit: spelling correction

 

[Danoff]

I get what you are saying. Purpose is what you give it. But what is the proper word for the usecase an object was meant to be used for? How would you phrase it? Like if you invented the toothbrush and say its "design purpose" is to clean teeth. Or am I using purpose wrong?

I don't think you're misusing the concept of "design purpose" or "usecase", but they're not well defined enough to actually use for guns, especially for gun legislation. It's like saying guns are beautiful. I mean, sure that's a word, and it's used correctly there, but it's opinion and not fact. Perhaps is your "opinion" that the design purpose is what it is, but I think I've demonstrated that it's not fact, and that there are so many ways to interpret that that there is no such thing as a right answer to that question.

It's kindof a weird opinion to hold too, because it's somewhat demonstrably wrong. Kinda like saying "guns are beautiful" is demonstrably wrong, because someone will say "I don't think so". Which means it is not an agreed upon property of all people that it's beautiful. Meaning it's not. So you could rephrase to something that can't be disproven... like "guns are beautiful to me". So you might say "to me, guns are for killing". But that's kinda like saying "to me, the earth is flat". Hear me out, hear me out.

Because the earth is flat from a perspective, at least parts of the earth are flat. You could prove that some portion of the earth really is flat, just like you could probably prove that some portion of guns are for killing, but that doesn't make the entire earth flat. And it can be proven that other portions of the earth are not flat (and some guns are not for killing). Directly counter to your opinion. Which would make your opinion wrong.

You're still not going to get anywhere with this.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think you're misusing the concept of "design purpose" or "usecase", but they're not well defined enough to actually use for guns, especially for gun legislation. It's like saying guns are beautiful. I mean, sure that's a word, and it's used correctly there, but it's opinion and not fact. Perhaps is your "opinion" that the design purpose is what it is, but I think I've demonstrated that it's not fact, and that there are so many ways to interpret that that there is no such thing as a right answer to that question.

It's kindof a weird opinion to hold too, because it's somewhat demonstrably wrong. Kinda like saying "guns are beautiful" is demonstrably wrong, because someone will say "I don't think so". Which means it is not an agreed upon property of all people that it's beautiful. Meaning it's not. So you could rephrase to something that can't be disproven... like "guns are beautiful to me". So you might say "to me, guns are for killing". But that's kinda like saying "to me, the earth is flat". Hear me out, hear me out.

Because the earth is flat from a perspective, at least parts of the earth are flat. You could prove that some portion of the earth really is flat, just like you could probably prove that some portion of guns are for killing, but that doesn't make the entire earth flat. And it can be proven that other portions of the earth are not flat (and some guns are not for killing). Directly counter to your opinion. Which would make your opinion wrong.

You're still not going to get anywhere with this.

How should I phrase, that guns are designed to kill/destroy as toothbrushes are to brush teeth? I mean toothbrushes are designed for brushing teeth, but is that fact or opinion?

At least to me guns are designed/meant for killing as the world to me isnt flat. I think we have concensus there isnt a right or wrong, just a difference of opinion.

 

[Danoff]

How should I phrase, that guns are designed to kill/destroy as toothbrushes are to brush teeth? I mean toothbrushes are designed for brushing teeth, but is that fact or opinion?

At least to me guns are designed/meant for killing as the world to me isnt flat. I think we have concensus there isnt a right or wrong, just a difference of opinion.

No you seem to think that toothbrushes are designed for brushing teeth and guns are designed to kill/destroy and it's a fact. It's not though...

What they're designed for and what they're used for are different things, and often they're not designed by one person with one goal but multiple people with many goals.

 

[PocketZeven]

No you seem to think that toothbrushes are designed for brushing teeth and guns are designed to kill/destroy and it's a fact. It's not though...

What they're designed for and what they're used for are different things, and often they're not designed by one person with one goal but multiple people with many goals.

I reallyt do understand your perspective, but what do you call the reason why the toothbrush was invented? What phrasing is better to make sure there isnt misunderstanding. I am not talking what one could do (purpose) with a a random object, but the reason a certain tool was designed and created for a certain purpose. With people having the freedom to do with them what they want.

The gun in the pic is obviously an exception.