You've never seen a thread hijacked by Mod and Freezer? I'm in the same boat.Originally Posted by EliManning
Like I said, pay attention. That was to saro. Twice I told him I was going by the real definition. And twice he tried to revert to the assault weapons ban.
Again, pay attention. I've already made it clear I'm going by the actual definition of the term - weapons designed for military use.Freezer, do you propose we ban assault weapons or not? If so, who's definition are we going to use, yours? If that's the case, I think it pretty much means you want every "infantry weapon" to be banned. Or, do you prefer the definition given by the "assault weapons" ban? If that's the case, you propose banning everything with a scary name or a scary look. Or do you have your own definition you'd like to use? If that's the case, I'd like to hear it.
Not a single shred, huh? Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, pay attention. From this very thread.Oh please. None of you have come up with ONE shred of evidence. I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it. If you can come up with one piece of evidence, I'll probably come from Smeg anyway, and I hardly think that represents "most," or even "some" of the forum.
"Pretty sure that I've qualified as homophobic"
--merv
http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost....&postcount=123
Perhaps you are the one who should pay attention- not just to what I say, but to what you say.
when in doubt, try the dictionary. you might learn something.
assault rifle
n : any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use [syn: assault gun]Assault rifle. Assault weapon. Hmm... Close, but not close enough, methinks. Try again.tightly regulated = no assault weapons
It's a shame your "dictionary definition" doesn't match what you said. Not too surprising, although I have to say it is surprising that you haven't learned to read your own links yet.Again, pay attention. I've already made it clear I'm going by the actual definition of the term - weapons designed for military use.
Allow me to finish the rest of that.Not a single shred, huh? Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, pay attention. From this very thread.
"Pretty sure that I've qualified as homophobic"
--merv
http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost....&postcount=123
"Pretty sure that I've qualified as homophobic and white... though homophobic is not all that solid of a label."
Was Jman having some fun? Don't know. You'll have to ask him. But I hardly think he'd go bashing people just because they are homosexual. He hasn't beaten up on the bi guy yet. At least, not more than anyone else has.rop:
He doesn't have to beat up on the guy. He's one of the homophobes who are actually confident in the ability of their particular Magic Man in the Clouds to burn that guy in a pit of fire for infinity years, and don't feel the need to help that process along in this life. :grin:
I'd be willing to give up having anyone ever post a political thread ever again if Freezerburn and Module would just please shut the **** up.
I find this thread amusing.
Still confused over the whole "when does life begin", Freezer.
"they all agree that medically and scientifically speaking life begins at birth."
That is, when you finally pop out, life begins. Okay, that's opinion one.
"drunk pothead hit on one scientific criteria, adaptation. life begins for humans once we're able to survive in our environment."
But technically, a baby that is not yet born could survive outside the womb if it needed too, so this is before birth.
"another criteria for human life is consciousness. until the brain forms and begins functioning, a fetus is not a living human."
This is also before birth.
"Those are two criteria for life within the scientific definition.
But in the first quote, you said that scientifically, life begins at birth. None of the criteria you have mentioned have anything to do with birth specifically.
A child that born full-term has the ability to adapt to its environment.
Not necesarily. What if the child is born but doesn't feed by instinct? Is he then scientifically dead? I don't see the reasoning behind this.
Once a fetus is fully developed, it should have the ability and instinct to feed. And the fetus is fully developed at birth, when life begins.
Should, but not always, yes? And if the first is not always true, then logically the second is not always true.
And ignoring the initial mixup of definitions, let's explore this opinion:
This was designed for military use. Should it be banned?Again, pay attention. I've already made it clear I'm going by the actual definition of the term - weapons designed for military use.
It's a shame you can't speak for everyone, otherwise... :wink3:
Pay attention Saro, of course it should be banned. It's designed for military use, and Freezer is using that definition (ignoring the fact that assault weapons = assault rifles to Freezer).
I was actually thinking more along the lines of this, but I guess the Garand will do.
I had considered that one, but I wanted something more current and just as ridiculous to prove my point. =PI was actually thinking more along the lines of this, but I guess the Garand will do.
I can imagine the setting:
A bad section of L.A. swings into view. A dirty, rust-ridden car comes barreling down an alleyway and out into street, surprising a handful of rival gang members that were previously engaged tagging a wall. A window in the car comes down and the deadly muzzle of the 10-pound Garand juts out, it's wood stock marred by scratches from the windows of a hundred drive-bys.
*blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam*
Goes the gun before the shooter reloads for a second volley that he never gets a chance to fire. The gang members retaliate by drawing their own Garands from the waistbands of their pants and returning a withering hail of bullets at the car, which speeds away.
I'm telling you, it would have been better with those muzzleloaders. -_-'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks