|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Really? Because it's the reason you can't go to a store and buy more than 3 packages of Sudafed. That does not change my statement, except to perhaps grudgingly acknowledge that somewhere in the US people are using illogic to dictate their actions. Thankfully in Chicago, and now here in the Netherlands, I have never encountered such an issue. I often get sinus headaches and also use it for plane travel. (Travel tip: sudafed is great when taken an hour before flights to reduce ear pain/congestion due to pressure changes. I have personally come back completely deaf in one or both ears... a condition which lasted over a month. I got the above tip from someone who also suffered as I and it is great.) Anyhow, I buy sudafed in bulk (more than three for sure) and have no problem except to discover that in Holland they won't sell sudafed (or any decongestant) in the airport terminal. Then again they won't sell chewing gum either. Could I ask why the limit is 3 packages of Sudafed? And what prevents a group of people from simply buying the packages separately, or from separate stores, or over a number of days. All at once doesn't change jack.
When someone buys 1 package, they probably have a cold. When they buy 30, what's more likely? They expect to have 30 colds, or they're starting a meth lab? I would NEVER hazard such a guess, unless they gave me a lot more info beyond the size of purchase. I remember recently reading that a walmart store helped catch a murderer when he came in covered in blood and bought various items which could help him take care of a dead body. That suspicion sounds warranted and did not require a certain amount to be bought. As far as starting a meth lab (or any other lab), a person doesn't need sudafed and putting a limit on that is just plain silly. Any chemist worth their salt should be able to explain to a legislature that limiting OTC medications and many other popular items is not going to alter the ability of anyone to make drugs, it just changes their route. Unless you plan on locking everything up. The question is if they will listen of course, or think. If I came in and bought several gallons of paint, do I have a house, or am I huffing? And if we want to talk about bullets, I would like the stats showing how many violent gun deaths (or we can even throw in accidents) were linked to people that had a one time buyout of a store, or any kind of singular massive shopping spree of ammo. My guess is there isn't a high correlation, but I'm willing to look. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Could I ask why the limit is 3 packages of Sudafed? And what prevents a group of people from simply buying the packages separately, or from separate stores, or over a number of days. Meth labs, as far as I know, seem to be mostly a problem in rural areas; with low population density buying over time raises red flags (because someone's more likely to remember your face) and buying at many locations simply isn't possible when there's like 2 drugstores in town.
Any chemist worth their salt should be able to explain to a legislature that limiting OTC medications and many other popular items is not going to alter the ability of anyone to make drugs, it just changes their route. You need a pretty large, fairly pure source of pseudoephedrine. Making that from scratch is going to require, I imagine, reagents and equipment not avaliable to your average meth labber. I understand that the Feds keep pretty close tabs on scientific/chemical supply companies so that avenue is out.
If I came in and bought several gallons of paint, do I have a house, or am I huffing? Well, you can't huff latex paint. Moreover I'm fairly sure that there's no street market for gold spray paint (the metallic ones give the best high, I hear.) On the other hand, meth labs are a big problem. I dunno. I'm sorry you have congestion problems but limiting "burst" sales of pesudoephedrine sounds like an ok way to prevent methamphetamine production. And I do agree with Rrhain that a lot of something dangerous is correspondingly more dangerous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Meth labs, as far as I know, seem to be mostly a problem in rural areas... Now I know that rural people tend to be stereotyped as stupid, but it seems a bit far fetched that ones that are about to run a meth lab wouldn't figure out they can drive to the "big city" to pick up sudafed and not raise any suspicion. And I hope you are not going to say that would take time and money. If they are running a METH LAB, then a little extra gas, maybe a hotel stay, and some fast food isn't going to eat into their budget any.
You need a pretty large, fairly pure source of pseudoephedrine. Making that from scratch is going to require, I imagine, reagents and equipment not avaliable to your average meth labber. I understand that the Feds keep pretty close tabs on scientific/chemical supply companies so that avenue is out. Correct me if I am wrong but sudafed is recent, yet meth has been with us for some time. Can you explain why labs simply wouldn't revert to what they used before? And as far as the Feds watching chemical supply companies, that is simply an impossible task. As long as someone has a chem set and general perfectly legal raw materials (oh yes and some knowledge of chemistry) then they can make whatever they want. All that changes is length of time for creating your drug and price of materials, and so the cost of street product goes up.
Well, you can't huff latex paint. Moreover I'm fairly sure that there's no street market for gold spray paint (the metallic ones give the best high, I hear.) This is a dodge. You are right that there is no market for paint, well there is but it is perfectly legal to get and so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Prices for meth would drop as well if it were legal and then purchases of sudafed to create makeshift meth labs would drop. But more important, and why it is a dodge, your point was buying a lot of something dangerous is more dangerous. Well paint and glue are, so the more the more?
On the other hand, meth labs are a big problem Mmmmmmm, I don't think so. But I'm against the drug war and that's a different topic.
I'm sorry you have congestion problems but limiting "burst" sales of pesudoephedrine sounds like an ok way to prevent methamphetamine production. You will first need to explain why it would actually effect meth production at all. I get that they probably will have to switch to something other than sudafed as their initial starting material. As a once-been chemist this does not strike me as an issue, other than as I mentioned (time and materials). Neither of the changes would end up hurting meth production for real. Let me give you and example. During prohibition many moonshiners had alcohol labs (Ooooooooo), that were a "big problem". Would restricting bulk corn or potato sales really have stopped moonshining? How about restricting the sale of empty jugs? I'm sure you see where I am going with this. Yeah, limiting sudafed sales sure might feel like something is being done, but it isn't. It's just theoretical feel good legislation. Unless like I said in an earlier post, you want to start restricting EVERYTHING.
And I do agree with Rrhain that a lot of something dangerous is correspondingly more dangerous. How about gasoline? Anyone filling up a secondary gas can could be an arsonist, or making a bomb of some kind. How about MORE than one secondary gas can? How about fertilizer? Is buying a lot really and indication of something nefarious? Just because someone buys a lot of bullets or CAN buy a bunch of bullets, does not mean some threat level has been raised. You WILL have to get some evidence backing claims that bulk sales are linked to actual use of that ammo for violent crimes. I simply do not believe it is there. Sounds good on paper, looks unlikely in reality. And once again I am going to have to note the irony here. The subject is Michael Moore, and we have been discussing Bowling. The myth that bullets and guns were somehow responsible for our higher gun violence was exploded in that film. So arguments saying more bullets means more threat goes out the window. That is why I said that section of the film was sort of meaningless. He exploded the myth necessary for it to have had any real bite. And one of the lead causes of problems seemed to by the use of hyperbole and black/white thinking by americans. The very argument being made here is a great example of both. As a capper to this I would like to point out that it is possible for people to make their own bullets... another reason mass purchases don't mean anything. If this were cut off, and someone needed mass amounts for their hypothetical "assault on society", they could make them. Or they would make bombs which could be more deadly, and take less time and money... just like the kids at Columbine did. This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2004 05:42 PM This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2004 05:44 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Now I know that rural people tend to be stereotyped as stupid, but it seems a bit far fetched that ones that are about to run a meth lab wouldn't figure out they can drive to the "big city" to pick up sudafed and not raise any suspicion. I guess. That'd be a lot of driving around, a lot of use of cash or credit (which are tracable) - a lot of chances to run into the cops with boxes and boxes sudafed. And that's really the point, I think - not that the 3 limit rule prevents meth labs, or that ammo registration prevents murders. But it raises flags and increases the chance of police interdiction. it increases the chance that a meth labber or a murderer will do something a cop will notice.
Correct me if I am wrong but sudafed is recent, yet meth has been with us for some time. They've had sudafed ever since I've been alive, and that's about 20 years or so. I suppose we could try to look up how long you've been able to buy pseudoephedrine over the counter, but I'm pretty sure it's been available for decades. So I'm fairly sure there's nothing "they were using before."
As long as someone has a chem set and general perfectly legal raw materials (oh yes and some knowledge of chemistry) then they can make whatever they want. Well, unless I'm mistaken, neither of us have chemistry degrees. And while that might be technically true, creating chemicals in bulk at operational purities on a budget requires specific reagents and equipment.
Neither of the changes would end up hurting meth production for real. Ok, well, I guess I'd like to hear from the drug authorities on that.
How about fertilizer? Is buying a lot really and indication of something nefarious? If they don't have a farm, yeah it is.
The very argument being made here is a great example of both. Really? Because I see it as a very realistic and nuanced position, a position that suggests greater scrutiny on greater threats and dangerous items. The position I see as black/white hyperbole is "since it's more or less impossible to prevent crimes, we should never try when the trying might restrict an American's rights to buy 100 packages of Sudafed for any reason whatsoever."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Crash, I really like you, but on this subject you are wrong. I mean if you feel safer with "feel safe" legislation, that's fine. But the facts simply do not correspond to your argument.
And that's really the point, I think - not that the 3 limit rule prevents meth labs, or that ammo registration prevents murders. But it raises flags and increases the chance of police interdiction. it increases the chance that a meth labber or a murderer will do something a cop will notice. I agree with you that this is the point (regarding meth that is). It gives police more "reasons" to suspect someone and begin an investigation. Unfortunately it is a shortlived affair, and then we have to make something ELSE illegal. The police are better served looking for the source of drugs as they come into a community, rather than tracking precursors (you will see why shortly). And your argument fails for bullets. Why is a guy with 10,000 rounds in his car more likely a murderer than the guy with only 5 in a clip? I want to see something tangible on this. I get where amount comes in handy for meth production, I don't for murderer production.
I suppose we could try to look up how long you've been able to buy pseudoephedrine over the counter, but I'm pretty sure it's been available for decades. So I'm fairly sure there's nothing "they were using before." You missed my point. Amphetamines and Methamphetamines have been in existence for longer than sudafed was going over counters. They used other methods before and can use them again. The existence of mass quantities of ephedrine/p-ephedrine changed how meth labs operated, but they can change again just as quickly. If for some reason we clamped down on e/p-e so tight that no one could possibly be legally decongested, the meth labs will still be churning. The precursors will simply have changed and the price will have gone up.
Since it appears you are NOT going to simply look it up yourself, here is a nice link that I can only assume you would trust.{Fixed link (was a " in front of the http) - AM} (added in: for some reason the link does not work right thru the evcpage for some, here is the actual address: http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/...etamine_hist.html) Read it very carefully. In it you will see my own points being made... 1) Meth existed before e/p-e. 2) Meth can be made in MANY other ways, and the e/p-e method is a temporary one of choice... convenience. 3) If e/p-e is stepped on, alternate methods will simply raise the price. I would also add... 4) That Meth began to become popular with the advent of Prohibition. Drug wars only shift drug use of choice, sometimes to harder substances.
Well, unless I'm mistaken, neither of us have chemistry degrees. You are mistaken... well technically anyway. It's a long story but I changed majors out of a Chemistry masters program, before completion. My undergrad was NOT chem, but to get into the masters program I completed an entire chem undergrad coursework. So knowledge wise I am just shy of a master's in Chem. But you are right that creating chemicals in bulk requires reagents and equipment. Equipment is pretty easy. I made my own specialized equipment in the master's program... more specialized than is necessary for meth. Reagents are the question. But I have already said, and the link explains that reagents are merely cost issues. If one becomes too high priced (or cut off) then you switch to another. Distillation and synthesis are really not that hard and allow one to make pretty much any organic or inorganic compound from another set of compounds.
Ok, well, I guess I'd like to hear from the drug authorities on that. I hope narconon counts. I'll get more if you want.
If they don't have a farm, yeah it is. Well I am for limiting sales of ammo to people with valid gun licenses, and maybe even have limits based on what a person is able to safely store (so some sort of check on proper storage areas). But this says nothing about the argument that the more bought the more dangerous or nefarious the purpose of the purchaser. To this I would like to point out a major difference between sudafed and bullets. You were correct to point out that buying 30 boxes of sudafed, one may reasonably ask "how bad a cold do you have, and how long do you expect it to last?" There is only so much sudafed one can take personally in any space of time. This does not hold true with bullets. There is no "maximum dosage" limit to create a "reasonable expectation" of what a single person might buy. A single person can burn through quite a bit of ammo in a very short period of time.
a position that suggests greater scrutiny on greater threats and dangerous items. No, your position is greater scrutiny of things that IMPLY to YOU greater threats. Until you or Rrhain provide some sort of evidence that purchasing more bullets is associated with more nefarious use of those bullets, there is no "greater threat" from someone theoretically buying out a store of ammo. On the dangerous items part... I will agree that bullets are dangerous in and of themselves (they explode on impact and in heat). Thus I think purchasers should be licensed, and for large purchases, perhaps a proof of storage capability. I would be for making improper storage of ammo illegal and storage in general open for inspection. That would go along with any other safety regulation we have for buildings (including homes).
"since it's more or less impossible to prevent crimes, we should never try when the trying might restrict an American's rights to buy 100 packages of Sudafed for any reason whatsoever." I'm uncertain where I see black and white or hyperbolic thinking in that statement. There is no right/wrong or demonizing. Only exaggeration. Thankfully this was not my argument. My argument was that the specific methods suggested would require a greater bureacracy than needed and shift law enforcement resources to less worthwhile pursuits. In short I am condemning the specific solutions as being inefficient and in some cases contrary to solving or helping solve the problem being faced. And this points up part of the b/w and hyperbolic thinking from your side. If people like me criticize specific mechanisms, and even point out the flaws, we get labelled as wanting to throw our hands up in the air. I abhor violence, am ashamed of the level of violence in the US and the world. And I am also very concerned about people using firearms and explosives to kill others. I can even say that while I am against the Drug War, I think drug use is generally unhealthy and there are needs to help people escape addiction. What I don't see are realistic solutions. PROHIBITION HAS BEEN TRIED AND FAILED. VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE TIED TO GUN OWNERSHIP. Now let's stop trying to fight wars (as if anything will ever be ended completely) and scapegoating, and actually look for reasonable ways to solve our problems. I think this is a much more realistic and nuanced position. This message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 07:22 AM This message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 08:25 AM This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-13-2004 10:13 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the facts simply do not correspond to your argument. Ok, well, let's see the facts, then.
Since it appears you are NOT going to simply look it up yourself, here is a nice link that I can only assume you would trust. Somehow your link didn't work for me.
This does not hold true with bullets. There is no "maximum dosage" limit to create a "reasonable expectation" of what a single person might buy. You don't think it's at least worth investigating why a person would buy so many bullets? You don't think that the possibility they're turning around and selling them clandestinely is worth a look?
Thus I think purchasers should be licensed, and for large purchases, perhaps a proof of storage capability. I would be for making improper storage of ammo illegal and storage in general open for inspection. Works for me.
What I don't see are realistic solutions. PROHIBITION HAS BEEN TRIED AND FAILED. VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE TIED TO GUN OWNERSHIP. Now let's stop trying to fight wars (as if anything will ever be ended completely) and scapegoating, and actually look for reasonable ways to solve our problems. I think this is a much more realistic and nuanced position. Works for me, too. I think this dialogue is an important part of that. And I guess maybe I lean towards a position of, in terms of looking for ways to solve our problems, let's look for things we can do instead of what we can't do. You're probably right about the bullets thing. I think greater scrutiny to the problem is merited; after that I don't really have any ideas. I guess my only bright idea is a big gun surcharge to fund development of gun safety innovations. In a perfect world, no gun will fire when pointed at an innocent human being. I think technology can take us fairly close to that goal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Somehow your link didn't work for me. I don't know why it didn't work. I have added the full link URL back on my last post for those having problems. Check back to my last post and see if the URL itself works or not. Otherwise, just cut and paste it into your browser bar.
You don't think it's at least worth investigating why a person would buy so many bullets? You don't think that the possibility they're turning around and selling them clandestinely is worth a look? Investigation is something wholly separate from legality and overregulation. I think a gun store owner would be the best judge of a suspicious purchase, and if only gun licensed individuals can buy ammo, then the owner can tip police if an investigation might be useful. In the case of a "dirty" store owners, who will sell to secondary sellers, I think we'd have to watch unusual spikes in requests by store owners, matching them to who they are selling. Selling bullets without a license is illegal as far as I know, so that is simply continuing and actually enforcing laws already on books.
And I guess maybe I lean towards a position of, in terms of looking for ways to solve our problems, let's look for things we can do instead of what we can't do. Hey that's me all over the place. This thread is on MM's docs, not one gun control. In the gun control thread I started trying to outline a method of defining arms for control/regulation. It didn't seem to catch much interest, and so I've stopped, but I'd rather be talking about what might work instead of what might not. I'm simply not going to pretend that EVERY IDEA is a VALID IDEA. Some just don't match the facts, or will cost too much for too little real results.
In a perfect world, no gun will fire when pointed at an innocent human being. I think technology can take us fairly close to that goal. This is one approach, though I am skeptical of its possibility (other than to prevent accidents). I'm working more from the other direction. Assuming people will always find a way to get something and fashion it into a weapon, my perfect world is one where very few people will ever find the reason or desire to actually kill or maim someone. That gets at root causes such as alleviating poverty, advancement of critical thinking, advancement of tolerance for actual diversity, mechanisms for dealing with scarce resources, and learning to deal with conflicts without resort to violence. By which of course I mean a Roddenberrian ideal. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Verzem responds to me:
quote: Compared to the number of times a bullet is found in a person, how often does body disposal in the lake via chain happen? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Incorrect. Instead, it was your mistake in thinking that you get to determine all points raised in a discussion. You see, when people engage in a rational debate, one person will raise a point and the other person will respond by raising a point of his own. You do not get to ignore that point just because it wasn't yours.
quote: And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?
quote: And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.
quote: Precisely. Do you seriously think K-mart would have done anything if the cameras weren't on showing them with a kid in a wheelchair being filmed?
quote: I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking. I see them being criticized for outright lying in an attempt to scare people. Perhaps I should define my terms. I call "emotion-jerking" to be an extreme form of shaming. The focus is upon the target to make them feel bad about themselves in an attempt to get them to change their behaviour. This is different from what the Right pundits do in that they put their focus on other people in an attempt to get the target to feel superior and in danger. There is a difference between "Shame on you, you evil person!" and "You're the chosen and there are evil people who are trying to take that away from you." The former tries to get the target to change his own behaviour. The latter tries to get the target to change somebody else's behaviour.
quote: They already do. It's acceptable in the theatre because that's the point: Fiction is the lie that tells a truth and all that. But when you claim to be "fair and balanced" as Fox does, when you claim to tell only the truth as the Right does, saying things that aren't true and getting indignant when those falsehoods are pointed out is something quite different than "dramatic license."
quote:quote: Yes. Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine. Moore went to a bank that had as their promotion a rifle with the opening of an account. As he asked, "Don't you think it's odd to give away guns at a bank?" In no way, shape, or form was Moore trying to say that this would have stopped Columbine. Harris and Klebold didn't get their guns from a bank promotion. You see, Columbine was simply a symbol for the larger issue of violence and American culture. The Right tried to make Columbine a symbol of atheism, completely ignoring the fact that the area is highly religious. There was even a book titled She Said Yes about Cassie Bernall and how she was supposedly asked if she believed in god, she said she did, and was promptly killed. But that isn't what happened. Instead, Valeen Schnurr was asked if she believed in god, she said she did, she was then asked why, she said she just did and that was the way she was raised...and she wasn't shot. Emily Wyant was with Bernall when she was shot and she claims Bernall was never asked about her faith. Instead, Bernall was crying, "Dear god, dear god, why is this happening to me? I want to go home." Klebold then pounded on the table where both Wyant and Bernall were hiding, shouted "Peekaboo," and promptly shot Bernall. Are you saying you completely missed the symbolism?
quote:quote: Incorrect. Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all." So unless you were being sarcastic and claiming that people who are pushing for bullet tracing are thinking it will be a panacea, there is absolutely no way to interpret what you said in any logical manner. The word literally does not mean what you think it means...not even as a figure of speech.
quote: But that isn't a panacea. That's a palliative. If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away. Since the death penalty didn't seem to make a dent in violent crime, I find it hard to believe anybody thinks bullet tracing would do any better.
quote:quote: It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon. "Think global, act local" and all that.
quote:quote: He didn't. As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems. Go to the UK where guns are extremely tightly controlled, and there simply isn't nearly the level of gun violence (though, of course, that's a tautology.) But go to Canada where there is just as much gun ownership, and there still isn't nearly as much gun violence. Don't you remember the scene where he walked up to a random house in Canada and simply walked in the front door because it wasn't locked?
quote: But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. Bullet tracking will not reduce gun violence in and of itself. Instead, it will help to track down those who commit it.
quote: So what is it you need explained? If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?
quote: Their bombs didn't go off. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I call "emotion-jerking" to be an extreme form of shaming. That's funny. I call "tea-bagging" an extreme form of shaming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person? Cars are dangerous and you can buy as many cars as you want, but cars aren't intended to be used to kill others. Nobody advertises cars as "skull crushing" the way bullets are advertised as "armor piercing." If somebody buys a huge amount of something that has as one of its multiple intentions the death of other people, it never occurs to you to consider the implications and whether or not that intention might be involved?
quote: It was. That's why the various FBI agents were reporting it to their superiors.
quote: I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar responds to me:
quote:quote: Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician. You see, I understand the concept of "deviation from the norm." It's an abstraction, I know, but the concept is that what the specific norm is isn't as important as the deviation from it. It's that mathematical attitude that leads to jokes like this: An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician all check into an hotel and fortunately for this joke, a fire breaks out in each room. The engineer jumps up, grabs a piece of paper and a pencil, makes some observations and notations, finds the closest fire extinguisher, puts out the fire, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed. The physicist jumps up, grabs the telephone book and a crayon, makes some observations and notations, finds the furthest fire hose, douses the entire room, and goes back to sleep in a wet bed. The mathematician jumps up, grabs a piece of chalk and uses the wall, makes some observations and notations, declares a solution exists, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed. Sometimes, knowing that an answer is out there is more significant than knowing what that answer is. Merten's Conjecture, for example, will fail sometime before 101070 (that's a 1 followed by 1070 zeroes.) I don't think anybody has calculated where it first fails, but it isn't really important. It's the fact that it fails that is important. What a normative number of bullets is isn't really important. It's the extreme deviation from that normative amount that is important. Somebody buying the store out is worrisome as is someone buying only three.
quote:quote:quote: Why? If there is an object where one of its primary purposes is to kill somebody, are you seriously saying that we shouldn't consider why somebody would want a lot of it? I'm hardly saying that bullets are only for killing people, but it is disingenuous to downplay that intention. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: No, it was hyperbole.
quote: It had to do with Heston's inability to see how his statements might lead to certain consequences.
quote: And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: As crash pointed out, you can't huff latex paint. But in many areas of the country, if you're under 18 and you try to buy spray paint, you're probably a tagger. And thus, you need to be over 18 to buy it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I call "tea-bagging" an extreme form of shaming. Well I guess it depends on how its being done. My gf did a great "tea-bag" scene... well scene is not the right word as it wasn't scripted or anything. She just loves oral and so that was really fun for her. If I remember the other thread right it was the Dirty Sanchez which was a real shame. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024