Goodeye8

I have hammers for driving nails, 12 shaped hammers for doing body work, rubber hammers (mallets) for banging on softer materials, and 4 different sledge hammers weighing between 3lbs and 50lbs. I also have screw drivers in sizes from itty bitty eyeglass / watch to computer to jumbo. I also have air canisters, a 3 gallon pancake air compressor, and 50 gallon shop sized air compressor. You use the correct tool in the correct way to accomplish the job. Your attempt at making a false equivalence is rejected.

Aren’t you missing your analogy of getting a separate tool just to train? I too have different hammers for different jobs, but I don’t have an extra set of hammers just because I love hammering so much and neither do you.

So in the first half of that sentence you admit your own argument is false, or at least not universally true. It IS sensible for at least some gun owners to have different firearms for different purposes.

No, because what is sensible for the individual might not be sensible for a group of people and what might be sensible for a small group of people might not be sensible for the larger group. If we take your argument, which is that what is sensible for one is sensible for all then it should be sensible for everyone to spend a few grand on setting up a home server to have all the services big tech provides at your home so your data is actually yours. So why isn’t everyone doing “the sensible” thing? Because for most people it’s not sensible because they don’t have the technical know-how how to set something like that up, they don’t care to keep it running, they don’t care to backup their data and they don’t care to spend money on something they feel they don’t need.

As for the 2nd half you do realize that there are between 15 and 16 million hunters in the United States, right? This is not a small number of people.

Do you really want to go down the statistics route? For starters, 16 million is less than 5% of the American population. I couldn’t find a credible number of gun owners but that percentage would be bound to go up significantly considering how marginal it is for the entire American population I’ll give you that. But there’s a caveat and that’s hunting itself. By far the most popular game to hunt is deer, which is about half of all the hunts, and a third of the hunters don’t even use a modern firearm. So not only does that 16 million drop to 10-11 million hunters with modern firearms, half of them are getting by with just a single hunting rifle. Now for the multiple game hunters we’re below 2% of the entire American population and that’s under the assumption that the whole 100% of people within that 2% regularly hit the shooting range to justify owning a separate set of firearms.

Okay first off, false equivalence again and second…what’s wrong with sex dungeon? They’re pretty easy to build if you have the right tools. :)

I didn’t say there’s anything wrong with a sex dungeon. I said that despite it being sensible for someone practicing BDSM it’s not sensible for the vast majority of people for the similar reason everyone doesn’t have a home server, they don’t know how to set it up, they don’t have the space to set it up, they don’t want to maintain it and they don’t want to spend money on it when they can just use the bed/couch/floor/whatever. What might be sensible for a BDSM practitioner is not sensible for everyone having sex.

Yeah, I totally use my training hammer to be prepared to use my real hammer when the time is right. I also have a set of training screw drivers to be prepared when I need to take my computer apart for cleaning. And to be proficient with the air canister I have a training canister.

I get it, you like to shoot and if you shoot a lot you want to make it cheap and it’s cheaper to shoot small bullets because they’re cheaper. But most gun owners are not hunters nor do they go regularly shooting. Your individual experience may be sensible for your specific scenario, but it’s not sensible for the vast majority of gun owners. It might be sensible for a BSDM practitioner to build a sex dungeon, it doesn’t mean a sex dungeon is sensible for everyone having sex.

I agree. The main reasons for crime are social and in America that should definitely be improved upon, but have you questioned why specifically gun related crimes are so high compared to let’s say knife-related crimes? Because in Europe it’s probably the opposite, knife-related crimes are higher than gun-related crimes.

Let’s me rephrase it then. You can want to have all those guns but it’s not sensible to have all those guns.

The argument here is that it’s sensible to have so many guns. It’s not sensible because even among Americans the median gun owner owns 2 guns. You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.

Yes. What’s the point of owning a firearm if you can’t have a gun for when you’re sleeping in your bedroom, a gun when you’re on the toilet, a gun when you’re on the couch watching the TV, a gun when you’re at the front door greeting guests, a gun when you’re driving your F150, a gun for that second amendment right, a gun when you go grocery shopping, a gun when you go buying clothes, a gun to go with your Tony Montana cosplay and you know, a gun just for fun. What are you supposed to do? Go outside without a gun? Use one gun for all those things? Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?

You don’t need all those guns. You want all those guns.

Not an investigator nor a lawyer but as I understand to be incriminated it needs to be proven you did the crime and it depending on the type of the crime it needs to be proven you did it intentionally.

Unless she has anything else to do with the crime a hair follicle isn’t enough to be incriminating, because it alone doesn’t really prove anything. Worst case it just sets her at the scene of the crime and best case the hair is used to narrow down the actual list of suspects.

You can hear them pronounce it in their video. It’s literally Yol-la.

To put it plainly I was asking if the context matters more than the content, because I think it does. I agree the faux bait community shouldn’t exist but if you’re going argue that content shouldn’t be posted in the first place I’m going to disagree. Not because it’s my kind of content, at to be clear it very much is not, but because I think that’s the slippery slope. That would be saying small flatchested women porn is CP which means men who like those kinds of women are pedos and those women are essentially jailbait. I think that’s stupid.

I think if we to improve the state of NSFW content we also need to be very specific in our wording of the criticism because how criticism is worded can change the context and as we agree, context matters. And that’s what I want from this discussion, clarity on what people are criticizing. Because the other person is right that the content there is not the problem, but he’s wrong because the reason to defed wasn’t because of the content itself but rather how it was framed. And I think you also blurred that line with the fiction story example.

You’re just taking offense to the community being called fauxbait? So if the community is called tiny titties it’s all good?