Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by iMacmatician, Feb 18, 2014.
I don't think you guys are remembering rampantandroid correctly. He was a fucking retard. If there are any people who take my number 1 as worst person to argue with it's him. I'd rather argue to Chris for 5 hours than read anything Android writes for an hour. This is the guy who thinks that owning M16s in your home is reasonable.
You mean an AR15?
One's for the military and costs like ten grand. The other is for civilians and costs only a thousand or so dollars.
You kids are adorable.
M16s cost ten grand? Isn't it like the shittiest weapon ever created?
Anyways that's not the point, the point is that it's unreasonable and irrational to own a semi-automatic assualt rifle in your home, and that rampantandroid believes that it is reasonable and rational, therefore making him a retard.
There's no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". If it doesn't have selective fire, then it doesn't meet the definition of an assault rifle. An AR15 doesn't count as an assault rifle because it doesn't have selective fire; in fact, that's pretty much the only difference between an AR15 and an M16. It's also why it's legal to own an AR15 and not an M16, because AR15's only fire one round per trigger pull.
Chances are good though that he would've been arguing about being able to own an M16 because you legally can't own one, where there's not much of a point arguing about owning an AR15 because you already can legally own one. Unless he's from outside the United States, then everything changes.
People don't always do things for rigidly rational reasons and that's ok.
Trickster wasn't exactly rational when he dumped a chunk of cash (or financed? lol peasant) on an old sports car.
Your family (or w/e) wasn't terribly rational when they bought a fucking log cabin.
I'm not terribly rational for continuing to post in this thread.
Maybe some people aren't hugely rational when they purchase a $1000 civilian assault rifle for home defense.
But it feels gud, brah. It feels gud to fit in. Trickster wants to be 007. Your family wants to be stereotypical Canadians. I just like having a community. Maybe some people grow up around firearms and feel comfortable & safe around them even if they rationally know they will never need them.
I try not to judge what makes people happy (except with Trickster ove: ). Life is too short.
Rampant was stupid in his opinions, but his facts and rationale were on-par. He's the only person on this forum who made me go back to anantech, semiaccurate, TSH, OC.net, etc...to verify what I'm writing.
Not really irrational. If someone wants a gun for home protection in the US, that's relatively rational. Using a handgun, or at most a shotgun, is pretty rational. Using an assault rifle is somewhat less rational, especially when you consider that a 5.56 round in all your shitty wooden houses is going to go through about 5 walls before it stops.
If you're buying the assault rifle for the range because you want something like that to fire on a range, that's rational. It's just irrational to use one for home protection, because it's not particularly practical, and probably verging on dangerous for that.
There's nothing irrational in buying what you want if it's practical for your needs. I had no car at the time and I needed one, ergo I bought one I had driven before and enjoyed driving thoroughly. Also, who the fuck uses finance on anything? Grant's parents needed a house and a log cabin is perfectly rational given the surroundings. On top of that, given a lot of American/Canadian houses are shitty wooden things, Log Cabins are pretty much superior in every way. They also look kickass.
Irrational however, is buying things that serve no practical use just because you want to. In this case, I can use my Dota 2 item habit as an example. I've spent more than I really care to admit on cosmetics in that game, for reasons I really don't understand myself. It's pretty irrational, but I don't care, because I have the prettiest Crystal Maiden and everyone is jelly as fuck.
This, kids, is what we call rationalizing.
Nothing wrong with rationalising something. If I see a purpose for something, I see it as rational. If I don't, then I see it as irrational. There's nothing wrong with either, but saying something like "your parents must be irrational to live in a log cabin house" doesn't make a great deal of sense, because there are rational reasons behind it. To put it simply, if you do something for purpose, and it works, then that's rational. If you do something for no purpose, then that's not rational.
I guess I could make a fairly decent example out of the original topic of this thread.
It would be rational to upgrade your PC's GPU if your current GPU is giving you a performance level that isn't up to your requirements. Whether that means it's not playing it at max graphics settings or it's not playing it at all, your requirements are the bar you set.
It would be irrational of you to upgrade it simply because you have to have the latest GPU. That wouldn't serve a purpose, it wouldn't make any change to your requirements.
I don't really know how this discussion got where it is, but those are my thoughts anyway. I feel like as long as you know why you're doing something, be it buying something or making a decision, you can't really go wrong. I don't know why I buy Dota 2 items, and I kind of regret the amount of money I've spent there.
It looks like she's been whoring herself out on a rainy day for pennies.
'MURICA FUCK YEAH
Fuck you she's classy as fuck you ignorant oaf.
In America... if the thief/vandalist/attempted murderer survives... he can sue your ass. So... its best to make sure he is dead. Don't fire one round... fire 4+ to make sure he is dead and then say you were frightened.
I don't think any judge has ever ruled in favor of the plaintiff in those situations. Justifying any action with the claim that it's to prevent litigation is bad; I can sue my own mother for giving birth to me, I can sue you for getting me to spend time typing this out. Just because you can be sued doesn't mean that they'll win.
I won't disagree with you on the fact that you can sue for any reason here, however most things will get thrown out on ridiculousness. If the burglar's lawyer can confuse the jury into believing the defendant used "excessive" force they will be awarded a guilty verdict whether its morally right or not.
There is a case I remember about 12 years ago or so but, this guy had a metal fence with those ornate spike like things on it and a thieve hurt himself climbing back over it and got stuck on the spikes. They were not sharp he had to have fallen on them holding the crap he stole. He sued the owner for safety negligence, medical bills, and emotional trauma of being impaled on the dull spikes. He fucking won. He fucking won!
I knew some asshole was going to tell me not to use the term "assault rifle" but no fuck off I don't care about guns, this isn't /k/. The argument isn't about m16s, it's about owning ridiculous weapons in your home. It wasn't even an m16/ar15 that the argument was about, it was some weapons that pickled heretic owned that he uploaded a picture of. Rampant was arguing that it's perfectly rational to own such ridiculous weapons for home defense, when it's not even sensible to own any firearms, and if you really want to defend your house from black people or the government, a glock is sufficient.
Nine milimeters will satisfy all the needs. Particularly at 375 m/s.
Still though, a fucking rifle, just hanging above the bed. I may be American, but that's just cool.
You can't defend yourself against the government with just a glock, that won't even pierce through a bullet proof vest.
Separate names with a comma.