07 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisGuns are idiot proof? Now your not making any sense.
ban them for who? I would ban them in the green grocers but in some places thats normal. I would ban most fireworks because they are not idiot proof, and this is the thing about haber and wreckless chemistry, my aunt with an nvq in catering would have a better idea what to do with toxic chemicals then haber... she would put on gloves to start and i've seen professors that don't .
I would ban guns for everybody, without exception. And landmines.
07 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I got my way on literally everything, I would too; and make the ban global and for all weapons. Pity I have my way over nothing.
Guns are idiot proof? Now your not making any sense.
I would ban guns for everybody, without exception. And landmines.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by humyAnd then we'd go back to hitting each other with anything suitable such as a chair or lump of rock. And what would we use for agriculture if no spades were allowed?
If I got my way on literally everything, I would too; and make the ban global and for all weapons. Pity I have my way over nothing.
07 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisA professor failing to put on gloves is hardly a matter of ethics. If he chooses to do so then it is his choice. If he suggests his students stick their hands in something nasty without gloves then there is a problem but not necessarily of ethics.
ban them for who? I would ban them in the green grocers but in some places thats normal. I would ban most fireworks because they are not idiot proof, and this is the thing about haber and wreckless chemistry, my aunt with an nvq in catering would have a better idea what to do with toxic chemicals then haber... she would put on gloves to start and i've seen professors that don't .
07 Mar 13
5 edits
Originally posted by KeplerBut that's still an improvement isn't it? I think better to have a few people fighting with spades and sticks and stones than a few people fighting with heavy artillery and nukes because, just for starters, the collateral damage is probably going to be a lot less. And no nuclear winter. And at least you would know you would be reasonably safe as long as you are able and do keep your distance from an aggressor -say, ~80 meters away.
And then we'd go back to hitting each other with anything suitable such as a chair or lump of rock. And what would we use for agriculture if no spades were allowed?
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerWhy is a lump of rock not a weapon, but a spade is?
And then we'd go back to hitting each other with anything suitable such as a chair or lump of rock. And what would we use for agriculture if no spades were allowed?
The truth is that if you have to go around hitting each other to do any damage, the US would probably pull out of Afganistan, the Jews and the Palestinians would get along much better, and the murder rate in South Africa would drop substantially.
07 Mar 13
The argument that haber is ok because other people make weapons does not hold water for me. Habers weapons were almost always chemical , meant to burn / mame / disfigure, that was his thing. I posted that barking dog earlier because if it could talk it could explain why 'death is death by any means' is wrong... an animal could tell you that.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can make some very lethal weaponry using a cast iron pipe and the sort of chemicals used in agriculture. It's called a cannon and that's just what the Chinese did several hundred years ago.
Why is a lump of rock not a weapon, but a spade is?
The truth is that if you have to go around hitting each other to do any damage, the US would probably pull out of Afganistan, the Jews and the Palestinians would get along much better, and the murder rate in South Africa would drop substantially.
Necessity is the mother of invention so they say. The need to kill and maim is the mother and father of invention in that case! It would not be long before non-weapons were being turned to lethal purpose.
The real problem with such suggestions is how the outlawing of weapons gets policed? Do the police keep their weapons?
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisAnd your argument does not hold water for me. Killing is wrong, however humanely you try to do it. I think that you are a hypocrite for arguing against Haber whilst still supporting killing.
The argument that haber is ok because other people make weapons does not hold water for me. Habers weapons were almost always chemical , meant to burn / mame / disfigure, that was his thing. I posted that barking dog earlier because if it could talk it could explain why 'death is death by any means' is wrong... an animal could tell you that.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerSure, some people will invent weapons of various lethality. But the fact is that lethal violence in general would drop significantly.
Necessity is the mother of invention so they say. The need to kill and maim is the mother and father of invention in that case! It would not be long before non-weapons were being turned to lethal purpose.
The real problem with such suggestions is how the outlawing of weapons gets policed? Do the police keep their weapons?
Police are perfectly capably of carrying out their jobs with nothing more than a truncheon as has been shown in the UK and other countries that do not routinely arm their police force. In fact the argument for arming police with guns would be significantly reduced if guns were not readily available to criminals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
states that in the year 2007–08 throughout England and Wales there were 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used.
The first place to start when outlawing fire arms is obviously the manufacturers and suppliers.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo i disagree, suppose it was your job to invent weapons, would you take habers line? Even in the army you have some ethics.
And your argument does not hold water for me. Killing is wrong, however humanely you try to do it. I think that you are a hypocrite for arguing against Haber whilst still supporting killing.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wasn't talking about the police as in the local constabulary. How do you go about disarming a national army equipped with reasonably modern weaponry? How do you go about making sure they stay disarmed? I don't think a bobby with a truncheon will do somehow.
Sure, some people will invent weapons of various lethality. But the fact is that lethal violence in general would drop significantly.
[b]The real problem with such suggestions is how the outlawing of weapons gets policed? Do the police keep their weapons?
Police are perfectly capably of carrying out their jobs with nothing more than a truncheon as ...[text shortened]...
The first place to start when outlawing fire arms is obviously the manufacturers and suppliers.[/b]
07 Mar 13
5 edits
Originally posted by KeplerIt is subtly, because soon enough they will make something and pronounce it as safe! something like thalidomide, would you trust that professor if they told chemical a was safe when they skip around the lab with a lethal bottle of chemical b in there bear hands ! they are like that...
A professor failing to put on gloves is hardly a matter of ethics. If he chooses to do so then it is his choice. If he suggests his students stick their hands in something nasty without gloves then there is a problem but not necessarily of ethics.
Here's an example, yes that dye is perfectly safe!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2042460/Argos-to-be-sued-after-toxic-sofas-blamed-for-causing-skin-burns-and-allergies.html