The News Thread

[CiG]

a piece of art is meant to be enjoyed with your eyes. That is all.

Wrong. That is all.

And Ozz owning a fully auto just because he wants to own one and feel good doesn't make it practical.

Agreed. Even if he used it it wouldn't necessarily make it practical <--- my point.

so owning CD's, movies etc is impractical and the equivalent of owning something that you're never going to use?

No, owning physical copies of music and film is steadily becoming impractical in comparison to digital equivalences. Also Ozz never said he would never use a fully auto weapon. He said he would take it to a range.

And let me know when you can sell or give them to your friends. ZERO resale value.

I agree, but in the digital age the resell value of movies and CDs is plummeting anyway. I spend a lot of time buying and selling DVDs on Facebook groups and I know firsthand how diminished it is as a value in terms of how much money I can get away with selling them for.

If I buy a $15 DVD and resell it at $5 if I'm lucky, it would have been more practical to just spend $5 on a digital copy even though I can't resell it. You rarely ever make profit selling your old DVDs. Though I will admit that CDs can have more resale value due to the nature of how fanatical music collectors are about rare copies, out-of-print issues etc.

Let me know when you can sit there and actually enjoy the ARTWORK without having a computer or itunes or whatever.

Do you ENJOY THE ARTWORK while you're driving? If not, what other context are you so limited that you can't stare at the artwork on an iPod/Pad or a PC while you listen?

Anyway imo digital is not real and you never really OWN and ENJOY an album like it's meant to be.

Weird but fair enough. We all appreciate art in our own way.

Art cant be accidental? I cant take a mean shit and look down and be like "whoah, that's a Picasso"? Btw just to be clear since you dont get confused again, no i dont think that would be art, lol. Whoever designed say the shitty Tokarev or other throwaway handguns didnt design them to be anything more than a firearm, but i guess they can be art if i decide they are, no? What im saying is that that's a pretty ridiculous argument and can be applied to basically anything

No it can't as per the definition you posted that outlines a basic standard for what can be considered art. I haven't been confused once, you're the one who cited the definition and then proceeded to argue against it.

"Expression or application of human creative skill and imagination."

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

No, owning physical copies of music and film is steadily becoming impractical in comparison to digital equivalences.

No, it's not. And i gave you a few of dozens of reason why they are not.

Also Ozz never said he would never use a fully auto weapon. He said he would take it to a range.

*Used for what they are designed to be used for, as ive already stated numerous times. I can use a dildo to slap you across your face, doesn't necessarily make it really a weapon. I can take it to shooting range and try to spear my target, doesnt mean its a weapon. Sure, you can take them to a range, but fully automatic weapons were not put on this planet for people to take to shooting ranges and play with. Hiram Maxim didnt design the first machine gun for people to take to the range and play with as a hobby. He designed it to use 500 rounds per minute for war, not your artistic feels.

I agree, but in the digital age the resell value of movies and CDs is plummeting anyway. I spend a lot of time buying and selling DVDs on Facebook groups and I know firsthand how diminished it is as a value in terms of how much money I can get away with selling them for.

Actually a lot of CD's and albums that are harder to get(and in most instances impossible to buy digitally) are steadily rising in price. I hunt for albums on ebay everyday, offerup etc everyday

Do you ENJOY THE ARTWORK while you're driving? If not, what other context are you so limited that you can't stare at the artwork on an iPod/Pad or a PC while you listen?

That argument has nothing to do with art. It's owing CD's vs digital. And no, i enjoy the artwork when i'm sitting down and listening to it at home, with friends etc. And i dont need a computer, ipad etc for me to enjoy it.

No it can't as per the definition you posted that outlines a basic standard for what can be considered art. I haven't been confused once, you're the one who cited the definition and then proceeded to argue against it.

"Expression or application of human creative skill and imagination."

That definition was for you to try and comprehend that "typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" literally points to the difference of actual art and what someone considers art. TYPICALLY IN VISUAL FORM, like album cover ART. Machine guns were not designed for you to appreciate their beauty, they were designed to kill. And im not arguing against the definition at all since i was clearly poking fun at you with he whole socks thing. So yes you clearly are confused again for thinking i was implying that my socks are a work of art and that i was arguing against a definition that literally proves my point, that someone cant compare actual art to what they perceive as art. You always seem to get confused with comparisons, like yesterday when you thought Brotha Lynch talking about eating babies was equivalent to a rapper encouraging women to get abortions.

 

[CiG]

*Used for what they are designed to be used for, as ive already stated numerous times.

The function of a gun is to fire ammunition.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... at what? Machine Guns were designed to be fired at cans and bottles? Is that what they were designed for?

 

[CiG]

Actually a lot of CD's and albums that are harder to get(and in most instances impossible to buy digitally) are steadily rising in price. I hunt for albums on ebay everyday, offerup etc everyday

Why do you say "actually" when you can clearly see that I admitted that in the very comment you quoted? Talk about arguing for its own sake, you literally omitted the second half of my comment so you'd have something to disagree with.

I said this, you left it out: "Though I will admit that CDs can have more resale value due to the nature of how fanatical music collectors are about rare copies, out-of-print issues etc."

... at what? Machine Guns were designed to be fired at cans and bottles? Is that what they were designed for?

They were designed to kill, that's the purpose humans place on the technology but the technology's function is to fire ammunition. If you use a gun to fire ammunition you are using the gun for its purpose as a piece of technology. Self-defense requires practice in order to be efficient and so going to a range is perfectly within the realm of purpose, unless you're suggesting the guns weren't designed to be practiced with and the only legitimate use is to go from purchase to violence?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"IT FIRES BULLETS" you are ridiculous

the purpose of a machine gun is to kill people. Not hunt boar or shoot coke bottles. I have no problem with someone learning how to use one for its intended purpose. But why in the world would Mr Pleb need to practice shooting a machine gun? His fat cowardly ass isnt a soldier that's going to war, he isnt some wanted mobster who has dozens of people trying to kill him or his family. He's just a bit tittied schmuck. So again no purpose for him to take a fully automatic to the shooting range outside of "YEEEAHH I FEEL GOODZ", the purpose of that weapon isnt for you to compensate for having a tiny dick.

 

[CiG]

That definition was for you to try and comprehend that "typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" literally points to the difference of actual art and what someone considers art.

Nobody said majority of art is anything but a painting or a sculpture. It says "typically" for a reason as it's not making a definitive statement on what art is. Dancing is art, music is art, cooking can be an artform and so on. A symphony is an art form by definition.

No, it's not. And i gave you a few of dozens of reason why they are not.

And I addressed them.

That argument has nothing to do with art. It's owing CD's vs digital. And no, i enjoy the artwork when i'm sitting down and listening to it at home, with friends etc. And i dont need a computer, ipad etc for me to enjoy it.

Didn't say anything about needs. Preferences often run parallel to practicality.

And im not arguing against the definition at all since i was clearly poking fun at you with he whole socks thing. So yes you clearly are confused again for thinking i was implying that my socks are a work of art and that i was arguing against a definition that literally proves my point, that someone cant compare actual art to what they perceive as art. You always seem to get confused with comparisons, like yesterday when you thought Brotha Lynch talking about eating babies was equivalent to a rapper encouraging women to get abortions.

I know you didn't think your socks were art, you literally said you were joking in the same comment. You need to go back and reread my response to that comment because it's evidently gone over your head.

"IT FIRES BULLETS" you are ridiculous

the purpose of a machine gun is to kill people. Not hunt boar or shoot coke bottles. I have no problem with someone learning how to use one for its intended purpose. But why in the world would Mr Pleb need to practice shooting a machine gun? His fat cowardly ass isnt a soldier that's going to war, he isnt some wanted mobster who has dozens of people trying to kill him or his family. He's just a bit tittied schmuck. So again no purpose for him to take a fully automatic to the shooting range outside of "YEEEAHH I FEEL GOODZ", the purpose of that weapon isnt for you to compensate for having a tiny dick.

Maybe he wants to train in preparation for state tyranny, who fucking cares?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Nobody said majority of art is anything but a painting or a sculpture. It says "typically" for a reason as it's not making a definitive statement on what art is. Dancing is art, music is art, cooking can be an artform and so on. A symphony is an art form by definition.

So is baseball, and weightlifting, and racing cars, and sleeping, and my dog, and a photo of your tits. See what i did there? Ad you fail to see the difference between what you think is art and what actually is art? You even tried to imply that you can taste art or something earlier when i said its something that it is first and foremost meant to be visually enjoyed. talk about shit flying over ones head, amazing. A machine gun is a piece of work that was produced to be primary enjoyed for its beauty?

And I addressed them.

you think you addressed them, but you did nothing that comes close to it.

Didn't say anything about needs. Preferences often run parallel to practicality.

So you dont see the difference between needing some kind of device to enjoy said art and me just enjoying it because i actually have that piece of work in my possession? Okaay

I know you didn't think your socks were art, you literally said you were joking in the same comment. You need to go back and reread my response to that comment because it's evidently gone over your head.

yeah, you definitely are confused again my man. This happens with you on a daily basis with numerous people here.

Maybe he wants to train in preparation for state tyranny, who fucking cares?

Lmfao, that is all.

 

[CiG]

So is baseball, and weightlifting, and racing cars, and sleeping, and my dog, and a photo of your tits. See what i did there?

Yes, I see you made a statement that suggests you don't even agree with the definition you posted. You're a dunce.

Anyway this is autistic and dumb and more importantly boring.

 

[Slammed]

Anyway this is autistic and dumb and more importantly boring.

Don't sell yourselves short. This is more entertaining than watching a Tom Cruise movie

 

[CiG]

Don't sell yourselves short. This is more entertaining than watching a Tom Cruise movie

Yeah but it's less entertaining than watching Caddyshack 2, which is saying a lot.

 

[Slammed]

Yeah but it's less entertaining than watching Caddyshack 2, which is saying a lot.

Well I didn't want to say it but you really do need to lift your game if you hope to soar to such heights.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Yes, I see you made a statement that suggests you don't even agree with the definition you posted. You're a dunce.

Anyway this is autistic and dumb and more importantly boring.

yeah you're and idiot for once again thinking i was being serious there when i was using examples to make fun of your retarded thought process. See what i mean when i say you are easily confused? And yes it's autistic because you're clearly showcasing you sperg tendencies

 

[CiG]

yeah you're and idiot for once again thinking i was being serious there when i was using examples to make fun of your retarded thought process.

How are you this fucking dumb? Hahahaha.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

serious question, was your mom hitting the bottle when you were still in her womb? After years of interacting with you i'm pretty sure she turned into an alcoholic before you were born. Amirite?

 

[CiG]

Anybody who is sadistic enough to read through our debate will probably see what you're missing. "What you did there" was imply that my logic for what can or cannot be considered art is so arbitrary that if I follow it to its logical conclusion it becomes more and more meaningless.

In actuality what I am saying can be considered art is going directly by ---> "Expression or application of human creative skill and imagination."

YOU posted that definition.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

again, you fail to see why i posted that definition. One that literally points out that it is typically something you first and foremost enjoy with your eyes. Something you literally said "no, that is all" to.

 

[CiG]

AMAAAAAAZING.

Actually I said that to you saying "A piece of art is meant to be enjoyed with your eyes. That is all."

Oof, you stink.

 

[The Ozzman]

btw if you think that looks good then you have shit taste even in guns.

The entire gun community disagrees with your statement and everyone I've talked to about it talks about how nice looking it is. If you talked to people other than hoodrats, you would know this. What modern guns do you find to be aesthetic?

 

[Einherjar86]

Explain your reasoning of why there would be risks to this

Why there would be risks to people being able to purchase automatic weapons? Increased ease of access leads to increased risk of incident.

By "incident" I mean any gun-related event, including accidents. We could also specify increased risk of assault; and with automatic weapons, the capacity for inflicting harm goes up.

Automatic weapons are designed for nothing other than inflicting harm. They're not designed for hunting or for self-defense. I don't think a desire to collect justifies the right to purchase them.