The News Thread

[CiG]

i use whatever i collect, unless it's rare. I drive my cars to their full extent, i listen to my CD's, i watch the movies i buy, i own firearms for protection/sports/hunting etc. I feel sorry for anyone who collects those things "just to look at them and feel goods".

Sure but does practical simply mean usable? I could go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt right now by purchasing something that in terms of functionality does the same thing as something I could afford to buy without going into any debt, even though I would use both purchases. Digital albums are cheaper than CDs, the only real difference is the physical media comes with an aesthetic value that you quite literally only use to look at.

"I prefer CDs because the artwork, booklet, liner notes, lyrics etc etc" is really no different to "just to look at" because the function of the CD is the exact same as the function of a digital album, plus it's cheaper in most cases.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"I prefer CDs because the artwork, booklet, liner notes, lyrics etc etc" is really no different to "just to look at" because the function of the CD is the exact same as the function of a digital album, plus it's cheaper in most cases.

Are you just trying to argue again for the heck of it or is this one of the legit times that you seem to have trouble with comparisons? Art is meant to be enjoyed with your eyes. A gun is not. Buying a fully automatic weapon just so you can sit there look at it is a sign of other problems. Small penis syndrome? Mishandled as a child? I'm not sure.

There are dozens of other reasons why owning/buying a CD differs from "owning" a piece of digital data. I can literally get in any car and pop that CD in there. I can go over to my friends house and listen to it, i can let him borrow it, i can sell it since i actually OWN it, etc.

 

[rms]

someone can....think a gun is a work of art ya doofus. for someone who preaches social interaction you act like you've never talked to a person with different interests

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

someone can....think a gun is a work of art ya doofus. for someone who preaches social interaction you act like you've never talked to a person with different interests

was that gun designed to be a piece of art like an actual piece of art is you idiot?

Like i said, anyone who wants to own modern guns just to look at them has problems.

 

[CiG]

I would say machinery is just as legitimate a piece of art as one those students slinging period blood onto a canvass is. Take people interested in locomotives for instance, or people who collect clocks and watches to open up and appreciate the inner workings. That's just you putting the concept of "art" in a box for your own purposes.

Art is meant to be enjoyed with your eyes.

What kind of reductionist madness is this? Food can be art, music is established as art.

Are you just trying to argue again for the heck of it or is this one of the legit times that you seem to have trouble with comparisons?

You brought up that nothing you own is impractical because you use it, I'm just trying to differentiate between use and practicality since I can use a gold-laminated Lamborghini, that wouldn't make it a practical purchase.

If you think all I'm doing is arguing for no reason, why play along? Not that I am, I genuinely think there's an important distinction between practicality and usage.

 

[rms]

the intent of the creator does not have to be relevant to the consumer. 3rd century pottery wasnt fucking art but it is now

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't know, this modern firearm looks aesthetic as fuck. TB is high on roids or something

 

[CiG]

This is art.

 

[Einherjar86]

Circumventing my question, I see

I think people should be able to own guns. I think plenty of people own guns for hunting and/or protection, and do so responsibly. I don’t think you need an automatic weapon for either. I think the risks of deregulating purchases for automatic weapons outweighs the personal pleasures of collecting them.

Eins just reactive to his relatives vs his current milieu. It's pretty predictable. Even without the background, following one's instruction in higher education is pretty standard. Without strong values or cognitive based resistance, why would you argue with authority? Especially when said authority holds career keys? The "uneducated" resist because there are no stakes involved, or opposing stakes.

Wow. What a bitch.

 

[The Ozzman]

risks of deregulating purchases

Explain your reasoning of why there would be risks to this

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

the intent of the creator does not have to be relevant to the consumer. 3rd century pottery wasnt fucking art but it is now

i know you're not good at reading, but did you miss the part where i said modern(numerous times if i might add)?

I would say machinery is just as legitimate a piece of art as one those students slinging period blood onto a canvass is. Take people interested in locomotives for instance, or people who collect clocks and watches to open up and appreciate the inner workings. That's just you putting the concept of "art" in a box for your own purposes.

So you legit don't see the difference between a piece of art(the definition of it btw) and someone who considers whatever they're into as art? Yeah, you're right ... why am i even going along with this.

art1
/ärt/
noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty

yeah lets compare actual cover art to fucking guns

What kind of reductionist madness is this? Food can be art, music is established as art.

Yea but weapons are not. If that's the case so are my old socks. Doesn't make it art just because i say it is.

You brought up that nothing you own is impractical because you use it, I'm just trying to differentiate between use and practicality since I can use a gold-laminated Lamborghini, that wouldn't make it a practical purchase.

i can use that car for what its meant to be used for. Can you use that fully automatic weapon for what it was made for? hurdurdur bubut dat practicality.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don't know, this modern firearm looks aesthetic as fuck. TB is high on roids or something

View attachment 17612

what a piece of art!

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

 

[CiG]

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty

Dunno how you think this makes your point rather than rebuts it but okay.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... seriously? You read "painting and sculpture"(things you appreciate mainly with your eyes) and still had trouble? Lulz. Just pointing out that you're comparing guns(which are not meant or designed to be "a form of art" and i can link you to the definition of what a firearm is if need be) to a piece album cover ART, which is an actual form of ART, literally falls right under the most basic definition of it. Also i like how you just pulled out of your retarded owning CD's vs digital argument because it made no sense at all ... but its okay.

 

[CiG]

... seriously? You read "painting and sculpture"(things you appreciate mainly with your eyes) and still had trouble? Lulz.

Seriously? You read "typically" and take that to mean any non-standard definition of art is wrong? That's like saying a hermaphrodite isn't a human because humans typically aren't hermaphrodites.

The opening definition is the most important part of the definition and of course it's the part you're choosing to ignore for the rather arbitrary bit tacked on afterwards.

Can you use that fully automatic weapon for what it was made for? hurdurdur bubut dat practicality.

You likely can't. I never argued that owning one is practical though, in fact I said the exact opposite.

Also i like how you just pulled out of your retarded owning CD's vs digital argument because it made no sense at all ... but its okay.

That's not why. Your rebuttal was that you can put it in any car (false and increasingly so) and you can take it to your butt buddy's house (because you can't take digitally stored music anywhere obviously...) and so it was clear to me that you missed the point.

Yea but weapons are not. If that's the case so are my old socks. Doesn't make it art just because i say it is.

Are your old socks the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"? This is the definition you provided and by this definition your old socks are not art while a firearm is, or can be considered so by someone with an eye for and an appreciation of the works of technicians and inventors.

Immense human creativity and imagination goes into firearms technology.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

how are you having trouble with A PIECE OF ART LIKE AN ALBUM COVER ART IS ART AND IS CREATED FOR YOU TO ENJOY WITH YOUR EYES but a FIREARM IS DESIGNED TO SHOOT BULLETS? Sure, anything can be art in the eyes of the beholder. But how in the world is that comparison getting past you? The fact that you're trying to compare firearms and some peoples views that guns are art to actual art says everything here tbh. That you just love arguing with anyone and everyone on this forum for the sake of arguing. Honest question, do you have any friend in real life?

as far as why own CD's when you can "own" digital, i already gave you numerous legitimate reasons which you seem to ignore just to push whatever it is that you're trying to argue about in your own little warped mind.

You likely can't. I never argued that owning one is practical though, in fact I said the exact opposite.

so why in the world are you trying to argue whit me when all i did with my initial post was imply that Ozz wanting to own fully automatic weapons is about as impractical as it gets? geez man.

Are your old socks the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"? This is the definition you provided and by this definition your old socks are not art while a firearm is, or can be considered so by someone with an eye for and an appreciation of the works of technicians and inventors.

how are they not if in my eyes they are? And yes, they really are not. But wow, lol.

 

[CiG]

how are you having trouble with A PIECE OF ART LIKE AN ALBUM COVER ART IS ART AND IS CREATED FOR YOU TO ENJOY WITH YOUR EYES but a FIREARM IS DESIGNED TO SHOOT BULLETS?

I'm not having trouble with that at all. I agree that an album cover is for looking at and a gun is for shooting, where have I said otherwise? A work of art can also have functionality and functioning technology can also have an artistic quality.

The fact that you're trying to compare firearms and some peoples views that guns are art to actual art says everything here tbh. That you just love arguing with anyone and everyone on this forum for the sake of arguing. Honest question, do you have any friend in real life?

So butthurt.

as far as why own CD's when you can "own" digital, i already gave you numerous legitimate reasons which you seem to ignore just to push whatever it is that you're trying to argue about in your own little warped mind.

You gave me functions you think are distinct to physical media when they aren't. You can take iPods, MP3 players, hard drives etc etc anywhere you want and almost as many cars have plug-ins for those methods as they do CD players, with a trend going away from CD players. This isn't an argument against collecting physical media just to distinguish between use and practicality.

Just because you can use it, doesn't mean it's practical. That's all lol.

so why in the world are you trying to argue whit me when all i did with my initial post was imply that Ozz wanting to own fully automatic weapons is about as impractical as it gets? geez man.

Because I said "collecting impractical shit is what separates humans from animals I guess" and you responded "i use whatever i collect, unless it's rare. I drive my cars to their full extent, i listen to my CD's, i watch the movies i buy, i own firearms for protection/sports/hunting etc. I feel sorry for anyone who collects those things just to look at them and feel goods" which implies that using something makes it not impractical and I just disagree with the conflation.

how are they not if in my eyes they are? And yes, they really are not. But wow, lol.

In your eyes your old socks are the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"?

 

[Slammed]

In your eyes your old socks are the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"?

They might just be...

https://walyou.com/shanghai-street-art/

 

[CiG]

loly shit.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Just because you can use it, doesn't mean it's practical. That's all lol.

and what im talking about is actually using something for what it is. Listening to those CD's, watching those movies, driving those cars like they're meant to be driven. A gun is meant to fire bullets, a piece of art is meant to be enjoyed with your eyes. That is all. And Ozz owning a fully auto just because he wants to own one and feel good doesn't make it practical.

Because I said "collecting impractical shit is what separates humans from animals I guess" and you responded "i use whatever i collect, unless it's rare. I drive my cars to their full extent, i listen to my CD's, i watch the movies i buy, i own firearms for protection/sports/hunting etc. I feel sorry for anyone who collects those things just to look at them and feel goods" which implies that using something makes it not impractical and I just disagree with the conflation.

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

And let me know when you can sell or give them to your friends. ZERO resale value. Let me know when you can sit there and actually enjoy the ARTWORK without having a computer or itunes or whatever. I can grab my CD and jump in most cars and listen to it since most cars have CD players and lets not forget that there are more older used cars on the roads than brands new ones and most of those older cars do not have the requirements for you to play digital unless you want to use one of those tape to mp3 player connection thingies. I dont have to worry about my hard drive crashing or me losing access to my itunes account or something. And to add to that, you can literally convert any CD you buy to digital so it's practically a 2-for-1 and imo makes digital completely obsolete. And lets not forget most CD's just sound much better than MP3's. Anyway imo digital is not real and you never really OWN and ENJOY an album like it's meant to be.

In your eyes your old socks are the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"?

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

i like to end this by saying that imo Ozz's titties are a work of art. Handcrafted and sculpted by the gods themselves.