Or people could simply articulate themselves properly rather than trying to bastardize their words once they are backed into a corner.

But, I'll still take your Kleenex.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
Yes, words have meanings. He didn't say most gun designs have the purpose of killing. He said most guns. It's you who is inserting this extra wicket for him to jump through.


Well, I'm not so sure it is a fact, and since nobody has offered any list of all firearms designs and which were designed to kill or injure, I suspect you don't either, and are just blowing smoke.


Sure we would. Are you seriously trying to say that we don't have multiple calibers of guns that are all designed to kill? Multiple types of sights for weapons designed to kill? Of course we do. The existence of variation in design (by itself) doesn't imply anything about whether the designed purpose is for killing or target shooting.


You don't, quite frankly, have any clue what I'm familiar with, but that shouldn't stop you from declaring what you think you know.


I'm happy with that claim, but that doesn't invalidate or replace the original claim.


Nope. We said what we meant, and you and stal mounted a tortured defense of firearms, for really no reason other than to argue.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Here's some Kleenex for when you're done stroking your statutory-interpretation-applied-to-the-LR-for-the-sake-of-winning-an-argument boner.


[/quote]

Or people could simply articulate themselves properly rather than trying to bastardize their words once they are backed into a corner.

But, I'll still take your Kleenex.[/quote]
Cool. You never know, that "ohh...ohh...ohh - TEXTUALISM!!!!!" moment can sneak up on the best of us ;)

Now youre inserting the word "all" when i said "most"

Btw. Racecars are designed for transportation too. Theyre designed to transport the driver from the start line to the finish line very fast.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sure they are. They're made for transporting a driver around a race track. They are further designed to do so at as fast a speed as possible. They replaced the previous object used to transport racers around track,...the horse. And the horse replaced transporting yourself by foot. Etc.

Now there are certainly some cars that aren't designed to actually transport anyone, because they're made as showpieces without functioning motors or suspensions, or whatever. It's never wise to declaratively state that 100% of anything meets a particular narrow definition, because there is almost always an exception.

Of course, that's not what we're really dealing with in this thread.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You know, I was just yanking your chain, not even your's exactly. But now you have gone too far. :)

Yes they are. You haven't defined transportation properly. It all references back to the definition of transport.

trans·port
verb

tranˈspôrt/

1. 
   1.
   take or carry (people or goods) from one place to another by means of a vehicle, aircraft, or ship.
   

Race cars of all sorts take someone from one point to another.

Restoring a classic car does not change what its original design goal.

Not sure what a 'show car' is exactly. If it is like a show motorcycle that is never meant to be ridden then you may have found one.

Are 'demolition cars' actually a type of their own or a repurposed vehicle? Even if they are specifically designed they are designed to move people from one place to another for as long as possible.

None of the above should be taken seriously nor taken as an invitation to argue in anything other than jest as I am not invested enough in the original topic to fight.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Even show cars are fundamentally designed for transportation. The owners might paint them up, change body lines, etc, and they may never actually use them for transportation, but their underlying design remains. A body, wheels, an engine,...they are designed for transportation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If you arent picking a side then you are chosing the side of the oppressor! 😉

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Nope. He said:

Post 29: "Also, most cars are designed for transporation, most guns are designed to kill."

Post 38:

"What i wrote is not a fallacy, but ironically, what you wrote is. Its a non-sequitur. Just because something isnt used for X, does not mean it wasnt designed to do X. By your logic, nuclear weapons arent designed to kill since most do not.

Nearly all of the guns in existence are designed to kill."

There is big difference and you should be able to see it.


Nope. That is a fact. First and foremost, a pistol is not an offensive weapon. You know this. Every Glock was not "designed to kill" anymore than every FBI agent is equipped with a Glock "to kill." Nearly every pistol was designed as a defensive weapon and deterrent. Then we have entire classes of guns like the Walther P22 and the Browning 1911-22 that were specifically designed as entry-level training firearms. We have categories of AR variants like those from Faxon Arms that were designed and manufactured for 3-gun competitions. Etc., etc.

Of course we don't. The .22 was never intended to be an offensive killing round. What you are saying is akin to saying all ammunition was designed to kill. Ridiculous. Range ammo was not designed (or manufactured) to kill. Could it? Sure, but that is not its design. That's why we have hollow point and other defensive rounds, which are designed to kill (or at least incapacitate).



I am merely going off the evidence you have provided over the years, which is quite compelling.



Nope. Veganerd made a false statement, which was pointed out. Then he doubled down on that false statement and again was called out. So he tried again with "what I meant was..." That's fine. But, quit trying to argue your first point was valid. Just admit that was wrong, was not what you meant, and go on.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I was not referring to you with this response. I never claimed you said "all." I realize you said "most."

Race cars are not meant to "transport" the driver.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, they are not. Teams are permitted to switch drivers during races. The purpose is to move the vehicle around the track at a high rate of speed, not to transport the driver or anything else. That may be done by remote control some day.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What are they meant to do?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

If forced to choose, I choose the side that has bacon. I guess you lose. (If you give me Faken Bacon I will kick your ass.)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Teams are permitted to switch drivers during races. The purpose is to move the vehicle around the track at a high rate of speed, not to transport the driver or anything else. That may be done by remote control some day.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

But today they transport a driver. And even without a driver a viable argument could be made that they are still transporting 'goods' of some sort ( at least much more viable than arguing they aren't designed to transport a driver today). Changing the person out for another person does not change the purpose of the car.

In 10,000 years this is going to be all that can be found of the internet. That further civilization will be quite confused that we had so much time on our hands that we would argue about whether or not race cars were a means of transportation.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Youre being silly, but i still like you.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The driver is merely a component of the car. Saying the "purpose" of the racecar is to "transport" the driver is like saying the purpose of a racecar is to transport the steering wheel around the track.

No, it isn't.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Who gets the trophy? The driver or the steering wheel?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I still like you as well, but, it must be hell inside your head ...

I'll say the same to you - claiming the "purpose" of a racecar is to "transport" the driver around the track is like saying the purpose of the racecar is to transport the steering wheel around the track. No, it isn't.

Ricky Bobby should have taught everyone that the car has to cross the finish line, not the driver. The driver is irrelevant and is merely a component of the car. Thus, the winner of an auto race is not the driver to first cross the line. It is the car.

The opposite can be said about a triathlon during which the bike transports the racer. The racer must cross the line first to win and the racer uses the bike for transportation, rather than being a mere component of the object that must cross the finish line.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Irrelevant to the discussion. If the driver crossed the finish line outside the car, the driver would not be the winner.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Someone needs to go to the rule book because I don't know. If the driver falls out and the car crosses the line without him, does the car win?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

At which point the car is transporting a separate driver. Regardless, the car has to transport a driver. The cars don't drive themselves, at least not yet.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I certainly see the difference between what he said, and the tortured meaning you're trying to ascribe to his words.



Whether a pistol is an offensive weapon or not is irrelevant. Nobody claimed that all or most guns were offensive.

Again, until you can provide a list of all variants of firearm and show that more of them were designed specifically to shoot at paper and not animals or people, then you're claiming facts not in evidence counselor.


You're mistaken on your history. The .22 round was designed back in 1850s for rifles and Smith and Wesson's first pistol. It was a small game and self defense round, long before it became the choice for target shooting.


That's not akin to what I'm saying, since I'm not claiming "all" anything, and since I pretty carefully crafted my assertion to include kill and/or injure.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

LOL! Yeah, just like the race car is "transporting" the steering wheel!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Can you win the race if the driver falls out? Will the result be the same if the steering wheel or any other part of the car falls out?

And in the event of a crash, what part of the car crossing the line counts? Google is letting me down. I'm betting it is the part that has the driver in it, not the part with the steering wheel if they are separate.

These are burning questions that must be answered.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.