circ dick soleil posted:

shut up fag

OG Necromancer posted:

thats a good one!

FluffieDuckie posted:

perhaps he could trying saying something about how guns are bad

alnilam posted:

How about that plus about his opponent being also bad?

Awesome! posted:

p sure the title says bum collection

Dennis Rasmussen posted:

He should say even though people find an awful beauty in weaponry, in the function of it, in the object itself and the use of it as recreation, this appreciation is immaturity/insecurity. It reflects a very limited view of the world as a whole: You might appreciate the engineering, but that takes the object as a singular thing, as if it exists in a world without context. Every object has to be judged in the greater context in society and the universe as a whole. As long as his recreational objects are designed, and have potency, as weapons, and are employed as weapons, the 'beauty' of a weapon is shortsightedness. In context, the weapon's consequences are tragic and can't be divorced from that. Even the act of self-defense is a tragedy on both sides in context, both destructive and diminishing to the performer and deadly and regrettable to the person that necessitated it, not to mention vanishingly improbable in context with all the other offenses of weapons. To value weapons as beautiful, you divorce the context, glamorize the destruction of human life, and delight in the cruelty the human heart is capable of.

Guns cannot be ethically appreciated until they no longer are dangerous to human life. To do so willingly increases the sum total of cruelty and destruction in our culture, even if you never use your weapon in anger. No human that aspires to behave ethically can justify this action, and if you do not aspire to behave ethically, you are not the kind of person that should be allowed to wield weapons.

various cheeses posted:

do you like put the coins into the butt?

Dennis Rasmussen posted:

He should say even though people find an awful beauty in weaponry, in the function of it, in the object itself and the use of it as recreation, this appreciation is immaturity/insecurity. It reflects a very limited view of the world as a whole: You might appreciate the engineering, but that takes the object as a singular thing, as if it exists in a world without context. Every object has to be judged in the greater context in society and the universe as a whole. As long as his recreational objects are designed, and have potency, as weapons, and are employed as weapons, the 'beauty' of a weapon is shortsightedness. In context, the weapon's consequences are tragic and can't be divorced from that. Even the act of self-defense is a tragedy on both sides in context, both destructive and diminishing to the performer and deadly and regrettable to the person that necessitated it, not to mention vanishingly improbable in context with all the other offenses of weapons. To value weapons as beautiful, you divorce the context, glamorize the destruction of human life, and delight in the cruelty the human heart is capable of.

Guns cannot be ethically appreciated until they no longer are dangerous to human life. To do so willingly increases the sum total of cruelty and destruction in our culture, even if you never use your weapon in anger. No human that aspires to behave ethically can justify this action, and if you do not aspire to behave ethically, you are not the kind of person that should be allowed to wield weapons.

Awesome! posted:

p sure the title says bum collection

thewizardofshoe posted:

wtf I see no bums

I'll be the first to donate I guess



Feel better Ableist Kinkshamer

OG Necromancer posted:

UnwiseTrout posted:

I came in here hoping for buns and have been largely disappointed. This is a thread I cannot get behind.

bacalou posted:

GODSPEED JOHN GLENN posted:

where da bums at?

Oops! Found this one hiding under the porch, the little scamp.

Dennis Rasmussen posted:

He should say even though people find an awful beauty in weaponry, in the function of it, in the object itself and the use of it as recreation, this appreciation is immaturity/insecurity. It reflects a very limited view of the world as a whole: You might appreciate the engineering, but that takes the object as a singular thing, as if it exists in a world without context. Every object has to be judged in the greater context in society and the universe as a whole. As long as his recreational objects are designed, and have potency, as weapons, and are employed as weapons, the 'beauty' of a weapon is shortsightedness. In context, the weapon's consequences are tragic and can't be divorced from that. Even the act of self-defense is a tragedy on both sides in context, both destructive and diminishing to the performer and deadly and regrettable to the person that necessitated it, not to mention vanishingly improbable in context with all the other offenses of weapons. To value weapons as beautiful, you divorce the context, glamorize the destruction of human life, and delight in the cruelty the human heart is capable of.

Guns cannot be ethically appreciated until they no longer are dangerous to human life. To do so willingly increases the sum total of cruelty and destruction in our culture, even if you never use your weapon in anger. No human that aspires to behave ethically can justify this action, and if you do not aspire to behave ethically, you are not the kind of person that should be allowed to wield weapons.

Jett posted:

this is good but it needs to be snappier, lemme run it through ms word's "summarize" feature

joat mon posted:

He should say even though people find an ADJECTIVE beauty in NOUN, in the function of it, in the object itself and the use of it as AN ACTIVITY, this appreciation is immaturity/insecurity. It reflects a very limited view of the world as a whole: You might appreciate the ADJECTIVE, but that takes the object as a singular thing, as if it exists in a world without context. Every object has to be judged in the greater context in society and the universe as a whole. As long as his VERB objects are designed, and have potency, as PLURAL NOUN, and are employed as PLURAL NOUN, the 'beauty' of a NOUN is shortsightedness. In context, the NOUN's consequences are ADJECTIVE and can't be divorced from that. Even the act of VERB is a tragedy on both sides in context, both ADJECTIVE and diminishing to the OCCUPATION and ADJECTIVE and regrettable to the person that PAST TENSE VERB it, not to mention ADJECTIVE improbable in context with all the other ADJECTIVE of PLURAL NOUN. To value PLURAL NOUN as ADJECTIVE, you divorce the context, ADJECTIVE the destruction of NOUN, and delight in the NOUN the human NOUN is capable of.

PLURAL NOUN cannot be ADJECTIVE appreciated until they no longer are ADJECTIVE to human PLURAL NOUN. To do so willingly increases the sum total of NOUN and NOUN in our culture, even if you never use your NOUN in EMOTION. No human that aspires to behave ADVERB can justify this action, and if you do not aspire to VERB ADVERB, you are not the kind of NOUN that should be allowed to wield NOUN.