Gun is to weapon as bat is to...
24 02 09 14:48 by vagrant
Tom Hartmann was talking with a gun rights guy today on his show. I don't want to address gun rights/control right now but rather crappy arguments.
The guest (sorry can't remember his name [and too lazy to look it up as it really isn't important to what I want to address]) took issue with Tom referring to a gun as a "weapon". He tried used the analogy of "If I come at you with a baseball bat, then it is a weapon". Well that is true enough. At that point the bat is a weapon, but its purpose is not be be a weapon, it is a thing with which you hit balls. Converting it to a weapon perverts its purpose. He tried to use target practice as to why a gun is not automatically a weapon but he did not see that he was simply on the reverse side of the analogy.
A gun is a device to put holes in living organisms, with the end desired result of death or wounding. That is what a gun is. Using a gun to shoot paper targets is a similar perversion of its purpose. So is using a handgun's grip to pound nails. You can slice cheese with a sword, that doesn't make it not a weapon intended to wound or kill living organisms. And of course there are guns created specifically for shooting competition and not killing, but that does not change what the fundamental nature and intent of a gun is.
I bugs me when somebody makes a clearly fallacious argument and aren't called on it.
The guest (sorry can't remember his name [and too lazy to look it up as it really isn't important to what I want to address]) took issue with Tom referring to a gun as a "weapon". He tried used the analogy of "If I come at you with a baseball bat, then it is a weapon". Well that is true enough. At that point the bat is a weapon, but its purpose is not be be a weapon, it is a thing with which you hit balls. Converting it to a weapon perverts its purpose. He tried to use target practice as to why a gun is not automatically a weapon but he did not see that he was simply on the reverse side of the analogy.
A gun is a device to put holes in living organisms, with the end desired result of death or wounding. That is what a gun is. Using a gun to shoot paper targets is a similar perversion of its purpose. So is using a handgun's grip to pound nails. You can slice cheese with a sword, that doesn't make it not a weapon intended to wound or kill living organisms. And of course there are guns created specifically for shooting competition and not killing, but that does not change what the fundamental nature and intent of a gun is.
I bugs me when somebody makes a clearly fallacious argument and aren't called on it.
Eat Cheetos, be a vindictive ass.
16 02 09 15:58 by vagrant
I honestly don't understand the latest Cheetos ad campaign.
The ads involve people eating Cheetos being faced with other people being difficult or unpleasant. At the goading of a sinister Chester Cheetah the Cheetos eaters respond with things along the lines of petty vandalism in retaliation, like wiping cheesy fingers on a white jacket or tossing Cheetos into a dryer load of whites.
Now of course on the element of remembering the ad, the spots work. But now I also associate Cheetos with acting like a petty dick. And rather than seeing the product mascot as a friendly figure, it is now a repellent persona. How is that good for the product or public perception? Of course I am probably a bit (ha!) out of the demographic they are targeting, but still...
A review in Advertising Age echoes my viewpoint though an opposition in presented in Slate. The Slate commentary implies that not finding the ads endearing imply prudishness, which is is something I generally am not accused of. The Ad Age review goes a little far in expecting RAoC lawsuits but I agree with the general tone.
The ads involve people eating Cheetos being faced with other people being difficult or unpleasant. At the goading of a sinister Chester Cheetah the Cheetos eaters respond with things along the lines of petty vandalism in retaliation, like wiping cheesy fingers on a white jacket or tossing Cheetos into a dryer load of whites.
Now of course on the element of remembering the ad, the spots work. But now I also associate Cheetos with acting like a petty dick. And rather than seeing the product mascot as a friendly figure, it is now a repellent persona. How is that good for the product or public perception? Of course I am probably a bit (ha!) out of the demographic they are targeting, but still...
A review in Advertising Age echoes my viewpoint though an opposition in presented in Slate. The Slate commentary implies that not finding the ads endearing imply prudishness, which is is something I generally am not accused of. The Ad Age review goes a little far in expecting RAoC lawsuits but I agree with the general tone.
Too late lady, you already failed.
03 02 09 12:20 by vagrant
This whole Nadya "the Octuplets Mom" Suleman thing just keeps getting worse and worse. Lets look at some of the fundamental problems:
Now she reportedly wants to be a "parenting expert" on TV. Ms. Suleman, you are deluded. Sheer volume does not impart wisdom. And even if you are a good parent, your ethics and morals are horribly skewed. You are an unemployed. How are your children going to eat and be clothed and all the other crap that goes with it? Not being able to provide is most decidedly NOT good parenting.
This entire situation is awash in ethical shortcoming from the mother, her parents, and the medical professionals that did the IVF. But more than likely, this almost criminally irresponsible behavior will not be decried, but she will be the next big thing for far too long than 15 minutes.
- This is a single, unemployed mother with six children already (also via IVF). Now it will be 14, all under the age of 8. Who in the fuck paid for this?
- There is a doctor that thought it would be ethical to perform IVF on this woman? I certainly hope there is an ethics review in process and somebodies license is going to be lost.
- Her parents bailed her out in 2007 and bought her a small home though they since declared bankruptcy and had to move in with her.
- This is a quote from her own mother: "[Nadia Suleman] is not evil, but she is obsessed with children. She loves children, she is very good with children, but she obviously overdid herself." Perhaps (as YOU WERE LIVING WITH HER) you might have tried a little harder to talk her out of having another child.
Now she reportedly wants to be a "parenting expert" on TV. Ms. Suleman, you are deluded. Sheer volume does not impart wisdom. And even if you are a good parent, your ethics and morals are horribly skewed. You are an unemployed. How are your children going to eat and be clothed and all the other crap that goes with it? Not being able to provide is most decidedly NOT good parenting.
This entire situation is awash in ethical shortcoming from the mother, her parents, and the medical professionals that did the IVF. But more than likely, this almost criminally irresponsible behavior will not be decried, but she will be the next big thing for far too long than 15 minutes.