And yet even if one entertains that notion, there’s a difference between commiting the resources one has, and seeking out new resources to be able to commit.
There is only one single, horrific purpose for a rotory cannon. If you are unable to decide to not use one without actually having it in your possession, then you by definition are not a pacifist.
You are ignoring the possibility of shooting a gun simply for the fun of doing it. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to mow down a crowd of people, but I’d love to have a nice rotary cannon. I’ve owned a few cars over the years that I would have greatly enjoyed demolishing with a minigun.
“There is only one single, horrific purpose for a rotory cannon.”
Yes, when placed over a fire and filled with kernels of corn it makes an excellent kettle corn maker.
Yups, so many believe ‘pacifism’ means ‘non- or anti-violence’
It doesn’t, it just means they prefer peace over violence, butt are capable (and willing) of knocking heads together if needs be
I wonder if there’s a pacifism spectrum, from “would fight Hitler, wouldn’t fight Kaiser Bill” types at one end, to “will never fire a gun even if the invaders kick down my door” at the other.
Yes, there is. The latter end of the spectrum is known as “absolute pacifism.”
Other positions on the spectrum include “can’t fight in self-defense, but must fight to defend another who is unwilling to surrender because you cannot make the choice to give away their life / property / whatever for them and inaction enables the attacker.”
Among show folks, there used to be a saying about “Chewing the scenery”, and
he HAS. I’m not APOLOGIZING for the fascination weapons have probably ALWAYS had for kids.
I had probably the best possible edu in order to make me a SAFELY
SOCIAL person, AND capable with firearms. Ain’t murdered nobody yet, m’am,
and YOU will have to mass-produce something similar for everybody, AND still
do something similar and much larger with….atomic energy.
A-Sig has demonstrated a willingness to abduct their fellow humans such as Nick to enslave and literally weaponize them, so why would they hesitate to do the same to sapient drones?
If A-Sig could install some sort of control chip to override their free will and turn them into (synthetic) living weapons, they absolutely would.
Yeah, but why bother when standard remote control is possible? Or if one must use brains, why not have the brain control the drone remotely to cut down on weight?
It’s really not a good analogy, Nick. If you had said you’re celibate but you still want your dick, that would be an equivalent situation. Problem is, in both situations, having the equipment at hand makes it much more tempting to use it when the opportunity arises.
Men always want to keep the thing most important to them.
Well, then they’ll need to hold on to it.
Well, to be fair, Nick wasn’t really given a choice to hold onto it.
That’s it, Nick! Own it! Assert your virginity!
I know that every metaphor breaks down at a certain point, but does this mean there will one day be a point where he is no longer a pacifist?
*insert double-entendre joke about shooting his rockets/payload*
This is Nick we’re talking about. No. The analogy does not imply that at all.
To be a “whole person,”, one needs the ability to choose whether and when to commit one’s resources.
And yet even if one entertains that notion, there’s a difference between commiting the resources one has, and seeking out new resources to be able to commit.
There is only one single, horrific purpose for a rotory cannon. If you are unable to decide to not use one without actually having it in your possession, then you by definition are not a pacifist.
You are ignoring the possibility of shooting a gun simply for the fun of doing it. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to mow down a crowd of people, but I’d love to have a nice rotary cannon. I’ve owned a few cars over the years that I would have greatly enjoyed demolishing with a minigun.
“There is only one single, horrific purpose for a rotory cannon.”
Yes, when placed over a fire and filled with kernels of corn it makes an excellent kettle corn maker.
Don’t ask, I just know people.
Nick is capable of violence, but draws the line at lethal actions.
He’d totally go to town on scenery.
Yups, so many believe ‘pacifism’ means ‘non- or anti-violence’
It doesn’t, it just means they prefer peace over violence, butt are capable (and willing) of knocking heads together if needs be
I wonder if there’s a pacifism spectrum, from “would fight Hitler, wouldn’t fight Kaiser Bill” types at one end, to “will never fire a gun even if the invaders kick down my door” at the other.
Yes, there is. The latter end of the spectrum is known as “absolute pacifism.”
Other positions on the spectrum include “can’t fight in self-defense, but must fight to defend another who is unwilling to surrender because you cannot make the choice to give away their life / property / whatever for them and inaction enables the attacker.”
Among show folks, there used to be a saying about “Chewing the scenery”, and
he HAS. I’m not APOLOGIZING for the fascination weapons have probably ALWAYS had for kids.
I had probably the best possible edu in order to make me a SAFELY
SOCIAL person, AND capable with firearms. Ain’t murdered nobody yet, m’am,
and YOU will have to mass-produce something similar for everybody, AND still
do something similar and much larger with….atomic energy.
Roll up your sleeves…..
You might recall that A-sig attacked them with drones. Nick would have no problem with blowing those out of the sky.
this is Skin Horse. Drones might turn out to be sapient.
This is still A-Sig, sapient drones wouldn’t be on the payroll, or being used by those who are.
They need not be on the payroll, per se.
A-Sig has demonstrated a willingness to abduct their fellow humans such as Nick to enslave and literally weaponize them, so why would they hesitate to do the same to sapient drones?
If A-Sig could install some sort of control chip to override their free will and turn them into (synthetic) living weapons, they absolutely would.
Yeah, but why bother when standard remote control is possible? Or if one must use brains, why not have the brain control the drone remotely to cut down on weight?
And here we see an example of Checkov’s dick … no, wait, that came out wrong.
Ideally, Chekhov’s dick wouldn’t have come out at all. We can probably blame the Chekhov’s fly we saw earlier.
Thought we were talking about Nick’s dick. (I just wanted to say that ’cause it rhymes.)
I’ve written a song parody, but tolerance for this kind of thing can run kind of low.
Is it to Monty Python’s Penis Song?
I am indebted to Eric Idle for several rhymes, but, no, the tune belongs to the Sherman Brothers.
…and now I want to see an example of Checkov’s Bum. (Well, I guess there’s always DeviantArt.)
Three results.
I knew it!
As I recall, his biggest complaint upon first discovering himself in the helicopter body was that he no longer had his dick.
and his biggest complaint in his current body was that the dick had not been altered to suit his religious preferences.
It’s really not a good analogy, Nick. If you had said you’re celibate but you still want your dick, that would be an equivalent situation. Problem is, in both situations, having the equipment at hand makes it much more tempting to use it when the opportunity arises.