Forums

[-Alex]

It depends on how you define harmed. If its there to be shot at- for example the US military often shoots at destroyed cars with new windows to test performance through glass- some could say yes, some could say it served it's purpose. Does blowing your nose harm kleenex?

Yes, I would say in all of those cases the object is being harmed. So yes, a gun is a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose.

[JimDandy75]

Well then lets ban kleenex first.

[-Alex]

...why?

Is a kleenex a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose?

[JimDandy75]

You just said it was. You asked if shooting a target causes harm to the target. I asked if blowing your nose causes harm to a Kleenex. You said in all those cases, the object is being harmed.

[-Alex]

You just said it was.

I said it was being harmed, not that it was a weapon.

You asked if shooting a target causes harm to the target. I asked if blowing your nose causes harm to a Kleenex. You said in all those cases, the object is being harmed.

Right. The Kleenex and the target are being harmed.

So... did you mean to ask if we should ban noses? Or are you not even sure what you're saying anymore?

[JimDandy75]

OK you're correct, should we ban noses, and limit the volume of mucus allowed in a nasal passage?

When something is used in a way it was designed for... a helmet getting scuffed while protecting the brain of a football player, a kleenex collecting the mucus of a blown nose, or the pre-packaged safety cable for a worker at height being deployed and thus needing replacement, those objects aren't "harmed".

[-Alex]

OK you're correct, should we ban noses, and limit the volume of mucus allowed in a nasal passage?

Nope. A nose isn't a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose.

When something is used in a way it was designed for... a helmet getting scuffed while protecting the brain of a football player, a kleenex collecting the mucus of a blown nose, or the pre-packaged safety cable for a worker at height being deployed and thus needing replacement, those objects aren't "harmed".

Sure they are - and that's why they get thrown away after too much harm.

[JimDandy75]

OK you're correct, should we ban noses, and limit the volume of mucus allowed in a nasal passage?

Nope. A nose isn't a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose.

Sure it is. Your nose has hair in it designed to trap particles and kill any infections that could get into your nose before it even starts. Which gives me an idea.. we've got to get after those antibiotic people....

[-Alex]

Your nose has hair in it designed to trap particles and kill any infections that could get into your nose before it even starts.

RIGHT! That is what it is designed for, along with breathing, and smelling, and dispelling waste. Not a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose.

[JimDandy75]

antibiotic are designed to kill as a primary purpose. And we still haven't established that firearms are designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose. I still dispute that putting a hole in a target, breaking a clay, or putting a scratch in the paint on a steel gong target is "harm" when that's the target's purpose. Extend that to anything else... getting hit by a pitch in baseball causes harm. Ban Baseball. Getting tackled in football causes harm by your definition. Ban football. Getting in a car accident causes harm. Ban cars.