Llyranor Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 How is that relevant to their relative safety? (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 They aren't safe. Period. The safety level of a nuclear missile is zero. You can't have one zero safer than another zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades? Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nah. It's the brick walls that sometimes feel like they're being banged against a Hades. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 The safety level of this egg salad is 52. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is why I come to these forums. They are my metaphorical brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 They aren't safe. Period. The safety level of a nuclear missile is zero. You can't have one zero safer than another zero. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you'd consider an unstable nuclear warhead, that could literally go off at any time it wants to, regardless of when or where (like in the Silo), with no arming codes and no arming triggers to be just as safe as one that was perfectly stable, with zero chance of detonation outside of its target, 187 highly uncrackable arming codes, with a flawless arming trigger to be equally safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Both are designed to explode. Both will cause the same amount of damahe (if they are the same yield) when they do. Just because one is controlled by chance while the other is controlled by a human does not mean one is safer than the other. In most cases I would rely more on chance than human sanity. Edited June 15, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Actually I would say it does. Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Both are designed to explode. Both will cause the same amount of damahe (if they are the same yield) when they do. Just because one is controlled by chance while the other is controlled by a human does not mean one is safer than the other. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So a gun without a safety (appropriately named) isn't any safer than a gun without one?? Edited June 15, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Would "secure" and "better controlled" be better words? http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Depends if the gun is loaded or not. A loaded gun with a safety is more dangerous than a gun without a safety unloaded. Edited June 15, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) They're both loaded. Why you seriously thought I'd be changing two variables is beyond me. Edited June 15, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 You didn't clarify. Of course 2 loaded guns, one with a safety and one without, are both equally deadly. It doesn't matter to the weapon if the death was on purpose or an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Yes. Because if one drops a gun and it goes off and kills someone, it's clearly just as safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Dead is dead, Alan. Accident or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Hahahahaha Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyranor Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Wow, the terrorists must love you. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I'm guessing brakes don't make cars safer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I'm guessing brakes don't make cars safer either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A car accident is a car accident, Alan. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Not when it is a teenager on a cellphone yapping away is behind the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Not when it is a teenager on a cellphone yapping away is behind the wheel. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Strawman. Not what we're discussing. Do brakes make a car safer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Strawman? We are discussing weaponry then you go to a machine that has a utility function. The purpose of a car is not to kill, but to be used as transportation. The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a nuclear missile is to kill. If anyone is pulling a strawman it is you, Alan. Edited June 15, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyranor Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 A car accident is a car accident, alanschu. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Brakes were an analogy to the current topic. Hence, still related to the topic. Talking about teenagers when asked that question is a deflection. Unless you're trying to say that nukes are unsafe because of teenagers talking on the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts