PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

emusician

That was beautiful and eloquent.

stardust, that cheap pop-psychology breakdown, MAY be correct and in many points IS correct(the gun must be ready to use and within reach to be useful, for example), but it's not the full story.

most hunters eat what they kill, most are NOT trophy hunters that "bully" poor defenseless creatures. hunting is much less cruel than many farming practices.
most guns used for protection do just that.
there's nothing wrong with the hobby of gun collecting and smithing anymore than the hobby of music and it's debatable which is potentially more harmfull.
most of what you speak of, you havce NO actual experience with.

how old are you anyway? are you still in university? the reason i ask, is you seem to think the real answers are in university and that university is the bastion of truth...

asking if you are out of university?

sorry, my bad....it's nothing to be ashamed of though...

i'm questioning the statements made as true, that i know not to be true from personal experience, although i do(and did) admit that many of those statements are true to some degree. the question of age and schooling is to better understand who i am talking to. i appear to be old enough to be your father...i just wondered if that was true. it's not an attack, although if it nuetralizes a point you have made, that's just how it is...

over the centuries, there have been many things repeated out of universities as the ultimate truth, that have been revealed to be misunderstandings at best and outright fabrications at worst..take the work of C. Darwin.....

really, because you do seem to be a pup, sorry if that's arrogant.

my title? Sir, Mr., Lord, King...
my degree? the nth...

there's no need to be that formal, i don't kill over disrespect.

but even when i bs, i never am just speaking bullocks...the psuedo psychological evaluation of a gun owner? bullocks.

If Darwin is fabrication what's your model for where we are now gary?

elements of Darwin's work(which he did NOT invent) are certainly real and true. it's the big conclusions that can't be proven that are the problem. for instance, many of the so-called evolutionary lines jus don't have the fossil evidence showing the transitional forms needed. Darwinism doesn't fully explain epi-genetics, either.

i'm sure that "natural selection" does exist, at least to some extent, but the idea of "climbing the evolutionary ladder" as though there's a race to complete a course is strictly a way for the elite to justify their lording over the commoners(they're further along the "path").

there's lots to be said and learned about the subject, and it's not like i know it all. the common knowledge is shite though, just like the common knowledge of relativity.

not having a better explanation doesn't necessarily make the popular explanation true, however.

That's cool, as long as you're not going to tell me that the earth was invented 10,000 years ago and populated by two people eating apples.

i'm not sure all the conclusions were his and like religions the bits people want to use to their advantage get twisted. Also he didn't coin the term 'survival of the fittest' (as i'm sure you well know) and hey, it's still called The THEORY of Evolution, not The FACT of Evolution .

garyb wrote: it's the big conclusions that can't be proven that are the problem. for instance, many of the so-called evolutionary lines jus don't have the fossil evidence showing the transitional forms needed.

there has been an experiment where they put species that were eating meat only on an island where they could only eat vegetables and the species quickly adapted (to an extent that their organism changed to better handle the vege going through the digesting process), in if i remember right as short as 25 years!

the conclusion was that if we can't find fossils showing the transitional forms, maybe it's transiting too fast?
anyways go on gentlemen, this thread is fun

a problem might be that those people considering themselves more skillfull or smart...
... are great in talking, but switch perspective immediately once their very own concerns are (or seem to be) touched

no doubt.