Welcome to The Hairy Bear: The Witcher Off-Topic [Archived]

[freakie1one]

You didn't because you didn't want it. That's the main thing. I am guilty because I knew the previssible reaction when people see the word Killer in the begining of a sentence. Just as medias do.

Yes, you are correct. The media loves to use sensationalism to provoke a response from viewers. This is why when people make conclusions based solely off of what they've seen in the media I strongly urge them to do more research and to find out the real facts in order to get the whole picture. Just like when people say they hate guns because of what they've seen on TV it always makes me cringe .

 

[Eddard20]

Yes, I enjoy hitting small targets at 400-700 meters away. At that distance every single thing matters: your heart beat, your breathing, the bullet drop, the wind, the angle of the shot, etc. It's a great feeling when everything comes together and you make such a shot .

YES! YES!
I enjoy the same thing about shooting, and that's why I'm so interested in snipers/sniping. I only once had the chance to shoot from 1000 metres of a distance, it was damn hard, but it felt really good! I'd also add something to your list on that, if it's hot the mirage you will see can make the target look like it's floating around, or if the barrel is cold the first shot will not be very accurate. We used to learn about ballistics back in police school, it's a very interesting subject for me. Some say at very long distances you also need to take the Coriolis effect into account, but I'm not sure.

 

[wichat]

I don't hate guns, I hate the poor excuses which are used when some people made a free bloody use of them. It's so easy to forget that a plane need front and back sides to exist. As in the Wicher world (yeah! we come back to our sweet loved second home )

 

[Eddard20]

I don't hate guns, I hate the poor excuses which are used when some people made a free bloody use of them. It's so easy to forget that a plane need front and back sides to exist. As in the Wicher world (yeah! we come back to our sweet loved second home )

Speaking of Witcher, I finished the Blood of Elves book, I don't usually finish books in 3 days, but this I did. I couldn't put it down, it was that good! Which one is the next? Time of Contempt right?

 

[freakie1one]

I don't hate guns, I hate the poor excuses which are used when some people made a free bloody use of them. It's so easy to forget that a plane need front and back sides to exist. As in the Wicher world (yeah! we come back to our sweet loved second home )

Guns just always have received such biased opinions from people. I think they are probably the most hated inanimate object in the world. There are so many things that kill more people than guns every year yet guns always make the headlines regardless. Guns do not have emotions, motivations or make decisions; guns by themselves do not kill anyone. They are simply a tool that can be used to kill if a person decides to do so. It is the person that decides to kill, not the gun, yet the gun is hated instead of the person? If a person is killed by a vehicle does it now make sense to hate all vehicles?

 

[wichat]

Speaking of Witcher, I finished the Blood of Elves book, I don't usually finish books in 3 days, but this I did. I couldn't put it down, it was that good! Which one is the next? Time of Contempt right?

Yes, right! and after this Baptisme of Fire And I know that feeling. And I understand why CDPR wanted to make their first game with Geralt in the main position.

 

[Mataresa]

I can admire a "beautiful" weapon

Pun intended?

Regarding the take lives to save more lives. Why can you use this argument for shooting people, but not for other circumstances. If it were universal, we would continue with human experiments to cure diseases and such, so that many more might live. But in that case we say, you can't weight one life with another and more lives are not worth more than one life. I fail to see the difference. Unless you say, some lives are worth more than others, but then it becomes difficult to quantify. After all killing people is just to further your own agenda, which in your eyes might be right, but in anothers might not be.

I think along the lines of what @wichat was saying is, that you can take lives with weapons (or not if just used for sport) or hurt people with it, but if at all you can speculate that you might have saved lives indirectly. You can never save a life directly as you might do with medicine. (Ok if you are really picky you could say, you just fixed the tissue for example and the cells saved the body by growing back together, but you get the point.)

Regarding technical marvels. If you are really prosaically (is that the right word?) Most weapons are either made to plopp some material really fast out of another object into one direction, formed to sever organic tissues from another, or made to cause high pressures around themselves. The rest is romanticism and I feel there are much more impressive ends from other technologies. Even the means often seem crude to me compared to other technical marvels.

 

[wichat]

Pun intended?

.

Sadly no. It's cause by my limited vocabulary and its real sense in this language, that's why I added an explanation after this word.

A dictionary will trnaslate the word but not its sense in a conversation.

 

[freakie1one]

Regarding the take lives to save more lives. Why can you use this argument for shooting people, but not for other circumstances. If it were universal, we would continue with human experiments to cure diseases and such, so that many more might live. But in that case we say, you can't weight one life with another and more lives are not worth more than one life. I fail to see the difference. Unless you say, some lives are worth more than others, but then it becomes difficult to quantify. After all killing people is just to further your own agenda, which in your eyes might be right, but in anothers might not be.

This all depends on context. Say a person has a bomb strapped to their chest and they intend to blow up a public building to cause harm to as many people as possible. You do not think it's okay to end this person's life with a weapon if there is no other option? Just let them detonate the bomb and kill hundreds or thousands? This is only one such example and thousands of such situations have occurred throughout history.

I think along the lines of what @wichat was saying is, that you can take lives with weapons (or not if just used for sport) or hurt people with it, but if at all you can speculate that you might have saved lives indirectly. You can never save a life directly as you might do with medicine. (Ok if you are really picky you could say, you just fixed the tissue for example and the cells saved the body by growing back together, but you get the point.)

All you can do is speculate about actions that have consequences which occur in the future. You can just as directly save a life using a knife for surgery as you can use the same knife to kill someone (who might live regardless of said attempt). Again, the purpose of any tool (in this particular case to kill or to save life) is determined by the person wielding it.

Regarding technical marvels. If you are really prosaically (is that the right word?) Most weapons are either made to plopp some material really fast out of another object into one direction, formed to sever organic tissues from another, or made to cause high pressures around themselves. The rest is romanticism and I feel there are much more impressive ends from other technologies. Even the means often seem crude to me compared to other technical marvels.

What one person considers art or appreciates another may not. This applies to all things in life and definitely isn't limited to weapons. Something doesn't have to be the biggest, the best, or the most impressive in order to be appreciated.

 

[Mataresa]

This all depends on context. Say a person has a bomb strapped to their chest and they intend to blow up a public building to cause harm to as many people as possible. You do not think it's okay to end this person's life with a weapon if there is no other option? Just let them detonate the bomb and kill hundreds or thousands? This is only one such example and thousands of such situations have occurred throughout history.

Well then it is your opinion, that these lives should be saved and the others life terminated by you. His opinion might be, that those lives should be ended. Or someone elses, that he needs to blow himself up to gain salvation and that you take his future from him. It is all a matter of point of view. In the end you might have saved one life but destroyed the future of someone else. For us it seems easier to decide whose future is more important when it comes to weapons, cause it is either the opposite side or we are playing a hypothetical numbers game. When it comes to science though, few would argue that human experiments are good, when it only hurts the other side and saves more lives than it destroys. I was just trying to point out, that we make it too black and white, when we think about killing with weapons. (Trying to play devils advocate here. What my personal opinions are, might be something totally different.)

 

[freakie1one]

Well then it is your opinion, that these lives should be saved and the others life terminated by you. His opinion might be, that those lives should be ended. Or someone elses, that he needs to blow himself up to gain salvation and that you take his future from him. It is all a matter of point of view. In the end you might have saved one life but destroyed the future of someone else. For us it seems easier to decide whose future is more important when it comes to weapons, cause it is either the opposite side or we are playing a hypothetical numbers game. When it comes to science though, few would argue that human experiments are good, when it only hurts the other side and saves more lives than it destroys. I was just trying to point out, that we make it too black and white, when we think about killing with weapons. (Trying to play devils advocate here. What my personal opinions are, might be something totally different.)

Playing devil's advocate is fine (and makes for entertaining conversation) but I'm sure that most sane people would agree there are some situations where taking a life is necessary. No one knows the future so all we humans can do is predict what will happen based upon current (and past) circumstance and make decisions accordingly.

 

[StaGiors]

Tough topic guys. Taking another person's life is a really tough decision and it mostly happens on instinct. You don't have much time to think it through in a scenario like that.

I understand that killing someone else is idiotic, in the sense that we should be more mentally advanced as a species, but it is apparently a necessity sometimes. I hope that I don't ever get to have to make such a decision.

 

[Alan989]

Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up....

 

[Ljesnjanin]

Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up....

It is my fault, Al...I asked what guns do you have

 

[StaGiors]

Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up....

I beg to differ. Sometimes when one is not accustomed with something, they can't fully understand why some people like that "something".

So for me, I'll have to say that I understand why people like guns a little bit better.

You know, I had in my mind, that if you are not the bloody bald hitman, you would not have much reason to research weapons, but that's not true.

 

[Alan989]

I beg to differ. Sometimes when one is not accustomed with something, they can't fully understand why some people like that "something".

So for me, I'll have to say that I understand why people like guns a little bit better.

You know, I had in my mind, that if you are not the bloody bald hitman, you would not have much reason to research weapons, but that's not true.

I'm just interested in military history, hunting and live action wargaming, is that really wrong? That's just my interests.


@Princess_Ciri @wichat
I can understand why you may hate what I'm involved with, but it's a common hobby over here, and I have never harmed a single person or animal except what's classed as vermin (Rats, Magpies, Crows and Pigeons), there's just too many of these things and they carry a lot of diseases which can infect other animals. Culling them is the only way to protect animals like chickens, horses, cows, red squirrels and sheep.

 

[freakie1one]

I beg to differ. Sometimes when one is not accustomed with something, they can't fully understand why some people like that "something".

So for me, I'll have to say that I understand why people like guns a little bit better.

You know, I had in my mind, that if you are not the bloody bald hitman, you would not have much reason to research weapons, but that's not true.

Agreed. The conversation remained civil and did not result in people trolling or flaming. While people may not share the same views I believe this type of conversation is intriguing and productive. I like hearing other people's perspectives and views on things; it helps to broaden my own.

 

[sidspyker]

You know, I had in my mind, that if you are not the bloody bald hitman, you would not have much reason to research weapons, but that's not true.

Applies to everything in the world. If you like something, nothing's stopping you from your DESIRE TO WANT TO KNOW MORE.

 

[StaGiors]

Well high five for the Hairy Bear. A place were drunkards can have a logical conversation.

Also hell no Al. You do what you like in this life, and pursue what you love. There's no other way to be happy.

@sidspyker

Well nothing but yourself. That yourself guy is a dick.

 

[Alan989]

I have certain rules about what I'll shoot, for example, I'll never shoot a rabbit as they are common pets and a lot of people love them. I would also NEVER shoot a fox as they are canines and are obviously related to dogs which I would never harm.