swim

Why did you reply to my comment to restate the first part of what I said?

Yeah, that’s what the comment you replied to starts with.

Your comment makes sense in the frame of “ugly people are allowed to make music,” my comment refers to the “music was better” part of the post.

The ugly people you mentioned don’t support your comment’s argument against the original assertion because their music is terrible, not “better.”

Some music sucked in the boomer’s days, made by ugly and pretty people alike.

But the contention is about music being better, and that’s some bad music.

That’s right.

Like tent poles and aircraft ĥulls. Checks out

That’s correct.

I’m aware, and agree

Well I think you bought “Aluminum Free,” whereas the one on the left doesn’t say that. That brand sells both aluminum-full snd aluminum-free.

Dammit this whole post was an ad pack it up boys

The bootlicking version of “why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?”

How Nonviolence Protects the State

This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed

You are 100% correct.

If he was a tighter it’d be a different story

… that is there question.

Would you say what you’re seeking is “more intimacy,” up to, potentially, the most possible intimacy?

I would suggest looking at his different interests and getting curious. If you’re interested in the guy, it should be pretty easy to find reasons why this film or that game are endearingly-this-or-that in a way that makes you like and respect him even more.

Then, you bond over it; by trusting his taste (intimacy) enough to check out that show or whatever interest, you now have an opportunity to get deep (intimacy) into what you each individually felt (intimacy) about it, and maybe you felt something in common. That’s some foundation for intimacy.

carrying, in itself, makes others more unsafe, which is my point here.

I appreciate your point being made clear. Now, please apply the concept of “carrying (a gun) makes others more unsafe” to cars and knives, examples of obviously inherently dangerous tools.

The real issue for me is capitalism. Are you a liberal? Because your “point” is liberal propaganda. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.

This difference was the subject of my original comment. I see nothing being stated here beyond truisms.

The “safety” of those targeted for killing by killing tools or any tools used on purpose for defense or offense is a strange focus. The target of a tool used for killing being killed is not very safe, good observation?

“wildly understood”

I said widely.

I don’t expect to dissolve the biases between us, but if you are trying to understand my comment, pay attention to the focus on “relatively” and “perspective:”

Guns, and knives, and people, are inherently dangerous. That is a given, a truism. They are to be respected - humans for their innate value, and each for their capability to harm.

The risk of handling knives can be mitigated with respect, forethought, training, proper application, tool maintenance, etc. The fact that they are capable of hurting us should not be forgotten, but our relationship with them need not be dominated by it. In fact, with proper safety on the part of the handler, knives can be considered “relatively safe,” especially from a statistical standpoint.

The same can be said for guns. And people.

100%

I appreciate that you qualified your stated opinion with “personally,” because I agree that this is a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, the word “safe” when applied to cars assumes we understand that traveling at 60+ MPH is itself more dangerous than standing still. Then, to call a certain car “safe” is to be using obvious relative terms; safer than this other car, rated highly by impartial safety experts, etc.

To wit: No one in a conversation about a car’s safety would genuinely say “sure, if I buy your new vehicle I’ll be better protected on the road than any other driver of a current production mid-size sedan, thanks to all these state-of-the-art safety features, but - pray tell - how ‘safe’ can you really call this car if could be stolen from me and used to run me down?” Or “this car doesn’t seem safe, I could walk to the store and not need rollover protection.”

I think guillotines would also work fine to illustrate the point. Guillotines are, of course, built to kill. Handled properly, I can easily imagine them being safe. If we put a rich man’s neck in it and he loses his head, that is the correct function of the tool.

Safety is widely understood as protection from inadvertent danger. The rich man’s death was not inadvertent. The car being stolen and used against you was not inadvertent. A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not. These tools are safe.