Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

So there is a possibility that some people do not consider every object a weapon at all times. That is almost all people all the time. Definitely the subset that makes up this forum. So it sounds like it is your little corner of the world that is different from the rest. Pretty much everyone I know sees it far closer to the way spazz defined it than the way you do.

Well the dictionary defined it the same as me, so what can I tell you.

 

[moevillini]

So there is a possibility that some people do not consider every object a weapon at all times. That is almost all people all the time. Definitely the subset that makes up this forum. So it sounds like it is your little corner of the world that is different from the rest. Pretty

I'll bet in that corner, the motto is "Walk softly and carry a big noodle" because, well, you know.

:-D

 

[TroutBum]

I'll bet in that corner, the motto is "Walk softly and carry a big noodle" because, well, you know.

:-D

No, actually, I don't.


You're really weird.

 

[moevillini]

ask Salty to explain it for you.

 

[SaltyDawg]

ask Salty to explain it for you.

Not me, I'm not saying a big stick isn't a weapon.

 

[TroutBum]

ask Salty to explain it for you.

I don't have all day to debate the reasons why "Noodle" is or isn't a weapon/swimming pool toy/golf ball/dong/delicious snack. Tempting though.

 

[moevillini]

I don't have all day to debate the reasons why "Noodle" is or isn't a weapon/swimming pool toy/golf ball/dong/delicious snack. Tempting though.

Depends on the sauce. The wrong sauce could ruin it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And of course there is the possibility that some people do speak this way, the multiple dictionaries got it right, and your little corner of the world is not representative of everyone.

By the way, armor is a weapon, and a horse can be a weapon too.

My corner of the universe is a good sample size of people that speak English, so is statistically sound. I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding what the people who wrote the definition were trying to say, but were too lazy to define correctly.

Your Mom is a weapon. Armor can be used as a weapon, but it is not a weapon. It's purpose in being created is to defend. A Horse is not a weapon, it is an animal. It may be used as a weapon in some cases, and it's hooves can be used as weapons, but it is still an animal. You are a MORAN! See, my words can be used as a weapon, but they are not inherently a weapon. Your super dense skull is adept at deflecting even the sharpest logic or sense, but your titanium brainframe still is not a weapon. You may use it as a weapon as you bash it against your keyboard to type out your responses, but it in it's pure form is not a weapon. Your stupid smartphone that will soon take over the world, is a weapon. The number of posts on this stupid topic is a toxic weapon to my sanity. I fear if this keeps up I may melt down into a Ute fan of epic proportions. I had better let this useless attempt to "help Salty see reason" die. Maybe the old saying is true, you cant teach old SaltyDawg's new tricks.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Wait, is someone really trying to blend the physical, more denotative meaning of a word and the metaphorical meaning of a word and thus be able to use them interchangeably?


That's high comedy right there.

It's like saying I have a small wardrobe and forced to acknowledge that I don't actually own a wardrobe.

 

[bigb]

Anybody else getting tired of this?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

Teeth. But I'm guessing a clown's weapons would be fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and a nice red uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

 

[SaltyDawg]

Teeth. But I'm guessing a clown's weapons would be fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and a nice red uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

I guess it comes down to if you think an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would be considered a weapon. I think it would, the dictionary says it would, but the usual trolls on this board are using it as the latest troll material.

 

[LogGrad98]

I guess it comes down to if you think an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would be considered a weapon. I think it would, the dictionary says it would, but the usual trolls on this board are using it as the latest troll material.

The dictionary does not mention invisibility cloaks.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The dictionary does not mention invisibility cloaks.

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

 

[Agoxlea]

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

I agree with your general point, but I think you misspoke when you said "weapon". The dictionary defining it that way was pretty damn lucky, and yes that opens the door to the ears maybe being considered a weapon. It is advantageous to a dog while fighting, so who cares if it is a weapon or not. Let it go, and get back to the real issue. If you make the leap that even though TECHNICALLY they can be considered a weapon, they probably shouldn't be, then maybe some people would be willing to take the leap that a higher proportion of people that want aggressive dogs would choose a pitbull making their aggressiveness a self fulfilling prophecy. I agree with that despite the lack of evidence, but I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste. Especially since there is now a small glimmer of hope lockout wise.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I agree with your general point, but I think you misspoke when you said "weapon". The dictionary defining it that way was pretty damn lucky, and yes that opens the door to the ears maybe being considered a weapon. It is advantageous to a dog while fighting, so who cares if it is a weapon or not. Let it go, and get back to the real issue. If you make the leap that even though TECHNICALLY they can be considered a weapon, they probably shouldn't be, then maybe some people would be willing to take the leap that a higher proportion of people that want aggressive dogs would choose a pitbull making their aggressiveness a self fulfilling prophecy. I agree with that despite the lack of evidence, but I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste. Especially since there is now a small glimmer of hope lockout wise.

The point is the people who said I was stupid for calling them a weapon were out of line. Whether you think they should be called a weapon or not, technically I was correct. It was all just another attempt at an ad hominem by them because my original argument upset them.

 

[LogGrad98]

Technically you are not correct. No one disputed that depending on how an object is used, almost anything can be a weapon. Where you fell down was the insistence that, despite the fact that you acknowledged that other objects may or may not be weapons depending on how they were used, you insisted that cropped ears are ALWAYS weapons. If it is for fighting, then sure that argument could be made, but if the crop was done for aesthetics then it is decidedly not a weapon as that is not the use of the object. It is the insistence of all or nothing stances where you so often fail to make a valid point. Cropped ears are not always used as weapons. They are often used for looks alone. If the dog is being put into fights then sure it could conceivably be a weapon, but there is no way you can say that something like say a helmet is only sometimes a weapon, but cropped ears are always a weapon. That is a simply logical fallacy.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Technically you are not correct. No one disputed that depending on how an object is used, almost anything can be a weapon. Where you fell down was the insistence that, despite the fact that you acknowledged that other objects may or may not be weapons depending on how they were used, you insisted that cropped ears are ALWAYS weapons. If it is for fighting, then sure that argument could be made, but if the crop was done for aesthetics then it is decidedly not a weapon as that is not the use of the object. It is the insistence of all or nothing stances where you so often fail to make a valid point. Cropped ears are not always used as weapons. They are often used for looks alone. If the dog is being put into fights then sure it could conceivably be a weapon, but there is no way you can say that something like say a helmet is only sometimes a weapon, but cropped ears are always a weapon. That is a simply logical fallacy.

No, it is a weapon. Even if the owner stupidly gets it done for cosmetic purposes, if the dog gets in a fight it will still be used by the dog (the reason they were invented).

Helmets are not always used in fights. If a dog has cropped ears, they are always used in fights. So it's easy to see why a helmet might not always be a weapon while cropped ears are.

If you have a permanently mounted helmet that was made for battle, then that would probably be considered a weapon too.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, it is a weapon. Even if the owner stupidly gets it done for cosmetic purposes, if the dog gets in a fight it will still be used by the dog (the reason they were invented).

Helmets are not always used in fights. If a dog has cropped ears, they are always used in fights. So it's easy to see why a helmet might not always be a weapon while cropped ears are.

Well there you go. Black and white. Your opinion is it is a weapon. My opinion is it is not unless the dog gets in a fight, and even then it is highly suspect as a weapon, since by that definition the dog's food the day of the fight could be considered a weapon.

Fact is you cannot concretely say that cropped ears always fit the exact definition of a weapon. You can personally believe that they do, but your opinion does not make it fact. Plenty of others disagree, not with the definition of the word weapon necessarily but with the assumption that cropped ears fit that definition. If the dog never fights, then no the cropped ears are not a weapon since they would never have been used to win a fight. That fits the dictionary.con definition exactly.