Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

The confusing part is that you're purposely giving a response that is meandering the desired answer. The point of the discussion isn't if WMD need to be accurate, but ARE THEY ACCURATE? The evidence is in you intentionally ignoring the question "Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun? ". You're a sore loser who refuses to admit when you might have made a mistake or be wrong. Instead, you intentionally avoid questions by either not answering them or being elusive.

Your answer of "they don't have to be accurate" is equivalent to saying "BMW's don't have to be expensive" to the question, "Are BMW's expensive?". This isn't a meretricious "Did you stop beating your wife" type of question. The question's candor is blatantly obvious. Feel free to add an explanation, but first answer with a "yes" or "no". Of course you wont, but that's fine. Just quit it already with the pretentious responses in attempt to be all knowing.

You can't shoot a bullet full of gas. The gas will vaporize.

If the bullet hit and killed someone you could call it accurate or you could call it luck.

This is how you should do it:
You have a canister of gas in the room concealed as a can of hair spray. You fire the shot through the window. The resulting open window allows wind to enter the room and muss the hair of the people in the room. When they go to reapply the hair spray you should get a pretty precise exposure of each individual - they're spraying the stuff right on their heads.

Dead with well held hairdos.

Military grade paintball round with a liquid nerve agent warhead. On impact the nerve agent will convert to a gas when exposed to the air, and I'm pretty sure a paintball sized amount can take out a normal sized room.

Depends what definition of accuracy you're using.

Seems kind of pointless to use anyone else's.

Yup, but don't worry you're not alone.

Think of it this way. If you make your target big enough (anywhere in this city) and your definition of accuracy broad enough (kill someone in the city) even the least predictable weapons can appear accurate.

If you think that's a bit of an oddball definition of accuracy you're with everyone else here. If you think that definition makes perfect sense you're probably Alma. Unless you are Alma, in which case I got part of it wrong and expect to be corrected.

Don't worry, didn't think you were.

Left that at the end assuming he'll be back to read this thread at some point, and complain about the ridiculous strawman I constructed.

That's ridiculous.

Using WMD to attack a city and kill people certainly qualifies. Your target is everyone and everything and just what you're attacking. No error or mistakes there.

I say they got it wrong, when they got it wrong. If I say "The sun is hotter than the earth", and someone responds with "So you're saying that the earth is a frozen ball of ice?", I'll correct their mistake. This happens quite frequently, and I suspect it's often done deliberately. If you'd like, I'll make a point of pointing it out to you every time this happens.

An easy way to determine this is to look at what I posted and see if the person's response actually addresses that post, or something else. It's just somewhat amazing how frequently people choose to argue against something I didn't actually say though. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that if someone had a good counter argument to what I wrote, they'd actually write a good counter argument to what I wrote. If they counter something different, it either means they misunderstood or misinterpreted what I wrote (which certainly happens), or they didn't have a good counter so they decided to write something that countered something else and hope no one notices.

In either case, the correct response is for me to point out that they responded to something I didn't say. What would you have me do? Just say "Well golly! You're correct that that statement is wrong, so I'll just pretend that's what I did say and accede the argument to you". Really?

First, that isn't my definition. I quoted two dictionaries. If you have a problem with Webster's dictionary, take it up with them.

Second, you're applying the definition to an egregious scenario.



In other words, affecting things outside of your intent doesn't count as "accurate".

Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?



On the contrary. You're the one making that distinction, not me. That was my argument in the first place. People are only saying that WMD are inaccurate because of the payload, simplicity and their affects on society.







Please tell me how you had no "freaking clue" on my point. Seems pretty straight forward to me. However, if you don't get the comparison and would like for me to spell it out for you, I will.

She's saying she likes to sex the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to sex uneducated hobos.

Try the veal.

You're made for one another!

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.

I take it you'll tell her about the birds and the bum-blebees when she's older.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 1:08pm by Timelordwho

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...





I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".

Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate? Maybe if something was playing on the radio, we would listen.



I'll respond to this for the nth time that you have yet once gave the definition that you're using that contradicts Webster's dictionary (you know, the one that I'm using). You're simply making up weapons with false data to prove a point. Now. you're just simply not answering questions because you're too pertinacious to admit your inaccuracy (See what I did there).



Give me a definition that contradicts that usage of accuracy.

AHA! So that's your problem



No.. WMD is not a payload. Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction. You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction






As I said several times as well. I'm specifically referring to the entire weapon system, not aspects of them. Even by your ignorant statement, that still doesn't explain how a rocket or a bomb is inaccurate.

So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?



So let's start off with you giving a definition and we can go from there.



So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.



Wait, so now the payload matters? This is the Internet. No one cares that you are wrong. Why the circles?
You just said that payload isn't "accurate", but the delivery system. So why do you care about the payload in a question of accuracy?



Not only have I never said that, I corrected you on that. So now, you're just trolling. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADIUS, but hitting the desired targets. I stated that nuking Rhode Island to kill one person would not be accurate. Why is it so difficult to admit to being wrong, just once?



And I ASK AGAIN? What delivery system are you talking about? You're just making up stats. Give me real stats of weapon inaccuracies. You can't assume that a 3rd world country can't get accurate systems. There exist inaccurate systems for every type of weapon. Not only that, your inaccuracy depends on how you use it along with other factors.



I"m not confused at all. You're conveniently changing definitions when it benefits you as EVERYONE thinks of the whole weapon system when discussing accuracy. HTF do you separate payload from the delivery system when dealing with accuracy, but not tips/tax from a meal purchase?


And again, I'm not talking about the efficacy of the weapon but the accuracy. Did you hit your desired targets AND NOTHING BUT YOUR DESIRED TARGETS? No, then it isn't accurate. Yes, then it is accurate. It's that simple.

Nobody listens to static. Well, John Nash, maybe...

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:58am by Eske

Do you not see who the two main players keeping it up are?

You're still confusing "accurate" with "effective". They really do mean two different things.

Nope, you're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Really dude, it's just the Internet.. It's not a big deal. I've been wrong several of times.