Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a thread build up this quickly.
I had a couple of ideas for responses, but I didn't think they were quite High Road enough, so I tried to put something together that was.
I kind of feel bad that we had to play into his hands. I suppose if we had simply ignored him, he could have made moderating this forum a living hell. (I choose my words carefully--not necessarily would, but could)
Still, I hope anyone looking over this thread in the future notes a few things:
1. He argues guns should be banned, though he admits everything can be (is?) a weapon.
--So, apparently, guns are innately weapons, but other potential weapons are not. What determines when hands are a weapon? When they are used as such? Why doesn't this apply to guns?
2. He argues that a mind has never caused harm.
--This doesn't jibe well with 1. Guns, as well as other potential weapons have many nonweapon uses. Yet, it appears from his definitions that what makes an object into a weapon is the intent of its user. He seems to deliberately single out guns as bad, most probably to get a rise out of us, as part of his "experiment." (Note that social experimentation is not what THR is for, as was previously stated.) Also note that depraved indifference is a means by which someone can be killed--not willful deprivation of life's necessities, only depraved indifference. I also am reminded of the character Bishop from Aliens, who is unable to "by omission of action allow to be harmed [a human being]." (emphasis mine, and I think I got that quote right) Or, put another way, if one could save someone else's life without endangering his own, willful inaction would be a weapon, by his definition.
3. He provides no reasonable options. By his own admission, bare hands are (can be? His definitions make it difficult.) weapons, yet he must not support their ban. Does he support the banning of hands used as weapons? Is that not already the case? (The same for guns...)
--This seems to be a common fault these days. It has become common to speak out "against" all kinds of things, but rarely is a constructive solution to a problem promoted. Nihilism is rarely a good solution.
4. He threadjacked a discussion about a photograph to further his own philosophical agenda.
--Starting with what, as far as I can see, was an unsubstantiated criticism of the photograph, he took our defensive responses and rode us for four pages. He claimed the analogy was invalid, and basically took control of the thread.
(Oleg, good photo, by the way.)
Perhaps his discussion would have been more welcome in a thread without an already well-determined topic, but in this thread it was essentially off-topic.
-----------
He will probably be bragging to friends how he got himself thrown out of what he will probably call a "gun nut forum," and how we attacked him "ad hominem" and then banned him. For anyone reading this thread on his suggestion, I advise you to consider a little the nature of his actions, as well as of our responses. I think we gave him a fair shake.
Sorry for the long post everybody.
Rudy