Subject:
|
Re: Using Lego to build weapons? (was Re: The Lego Beretta just won't die)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:09:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
646 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Carsten Schmitz writes:
> Hello,
>
> [Beretta build of Lego]
>
> > > I am sorry but I will refuse gladly this kind of PR.
> > >
> > > I don't want anyone to think I am a fanatics of something
> > > that is or was used to kill someone or something. No thanks.
> > >
> > > Go show off somewhere else.
> > >
> > > Carsten
> >
> > Hmmm.. funny, cause I don't see the name "Carsten" on any of my pages, so • what
> > does it have to do with you? I guess I missed the part where Beretta • offered
> > you PR for *my* designs.
>
> You should start reading your own mails:
>
> > Anyway... just wanted to share that I've managed to exposed 10's of • thousands
> > of people to the AFOL community in the last two weeks. Tons of them have
> said
>
> At least I think i belong to this AFOL community.
I'm still kind of confused. I think you're missing a bit of
the semantic language in what was said--he's implying that
though his Beretta is the vehicle that piqued people's interest
in LEGO anew, they've come here and seen *everything*, and have
made their decision based on that exposure to "dig out the bricks."
That's what I gathered from it--but then again, I'm a native
speaker. :)
> You can twist and turn it as long as you want to.. but a weapon like that is
> only used
> for killing humans. Nothing to be proud of.
So it's a military/police weapon? So what? He's appreciating
its technical conception, not its end. There are a lot of
folks (like me) who celebrate things naval, yet deplore war.
Navies are only meant to kill people and destroy things, right?
Now if he were drooling over its killing power and showing it
aimed at a person, then yes, I'd see your point. I see your
point anyhow--that any weapon-based publicity implicitly promotes
a weapon's uses--but that depends on the *viewer's* association,
not the builder's, as long as that association isn't being made
a necessary one.
> Why don't you build a model of an anthrax virus?
Anthrax isn't a virus. It's also not meant solely for killing
humans--it just gets employed to that end, as a weapon. (Oh,
it would also make a really dull model, though if it could
divide on its own...mmmm, free Lego.)
> Lego was to be meant as a toy, weapons are not.
Lego's also "meant" for children. You're setting up an
artificial devide that just doesn't hold. Pacifism is
laudable, but it's like any sort of super-idealism--it
runs counter to human nature (writ large), despite the
valuable opinion it proffers.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
