An excellent photograph displayed in an excellent art site. Not being interested in being flamed, I will stop there. I feel that while art is not divorced from ethics or morality there are perhaps better places for them to be discussed.
I hadn't thought of using a bullpup frame... not sure why. As for the 30mm... That would make for a true armor piercing sniper rifle. I can't think of a better way to stop a tank and scare and/or kill the remaining occupants of said vehicle than to shoot the driver while he's driving.
The only way to make it a one-man hand carry weapon is a bullpup frame. That would limit the length to basically be the barrel and muzzle break. This got me thinking about something bigger though. Imagine the 30mm cannon off of the warthog made into a single barrel rifle. You're talking about a man portable tank killer that's a fraction of the cost to fire compared to a javelin or other rocket type weapons.
That is true, distribute the weight among a couple guys, one of which could also help hone in the gun. The camera scope always sounds like a good idea to me, but you are right about the recoil. If it's being used as a sniper rifle, would a collapsible frame/stand work (not sure what to do to make it a hand carry rifle)
Being part nihilist myself, I am aware it is a misconception. Yet there are different kinds of nihilism, like some discard the meaning of life, the afterlife or the values of society. All of these can in a way be seen as nihilist attitudes.
How this misconception came into being? Probably the same way utilitarism got stigmatized as a philosophy promoting egoism. Anyone who actually bothered informing him/herself on about it should know a true utilitarian wouldn't be an egoist- just like a nihilist does have a morality though it often if not always differs from what society considers as such. It is just a stigma and not the truth. Nihilism is as far from lacking morality as utilitarism is from being egotistic.
If we define our own meaning of life, it would prove two things:
1. It would prove you right. 2. It would prove we humans NEED to have one since we struggle for survival and self-fulfilment. This conclusion would lead to the following premise: we live to have our lives fulfilled. That means fulfilment of our desires and wishes. Taking morality into account, we could then start making up concepts such as "anyone should strive to maximise his or her own self-fulfilment without harming that of others" or something along the lines. And depending on whether we are rule ethicists or situation ethicists we go further into detail.
And we'd have yet another morality concept which cannot be proven wrong since we have to have presumed an existing premise in the first place. Utilitarism, for instance, states anyone trying to prove the premise "everyone does something because they consider it useful" automatically proves it right. Problem: no one can prove it right, seeing as you have to presume the premise is correct in order to be able to prove it. Every concept of morality and ethics is built on such a premise which cannot be proven right.
If life had one universal meaning, we'd all strive for the same thing and would in theory become more and more similar. Or it just doesn't happen because we're too stupid. Cannot be proven right or wrong.
Or what we consider as "what we make as our meaning" as the real, predestined meaning of our life. It would mean everything's fixed and we're at the wheel of time... yet again. Watzlowic's sentence (may be I spelled the name wrong) "What one can be one has to be" would also indicate that. Yet again cannot be proven right or wrong.
As it comes down to, everything's just belief and we'll know the truth only at the end of our journey- if we know it (or anything) at all then. That is MY nihilism. I'm an agnostic nihilist. I discard everything as just beliefs, believing that only at the end I'll know whether I was right or wrong, presuming I then know anything at all. (Even atheism is a belief as the lack of belief is a belief in itself and whilst god's existence cannot be proven, neither can one prove a higher entity doesn't exist.)
I have such discussions on a regular basis. I have philosophy class.
Well it could be used like the bar from ww2. I used to work with a vet and he told me they ran two man teams to carry the ammo and stuff. Something that powerful would be worth a couple extra guys for parts. As far as recoil you would need a hell of a shock absorber and most likely a camera scope to keep your head clear lol
OMG, I am so happy and appreciative! I will list you in my credits and show you the finished product--though it might not be finished for a couple of years You have no idea how thankful I am. Most people say 'no' without a thought.
You could mill a receiver that fits over the shell and locks into the chamber the same way the slot is on the tank turret. If it was a strong enough metal it should work. Then again it may explode in your hands. Also recoil would be a problem....
Come to think of it though, a heat round fired from a man-portable version would make you the ultimate sniper. Now my head is spinning with the possibilities lol
Common miss-conception, nihilism doesn't mean discarding morality, that would be 'Moral nihilism', same ball park, different game.
Existence being the meaning of existence is a logical fallacy that my statement wasn't even heading towards, It would be like saying the meaning of guitar is guitar, doesn't make scene. The reason for a guitar is a tool for one to play music, you take away sound or the audience and the guitar loses all reason to exist.
I keep using the word reason because it is a different thing from point. The points you give for the arts are infect reasons for the arts existence, not inherent points for their existence. Reason being in the detailing, 'Why eat? To stay alive.' but this doesn't give the actions or the reasoning that justifies the actions any purpose.
No effect is permanent, empires and kingdoms have risen a thousand times over, the same is true of the modern world, we may have gotten good at preserving things we cherish but inevitability means that all thing eventually end. Right now Barack Obama is a awe inspiring symbol of just how far the states have come, 100 years he'll be a name and a couple of dates on a slab of stone, 1000 years he will be a name that school children will have to begrudgingly remember long enough to right down on a history test, after that he will be a distant memory and the effect he had will have been rewritten and reused time and time again by countless other politicians.
Surely the term "the meaning of life is what we make of it" supports my point of view seeing as it is suggesting that life it's self has no inherent meaning and that it is based of individual perspective, which is pretty much exactly what I said.
PS. Out of curiosity dos anyone know where the idea of nihilism = no morality came from? because I have never heard that said in any kind of academic or professional setting or person.
PPS. This has got to be the most interesting discussion I've ever had on DA,
We can haz intelligence within the pointless(or pointlessness within intelligence design) for we live here and now. All we can do is try and get along and share our petty crappy thoughts with each other without fighting over whose superior.