To use your example. We've already enacted virtual de facto prohibition of drinking and driving. I don't know the "metabolism" of a .008 drinker but I suspect two beers max. So even though tens of millions of drivers over a period of decades consumed a six-pack without incident, you'll now go to jail for a few beers. I'd say a .012 adult is safer than a stone sober 16 year old. The point being societies most always over react. Thus we now have laws that don't discriminate between a "responsible" over indulger and the trailer park trash who drive recklessly while drunk.
The Toronto Story could Be Huge (Up Mahrams Ass)
- Thread starter Pabst
- Start date
If the society in which this happens has laws (Koran) encouraging drunk driving, if they believe that killing pedestrians (non-muslims) is not a sin, if the society does not even attempt to crack down on drunk driving giving them tacit approval anhd providing them with financial and moral support, if all other societies have successfully eliminated the drunk driving problem and this society is not even trying to then not only the 1% of drunk drivers but the entire society is at fault.
Why take any chances at all?
I mean, even one beer may to some extent impair reaction time. Why allow a driver to be impared to even .0000001%, if their driving endangers themselves and others?
Kansas is pushing for a bill to outlaw the use of all cell phones, even hands free because of the chance that they may distract a driver.
What we are really ultimately taking about, is acceptable risk.
Despite the war mongering talk of Bush, this is not WWIII.
This is one among many possible threats to property and life, among others are weather, chemicals in our food, debt, illegal immigration, etc.
Bush has put terrorism at the top of the list because it fits with the military industrial complex, and the fear mongering that has worked so well. Stupid people in Montana voted for Bush because of his hawkish position, and what are the odds of those people in Montana dying, being injured, or property loss from a terrorist attack?
The extremist reaction to the extremists is what we have seen shape our policy....
I mean, even one beer may to some extent impair reaction time. Why allow a driver to be impared to even .0000001%, if their driving endangers themselves and others?
Kansas is pushing for a bill to outlaw the use of all cell phones, even hands free because of the chance that they may distract a driver.
What we are really ultimately taking about, is acceptable risk.
Despite the war mongering talk of Bush, this is not WWIII.
This is one among many possible threats to property and life, among others are weather, chemicals in our food, debt, illegal immigration, etc.
Bush has put terrorism at the top of the list because it fits with the military industrial complex, and the fear mongering that has worked so well. Stupid people in Montana voted for Bush because of his hawkish position, and what are the odds of those people in Montana dying, being injured, or property loss from a terrorist attack?
The extremist reaction to the extremists is what we have seen shape our policy....
We have the technology to eliminate nearly all the drunk drivers, why don't we use it? If we as a society don't demand it, then is the society at fault for the injury, death, and property damage of drunk drivers?
Then again, why do we allow Mexico to be an open border, why don't we inspect what comes in on the dock, why don't we have a strong border with Canada.
Politics....
Then again, why do we allow Mexico to be an open border, why don't we inspect what comes in on the dock, why don't we have a strong border with Canada.
Politics....
And this is responsive to my question in what way. Evasive answers are not the sign of a well thought out position.
Now you tell me why you wish to equate Muslim Fundamentalism to say some other fundamentalism. Are fundamentalists in baseball problematic? We know what you wish to be saying, but I have asked you to think deeper. Really figure out what the Western world's true problems are. Perhaps you wanted to say Christian Fundamentalism. So say and then see if your thought stands up to scrutiny. Would you rather get on the plane with a sweaty Christian Fundamentilist or a Muslim.
Who is more likely to wish to kill you a Muslim Fundamentalist or a Christian. Do you see preachers in church saying go out and suicide bomb?
Fundamentalism is the root of the problem.
For witches in Salem Mass, it was the fundamentalism of Christianity that ended their lives.
For Native Americans slaughtered by European Christians, fundamentalism was at the root cause of "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
So today fundamentalism in Islam is the danger.
The common element?
Certainly not the respective religions, but the fundamentalism.
Nazi Germany?
Fundamentalism...
Stalin's Russia?
Fundamentalism...
Mao's China?
Fundamentalism...
So it need not ever be religion belief that was the cause, but in every case it was fundamentalism and totalitarian thinking...
I am very much opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, but equally opposed to Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, etc.
In fundamentalism, the power is concentrated in the hands of the church, the Mullahs, the KGB, the Red Army, etc. and the followers will end up doing many things that are opposed to their common sense....all in the name of fundamentalism.
For witches in Salem Mass, it was the fundamentalism of Christianity that ended their lives.
For Native Americans slaughtered by European Christians, fundamentalism was at the root cause of "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
So today fundamentalism in Islam is the danger.
The common element?
Certainly not the respective religions, but the fundamentalism.
Nazi Germany?
Fundamentalism...
Stalin's Russia?
Fundamentalism...
Mao's China?
Fundamentalism...
So it need not ever be religion belief that was the cause, but in every case it was fundamentalism and totalitarian thinking...
I am very much opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, but equally opposed to Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, etc.
In fundamentalism, the power is concentrated in the hands of the church, the Mullahs, the KGB, the Red Army, etc. and the followers will end up doing many things that are opposed to their common sense....all in the name of fundamentalism.
you seem to be mixing and matching, blurring and obfuscating to prove someone else's point.
In your diatribe, I saw fundamentalism being first a set a beliefs. Then equated to Americans who happen to be Christian then, marxism, Nazism and totalitarianism.
Again, is it wrong to stick to the fundamentals in baseball or tennis, or education? Your thesis is bullshit.
You are scared of zealots, not Christians who believe a Christian should stick to the bible.
However in the case of Muslim "fundamentilists" we see that they are being taught within their religion, things that are antithetical to Western ideals, freedome and existence.
That is your problem zealouts. Now we identify those zealouts as Muslim fundamentalists. it is not fundamentals that are the problem, it is zealots like Muslim fundamentalists that are willing to kill you because you dont face Mecca five times a day.
In your diatribe, I saw fundamentalism being first a set a beliefs. Then equated to Americans who happen to be Christian then, marxism, Nazism and totalitarianism.
Again, is it wrong to stick to the fundamentals in baseball or tennis, or education? Your thesis is bullshit.
You are scared of zealots, not Christians who believe a Christian should stick to the bible.
However in the case of Muslim "fundamentilists" we see that they are being taught within their religion, things that are antithetical to Western ideals, freedome and existence.
That is your problem zealouts. Now we identify those zealouts as Muslim fundamentalists. it is not fundamentals that are the problem, it is zealots like Muslim fundamentalists that are willing to kill you because you dont face Mecca five times a day.
Show me an example of when fundamentalism in baseball or tennis, or education controlled the actions of government and the military of a nation....what wars did they start, how many people were killed.....
I saw on this forum and others the fundamentalists who wanted to carpet bomb and nuke the entire middle east following 9/11....oh, and yes, the Libertarians have their own brand of fundamentalism....just try criticizing Ayn Rand's theories.
Yes, fundamentalism is the demon, not religious belief systems....
I saw on this forum and others the fundamentalists who wanted to carpet bomb and nuke the entire middle east following 9/11....oh, and yes, the Libertarians have their own brand of fundamentalism....just try criticizing Ayn Rand's theories.
Yes, fundamentalism is the demon, not religious belief systems....
Poor Canadians... They have now two shocks to their " just" society. One the bust of the terrorists and the other a book on the father of canadian multiculturism Mr Pierre Trudeau who all canadian liberals adore.
Book was written by two friends of his and their research found:
He was a Jew hater.
He was for the Nazis. He drove his car in earlier years wearing a nazi helmut. He hated the USA and on and on.
Some are saying that he was young and not mature yet which was in his later 20's.
Basically they will not admit he was a piece of shit
Book was written by two friends of his and their research found:
He was a Jew hater.
He was for the Nazis. He drove his car in earlier years wearing a nazi helmut. He hated the USA and on and on.
Some are saying that he was young and not mature yet which was in his later 20's.
Basically they will not admit he was a piece of shit
