Posts by samuel walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Certainly not without context.
Which always changes depending on perspective, and belief.
All one needs is an assumption that the law is just to make the connection.
Do the laws of the land inform your morals totally? really?
I get the distinct impression that people here believe right and wrong to be determined by the laws of men.
i get the distinct impression that many here believe the opposite. and are thankfull that you are not one of those men....
-
Russell. Are you only here to disagree with everything I say? Doesn't that take a lot of unnecessary effort?
not unnecessary lest you end up believing that the lack of a retort implies agreement. This is as you must agree [ in fact you revel in it] a place for robust debate...
When I say, "Do not murder" I define it in the obvious way.
actually you don't. and judging by your prior arguments you are likely to twist this seeming simple definition into proof that some other tangentially related topic. like abortion, for example, by adding the confusion that a just conceived embryo is a person.
When you say, "steal away" you are encouraging irresponsibility. I say that if one is hungry then he should work. It is never wrong to not steal and there is never the necessity to do so.
you are starting to sound like that most frakked up of all vigilantes 'mr A' :
" there is good, there is evil, and there is nothing in between."What is with Kiwis and the argument that bad things are done so we are justified in doing them too..?
you are partially right there, although it certainly aint a kiwi trait, but i have seen it with mine own eyes, and it is weak. however I see no sign of it in this thread!
-
dammit David I thought I was done crying for the day.
very nice words and none truer said.
-
fundamentalism:__A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.__
church and state. the two should never ever mix.
-
Disentangling the two might help drive the discussion to a useful point no-one has got to yet.
there is baggage for sure. one often wonders whether the owners of such cars know how they are perceived. there is a chap around these parts who is seen often driving a hummer. i bet when he drives it he feels like John Wayne. yet whenever I see him I think just the opposite [to put it politely....].
but....
But examine only the fatal crashes and a different picture emerges. In 2001, 19.5 per cent of all fatal road crashes involved rollovers, and 35.2 per cent of SUV-related fatal crashes involved rollovers.
And in terms of fatalities from all types of crash, SUVs are slightly more unsafe than passenger cars. In 1999, for every 100,000 registered vehicles in the US, there were 16.4 fatalities in passenger cars, and 17.8 in SUVs.
What is more, the aggressive design of SUVs ensures passenger cars come off worst in collisions with them. In February, researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo, found that in crashes between small cars and large SUVs, the risk of death was 24 times greater in the car.
it seems that driving a SUV will make you no safer yet will make all other road users be at higher risk!selfish wankers!!!!!
[oops, there I was, trying to be polite]
-
He then followed my left turn......
how the heck can someone think that is a rational response? or, be so lacking in any kind of self control to be unable to rise above what even at the worst, considering a miss-translation, could have been what seemed like a rude gee-up. I mean just label the rude hooter a wanker and go on with their life. i bet the miscreant is sitting at home right now fuming over it still. mulling over lost opportunities to inflict more terrorism.
can someone like that lead a normal life? shit is dangerously close to setting a man up for some serious contemplation about the state of our species.
but seriously nick, desperate housewives?
-
sorry for the delay, crud of a weekend.
I must comment, Grant, that despite you being a little more aggressive with your persistence in driving some points home than is normally acceptable you have managed to seem polite all the same, even when being 'attacked'. even though I have obviously contrary world views to yours, this politeness is appreciated.
What was your comment about control in aid of?
this:
There seems far too much legislation and attitude bent toward "switching off" when perhaps legislation and an attitude toward preserving life would reveal more of those amazing secrets.
in concert with the 'pro-life' and definition of baby in t'other thread and a possible lack of disclosure regarding whether a religious belief drives these views I would be concerned that such 'control' would come from a slightly fundamentalist sector....
-
You forgot to add the "road rage" like feeling if said let in motorist fails to make the friendly wave gesture.
and the next level road rage when the three following cars take the opportunity to push their way in.....
-
Finlee.
The energy that is you will never be lost.
happy journeys.
samuel.
-
perhaps legislation and an attitude toward preserving life would reveal more of those amazing secrets.
thats not really how the current human world works Grant. take into account quality versus quantity of life; less drain on resources; better social structures; more effective sharing of ideas and ideals. how does bigger crowds help us understand any more than chaos theory?
sometimes more control equals heaps more mess.