Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
The greatest threat to my children is:
Reckless drivers 9%
Road rage 2%
Media images 10%
Drugs 10%
Drunkenness 1%
The decline of American morals 24%
Hacking 42%

Votes: 87

 America's Death Machines

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 20, 2002
 Comments:
What would you say if I told you that the American government has permitted, even fostered, the construction of a mechanical device which claims the lives of over 40,000 healthy Americans each year? What if I told you that you have probably been coerced by society into using this device almost every day for your entire life? What if I told you this device was nothing less than the ordinary American motor car?

You'd probably call me a liar. How can 40,000 people possibly lose their lives each year on our nation's roads, you'd ask. Aren't these the safest, most well-loved and lovingly maintained roads in the free world? Aren't Americans the most carefully trained and highly skilled motorists ever to take the wheel? Aren't our cars the pinnacle of modern engineering know-how? Above all, if 40,000 people died in pointless motor vehicle accidents last year - a number that exceeds by an order of magnitude, the death toll of any other disaster that year, natural or man-made - wouldn't this tragedy be more widely reported? Wouldn't the government be spending billions to correct this situation?

cars

More stories about Cars
Killer Wheels: How To Get Started in the Custom-Car Movement
Caytie, My Porsch? Cayenne

More stories by
T Reginald Gibbons

Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
My Children Will Not Be Attending College

40,000 souls per year. Take a deep breath and try to comprehend this number. How many people do you know? How many people will you know throughout your life? If you live to be eighty years old, three million people will lose their lives on America's roads in your lifetime. There are only 300 million Americans alive today. Imagine one out of every hundred people you will know throughout your life dying in a motor accident. This is precisely what these statistics tell us will happen. One in every hundred men. One in every hundred women. One in every hundred children. Of the children in your life, how many could you bear to see lose their lives to America's death machines? Most people could not happily tolerate the death of a single child, let alone one in hundred, yet each year our government gives its tacit support for this needless sacrifice by refusing to take action to prevent it.

We should not be forced to trade our children's lives for the convenience of personal motorized transportation. Such a trade does not adhere to the principles upon which our nation was founded. It is time for the American government to take decisive action.

I believe that this problem has two sides: prevention and rehabilitation. With sweeping changes in both of these areas, our government might just be able to repair several decades of legislative neglect, and make good on their obligations to the American people.

Prevention:

It is no secret that fully two thirds of all motor vehicle accidents are caused by young men under the age of twenty five. There are already campaigns in most states to increase the minimum driving age for men to keep potentially dangerous drivers off the streets until they reach an age at which they can be trusted to drive safely. While these campaigns deserve our utmost support, they are but one slice of the prevention pie. Education does not begin and end at the driving academy.

Education for most people begins when they are introduced to driving as children, through television, movies and increasingly, computer games. The media images of driving that are presented to our nation's youth are creating a culture of reckless drivers. Thanks to movies in which hour long car chases take place with absolutely no consequences for the drivers or the passers-by, our children are taught that driving dangerously is a mark of manhood. Worse yet, computer game driving simulations actively teach children to drive like maniacs, demanding maximum speed and minimum adherence to road laws in order to win. Games like "Need for Speed", "Test Drive" and "Gran Turismo" all teach children that best driving practice involves running red lights, ramming cars and driving on the wrong side of the road. Most of these games don't even include turn signals!

I propose that steps be taken to correct our nation's attitude towards cars. The car chase should be banned from the movie industry, and replaced with safer alternatives such as bicycles and running. Not only would these eliminate the acceptance of dangerous driving among young people, it would encourage them to get good, healthy exercise. Of course, these changes to the movie industry will be a difficult and lengthy process. They will involve carefully editing every single car chase from every film ever released, or in the few cases where the car chase is vital to the plot of the movie, the film could be slowed down, reducing the apparent speed of the cars to be acceptable to the law.

Computer games are an easier problem to fix, since computer games more than one year old tend not to be played anymore. For this reason, changes to the computer game industry do not need to be harsh or drastic. Unlike movies, computer games can actually be quite helpful in producing better drivers. The computer game manufacturers can simply replace their old "illegal street racing" games with new lines that encourage careful, safe and legal driving. Points should be given for correctly indicating turns and lane changes, remaining on the right side of the road and within the lane markings, for stopping at stop signs and executing proper reverse parking manoeuvres, amongst other driving skills.

These measures alone will not be enough to counteract the impulsive nature of many drivers. Everyone knows how tempting it can be to rush through yellow lights, rather than stopping to wait for the green. Despite the illegality and risk of death, millions push their luck at intersections every day. Christian drivers are protected from this temptation by the ever watchful eye of God, and understand that their transgressions, however minor, do not go unobserved. What of the secular drivers who dominate our roads? Since our current political apparatus is not willing to erect road signs proclaiming the omnipresence of the Lord, we must seek a solution that preserves the separation of church and state. Modern digital technology provides the answer.

With digital cameras becoming increasingly inexpensive, it is astonishing that the government has not yet provided a system for monitoring the nation's roads. How easy it would be, in the event of an accident, to determine which drivers are to be blamed. Special cameras could also be invented to record the license plates of drivers who run red lights, exceed the speed limit or change lanes without indicating. Under the ever watchful eye of the government's cameras, I think a lot of reckless drivers would clean up their act quick-smart!

In fact, it is my belief that all vehicles should be fitted with cameras and tamper proof black box systems similar to those used in the airplane industry. These should record every move the car makes while on the road, every action the driver makes inside the vehicle and everything that takes place outside. These would be a boon to police officers charged with investigating vehicular offenses. It would even be possible to institute spot checks of these black box systems, secretly via the internet, to ensure that drivers remain on their best behavior at all times.

Rehabilitation:

It will be inevitable under the new system that a larger number of drivers will be brought before the courts than we have seen in any previous years. The question before us is, what do we do with these scofflaws? Fines have proven ineffective. License suspensions are an insult to freedom. Traffic school is simply too brief to offer any useful re-education and too unobtrusive to the offender's lives to provide effective punishment.

Public shaming may be the best penalty for misdemeanor offenses. Traffic violators could have their cars permanently painted with slogans proclaiming their incompetence as a driver, and the hazard that they pose to others on the road. These slogans would serve the dual purpose of a slap on the wrist for minor traffic criminals and a warning to legitimate road users.

For serious or repeat offenders, I propose a nationwide system of driver re-education camps. These should be built on unused land, such as deserts, to afford the maximum space for driving courses. Since these camps are intended as punishment, they should be made as unpleasant an experience as permitted under the constitution. The drivers are there to be remade as responsible citizens, not to have fun. Punishing schedules of instruction should fill the twelve hour gap between the breakfast and dinner meals. The food should be flavorless and the quarters cramped and spartan. Personal effects should be confiscated upon entry to the camp. Driver re-education camps should be an unforgettable learning experience, and one that graduates will do anything to avoid repeating.

When will we realize that the duty of care for the lives of our young rests with each and every one of us? That when we take the wheel, we are taking the lives of countless American children in our hands, too? When will the American government wake up to the senseless loss of life that it countenances each year by refusing to institute serious preventative measures to ensure our children's safety?

If America is ever to enjoy safe highways again, it is up to the American people to pressure the American government to accept these measures. Any person who does not acknowledge the one in every hundred American's who die each year -- a number which includes countless American children - I believe that person is not an American. Any person who does not demand justice for our countrymen who are murdered on the roads by lax driving and America's disinterested government - that person is not an American to me, either. Remember, we have the opportunity to save the lives of countless children; it's up to us to do something about it.

       
Tweet

I agree (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:53:57 AM PST
It is very strange to me that to drink alcohol in the US, one must be 21 years of age, yet you are permitted to kill and maim potentially hundreds of people with your actions aged 15, and you only have to be 9 before you can legally shoot someone's brains out.

America should get its priorities straight.


Hmmm, freedom against tyranny at 9 (none / 0) (#12)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:02:45 AM PST
freedom to move at 16,<br>
and freedom to buy alcohol at 21, yep, sounds like our priorities are in order, what's the problem?
<p>
The alcohol laws across the US differ by state. In New York, you need to be 21 to buy alchohol, but the state wisely does not interfere within the family. If you are 16 and your parents give you a glass of wine with dinner, no big deal. If you are 9 and have a sip of Communion wine, no big deal. So, for New York State at least, alcohol consumption under 21 is controlled by the parents, which is right and proper.


A. Rightmann

holy shit something thats not bullshit (none / 0) (#138)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 11:16:09 PM PST
coming from Adam Rightman


 
I know I will be labeled as communist, but... (none / 0) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 04:51:47 AM PST
...what about to overhaul the traffic infrastructure of America first?

The main problem is the emphasize of individual transportation, leading to inefficiency, traffic jams, and road kills.

A contributing problem is the typical distance between home and workplace. The me-first attitude of car-owning Americans, that catalyzed the building of large-scale sprawls where everything is far away. The centralization of jobs which creates supplementary dangers, as 9/11 shown; part of the blood is also on the hands of managers that thought that cramping tens of thousands of people into one building like sardines to a can is Good Idea [TM]. (Hey - the whole Middlewest is empty and the real estates are cheap, why everything has to be on the coasts?)

If you live more than walking distance from your work, don't complain about the traffic. You are the problem.


Too Cramped (2.33 / 3) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:01:12 AM PST
I would be only too happy to begin using public transportation if the state could develop some way to make it more comfortable. I don't know whether you have looked at some of the buses that travel around US cities, but those things really aren't all that big but there are often several dozen people inside! This is to say nothing about the smoke those things belch out.

As a concerned envorinmentalist I take as few trips with my vehicle as possible. I try to do all of my grocery shopping all on the same day of the week so I don't have to keep running back and forth for little things. I even stepped up from an Explorer to a Yukon Denali so I would have more cargo space and could stop at more stores without having to run back home and drop things off. How could I carry all those groceries if I were cramped on to a bus not much larger than my truck with a dozen other people? What if they were carrying their groceries as well?

I just don't see public transportation becoming a fad. If my wife and I decide that we want to rent a movie, you expect me to wait around for the bus to stop in front of the house? I really enjoy the convenience of jumping in the truck and running down to the video store. I'm sure most other people are the same way as I always see my neighbors driving out for little tasks.

I think we should all do our part of course. In the winter I have talked several of my friends into cutting down on the time they allow their vehicles to warm up in their driveways before they leave for work. That alone has to have made a big difference even if you just consider my own family. My wife used to let her car run for almost a half an hour! She is down to about 15 mintues now, I let my truck run for only anout 5, and I don't think my son lets his warm up at all! I think that is a big enough sacrifice to ask people to make at this stage, public transportation just isn't ready for us yet.


Too cramped? (2.50 / 2) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:15:02 AM PST
I don't know whether you have looked at some of the buses that travel around US cities, but those things really aren't all that big but there are often several dozen people inside!

I seen buses traveling around here. It lead me to formulating the theory of infinitely full bus; I hadn't seen any to which one more person wouldn't fit in.

Look at Tokyo subway. That's cramped!

I just don't see public transportation becoming a fad. If my wife and I decide that we want to rent a movie, you expect me to wait around for the bus to stop in front of the house?

Hadn't I said that? Americans are lazy and the Earth pays the costs.

How could I carry all those groceries if I were cramped on to a bus not much larger than my truck with a dozen other people? What if they were carrying their groceries as well?

Oh? It works here! As a side effect, maybe you'd find that you don't really need a lot of things - which could in turn reduce the exploitation of resources. On the other hand, it could hurt the Economy - oh what big damage.

I really enjoy the convenience of jumping in the truck and running down to the video store. I'm sure most other people are the same way as I always see my neighbors driving out for little tasks.

My point. :(

Though there is a thing that could alleviate the problem a bit - telecommuting. It is still only a partial solution though, a small bandaid on a bigger wound that the corporate capitalism is.


 
YOU sir are the Problem! (1.00 / 2) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:46:27 AM PST
By spreading your LIBERAL ideas which are not practical/implementable. Most people do not live within walking distance to their jobs as they want to make MONEY, to buy goods or services to support the ECONOMY, which is declining because of people like you and your socialist ilk. I walked 2 miles to work when I didn't have a car but as soon as I got one, I got a better job, which is 10 miles away. Also, in some areas, the roads are not SAFE for pedestrians. So try THINKING before you blurt out your misguided opinions.


Sorry to say (none / 0) (#46)
by JoePain on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:28:16 PM PST
I believe all of your arguments support communism and not vice versa. You should instead point out that you have money and can spend it anyway you want and do anything you want because your an American. Further, since nobody can really prove that what you are doing is hurting any one try thumbing your nose. I also recommend running over people that choose to walk or ride bikes--or, if your SUV is big enough run over their fuel efficient cars. This line of reasoning usually is the only way to get throught to the liberals.


 
Just thought I'd throw in my view on all this... (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:14:25 AM PST
I am 19 and I know how reckless people can be. But you shouldn't penalize those of us that are not causing any trouble. The majority of everybody that I have known is a good driver with the exception of a couple of my friends. But if you're going to attack the lower aged kids then you should also target the older than 60 - 65 crowd as well. I live in a city where elderly people are in abundance and they are a terrible road hazard. This is why I'm so glad that many states are starting to have yearly checks on people over a certain age.

On the subject of the cameras that take pictures of people's license plates, there is currently a program run by the govt testing out just that. I used to live in Salem, OR where they did have such a system in place and is part of that very test program. And it works from what I've seen.

I also know a couple of people that are from Europe and believe me, the drivers test here is a JOKE in comparison to what they have to go through. And amazingly enough they don't have as high of an accident problem. Gee, I wonder why... Anyway I'm done going off about this... All we really need is a more strict drivers test.

Granted we've moved onto a mandatory time of having learning permits, but for gods sake, if you're 18 you can waive it. I think that we should require learning permits on EVERYBODY, not just 15 - 17 year olds.


Europe has it easy (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:03:31 AM PST
I also know a couple of people that are from Europe and believe me, the drivers test here is a JOKE in comparison to what they have to go through. And amazingly enough they don't have as high of an accident problem. Gee, I wonder why...

Its because they have 1 car (or Lorries as they call them) for every 25 people or so. In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one.


Different explanation... (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:43:01 AM PST
Its because they have 1 car (or Lorries as they call them) for every 25 people or so.

Because they don't need more. With properly developed infrastructure a car is just a convenience instead of a need.

In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one.

In the US, public transportation is usually nonexistant, or "hard" to use. "Inconvenient", as lazy Americans would say. They are lazy, they have cheap gasoline, to keep it cheap they have to act as the "world policeman", and they then claim it is a marker of prosperity.


A shame cheap gasoline can't come to Europe (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:33:20 AM PST
perhaps an enterprising shipyard could make really, really big floating tanks of gasoline (or oil) and ship it to Europe, and then they could have the benefit of cheap gasoline that the US has.


A. Rightmann

Advanced Technology (none / 0) (#23)
by doofus on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:44:43 AM PST
Mr. Rightmann,

Unfortunately, it seems that any European country even remotely able to support such an advanced technology can't since the harbors that these new-fangled "ships" would use were built during the time of the Roman Empire and haven't been improved on since.

Improving this infrastructure would require money, which, of course, Europeans don't have since they are all busy taking "holidays" or sitting in cafes drinking some sort of bizarre coffee beverage and not out fueling the engine of capitalistic commerce.

How do I know all this? I once went to Europe on a 13 countries in 15 days chaperoned air conditioned bus trip with my high school choir and thus became an expert.


 
Cheap gasoline in europe ? (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:38:23 AM PST
it is not the rarity of petroleum that makes the gas expensive in europe,
it is tax.
about 90% of the price is tax

well, it makes it expensive to travel by car, and so people tend to travel by train or coach



true (none / 0) (#62)
by Juan Fernandez on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:59:53 AM PST
This is true, at least in Spain, last time i checked taxes were about the 70% of the price in gasoline. This country mantains its economy mainly from tourists and the taxes over petrol, alcohol and tobacco.


 
Too bad (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:50:56 AM PST
Just stick with your boy Tony Blair, he has the moxie it takes to get you cheap gasoline and I think our guy GWB has him pointed in the right direction.

I don't see why people keep complaining about how cheap gas in in the US and how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that? So what if the blood of a few third wordlians is spilled for the greater benefit of humanity? Thats what its all about, no?

Technology has advanced to the point where we have the ability to pour some distilled dinosaur remains into the tanks our great steel beasts and harness the explosive power of fire to propel us across great distances, quickly and safely. Should we go back to the dark ages and be drawn around is horse carriages?? Are you Amish? I say we take full advantage of the triumphs of science and make full use of everything it has to offer. Science itself has yet to prove that doing so results in any disadvantages despite the wild claims of a few Earth First lunatics.

Join us in the new millenium, drive a car!


Re: Too bad (none / 0) (#30)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:47:17 AM PST
I don't see why people keep complaining about how cheap gas in in the US and how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that?

The price of gas in the United States has damn little to do with who we did or did not kill and has everything to do with the taxes we do (or do not) levy on petroleum here.

Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really. The Earth will survive us, and we will in our infinite ingenuity find other ways to get around long before the last drop of oil is pulled out of the ground.

My problem with car culture is that it makes most of the United States look like a godforsaken wasteland. I was just down in the suburbs of a large, unnamed Southern city and was absolutely appalled. There were some nice parks, but there was no place where people lived where one could, or would want to take a walk. Just row after row of housing developments, strip malls, office parks, and gas stations.

It's actually quite refreshing if you go somewhere and there are actual living, breathing people on the street, rather than spending long periods in the car puncutated by short interactions with people in checkout lines and whatnot. Maybe Americans like all the privacy that this arrangement avails them of. My suspicion is that they simply don't know any better.

j.


You are really ... (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 03:11:59 AM PST
I am an European as you like to say it. And one of the most common things I hear here is that Americans are stupid, selfish and morons.

Do you know what I have found out from this thread? That you really are. Man , read you own words again and filter them through a slice of common sense. What comes out of there is 0. A big 0. I am dissapointed. Really.

Your main problem is your values scale and ego. Examples:
"Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really"
"...how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that?"
"In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one."

Stick your prosperity somewhere I prefer to live in Europe.





You are crazy (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 04:39:24 AM PST
And one of the most common things I hear here is that Americans are stupid, selfish and morons.

Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.

Stick your prosperity somewhere I prefer to live in Europe.

You wish we would sticj our prosperity somewhere over there in Europe. Keep dreaming!


Note... (none / 0) (#56)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 05:02:34 AM PST
Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.

Nope. Only Brits.

Though I, despite of not being one, will prefer a good ol' cup of tea over the toxic waste Coca Cola Corp. is marketing as beverages. You knew that undiluted Coca Cola has to be shipped in accordance to HAZMAT specs?

You wish we would sticj our prosperity somewhere over there in Europe. Keep dreaming!

Money isn't everything. I'll prefer to have acceptable health care affordable not only for the rich, and decently long holidays to spend together with the family that I will maybe one day have. Stick your "prosperity" where you were advised to earlier, and put your "productivity" right after it. Or, alternatively, try to measure prosperity of the nation in terms of stress and happiness and time spent with the family instead of GNP figures - you could find that instead of growth the Economists and Politicians are touting so loudly there is in fact a steady decline from 70's.


HAZMAT (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 05:43:24 AM PST
Now, just hold on a second here. Do you mean to tell me that highly-concentrated citric acid is actually restricted more than any other God-given substance by your fascist government?


Phosphoric acid (none / 0) (#133)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 09:11:49 AM PST
Now, just hold on a second here. Do you mean to tell me that highly-concentrated citric acid is actually restricted more than any other God-given substance by your fascist government?

See http://www.fema.gov/reg-x/2000/hazmat3_1.doc, look for the keyword "cola"; there is a paragraph that says more.

Also check http://www.labsafety.org/archives/arch9808.htm and search for the same keyword. There is an interesting note about a company recycling white phosphorus shells, making H3PO4 from them, and selling it to Coca Cola Ltd.


 
Note this! (none / 0) (#149)
by gordonjcp on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 09:24:10 AM PST
>   > Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.
>   Nope. Only Brits.

Nope. Only the English.


 
what's about the bullfighters? (none / 0) (#59)
by Juan Fernandez on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 07:40:18 AM PST
Not everyone in Europe is a football hooligan or a tea drinker: there are also plenty of bullfighters over here, specially in the south-west part.


 
... we need an adjective, Bob... (none / 0) (#72)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:46:44 AM PST
Your main problem is your values scale and ego. Examples:

(two deleted because I can't take credit for them myself)

"Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really."

I said this, and I will explain WHY I said it. Being a Green (which I consider myself to be) requires taking a lot on faith. The main point which is hammered in about non-renewable resources is that they are scarce, and finite. Thomas Malthus was talking about exhausting the Earth's resources back in 1798. He foresaw overpopulation and famine in Europe as a natural consequence of the Industrial Era.

Only problem is: it hasn't happened. In fact, quite the opposite in fact has transpired.

I try to tread lightly on the Earth, and treat its resources as a finite commodity. I do this as an article of faith, and that it makes me feel better about myself as a human being. If I tried to argue scarcity as a point of fact, I wouldn't have much to argue with. Besides, the tenents of Green philosophy are pretty well known, even here in the US. Either you believe them or you don't. I won't change anybody's mind or shed any light on the subject by rehashing them again and again.

Thanks for writing anyhow though!

j.


Taking things on faith - the refuge of an idiot! (none / 0) (#89)
by dmg on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:58:14 AM PST
Being a Green (which I consider myself to be) requires taking a lot on faith.

You aren't joking are you ? here's some links for you:

Global warming is a myth.

A consumer's guide to environmental myths and realities

More environmental myths

Greenpeace horror stories

Some people take a lot of things on faith alone. I prefer to do some research. Sure, its hard work, but the payoff is that I manage to avoid looking like an idiot in a public forum.

Come back when you have researched both sides of the story. And here is a clue for you: Global warming is a MYTH.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

I've read your links... (none / 0) (#94)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:56:33 PM PST
Like I said, I'm a Greenie (and not a terribly rabid one) because it pleases me to do so. Period. I know that if taken from a point of view of hard research, a lot of stuff that Greens stake out is pretty silly. I thought I explained that Malthus's theories on scarcity just haven't panned out in reality, or did you keyword scan first, and bang out a response before chewing completely?

A Green is also not the same as a member of Greenpeace. Get it straight.

Some of the stuff in the links is valid. Some is what we'd call a stretcher. Just because someone says something which is against "conventional wisdom" doesn't make it right. (or vice-versa).

What is it about Adequacy people that cause them to assume that if anyone is not a Randroid, they are a hemp-wearing, molotov-cocktail-throwing droid of the anti-globalist conspiracy? Is this the argument room from Monty Python, or what?

j.


Somebody please stop me... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:22:38 PM PST
I have a clean shot. I'm taking it.

Is this the argument room from Monty Python...?

No it isn't.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Follow up: Again about America (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:33:37 PM PST
I have wrote the previous comment.Sorry for not haing an account yet but I am sick of remembering logon ID's and password.

When I said "You" I was referring to all the previous posts.

As about global warming it exists: I come from EasternEurope, Romania and I have lived in the country for few years. Trust me a lot have changed from the point of view of climate in the last 15 years.

And one of the things I hate most at "you" is this "I know it better",

see ya, C

-----------------------
"Because it's no love to be static like the desert nor it's love to roam the world like the wind. And it's not love to see everything from a distance . Love it is the force that transforms and improves the soul of whe world" - Coelho



 
Another follow up (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:42:38 PM PST
You know the biggest problem of all is that America doesn't sees "the big picture". As you just did . You took my message, split it into parts and become punctual. Is it that hard to see the big picture?

Or if you are doing it , you are doing it with "colateral damages". This 40.000 are col.damages, as so the children killed in the recent war, as everything else. JUST TO BE THE BIG AMERICA. UUUUNITED STAAAAATES OOOOF AAAAAMEERICA. Got it?

"You" have good things, but so the others do.

I will write more here it gets interesting,

C


 
Banning computer games... (none / 0) (#6)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:16:41 AM PST
...is futile attempt. If urban car races will not be available from official sources, unofficial ones will inevitably appear.

According to ZD News article Resistance Records offers the "most politically incorrect video game ever made", Ethnic Cleansing.

With the appearance of open-source game engines, like Genesis 3D for Doom-like games, and FlightGear for flight simulators, there is nothing that can stop rogue developers from making their own games that suit the tastes of them and their customers. (There was nothing to stop them even before - but the availability of tools lowers the "barrier to entry" to the market.)

Remember these maxims: Might makes right, Demand creates supply, and Restrictions create black market.


OMG!!! (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:45:00 AM PST
Resistance sounds like the funniest game ever! LOL i laughed my head off that someone would actually make something like that! Its gotta be a joke right?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

good God (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:04:53 AM PST
Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?

You are the scum of society.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Perhaps, just perhaps (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 03:43:14 AM PST
Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps it's because computer games are not real life.

Perhaps you have seen many of the Rodney King parodies. In particular, Rodney interrupting his beating to recommend pills for when you've got a terrible headache. These are not real either.


 
heh (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:00:03 AM PST
"Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?"

I would never partake in racist violence but you have to laugh at a game like this really. Its so politically incorrect its funny.

How many thousands of jokes have americans made about afghanis the last 6 months?

Everyone does it. I disagree with political correctness. Its a stupid liberal invention and its a breath of fresh air when its broken.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
20 WTCs! (none / 0) (#8)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:01:50 AM PST
Thats shit lots of people. Why all the fuss over WTC if that 40,000 statistic is true?

Maybe we should put the "ban compilers and debuggers" movement on pause.

"Most people could not happily tolerate the death of a single child, let alone one in hundred, yet each year our government gives its tacit support for this needless sacrifice by refusing to take action to prevent it."
bah, Kosovo, Afganistan, Iraq - need many more examples of the US government giving support for needless sacrifice by refusing to prevent it?
Aparently negligence is a concept that the US military doesnt believe in.

"Most of these games don't even include turn signals!"
"Points should be given for correctly indicating turns and lane changes, remaining on the right side of the road and within the lane markings, for stopping at stop signs and executing proper reverse parking manoeuvres, amongst other driving skills."
Ahh Microsoft Car Simulator.

Good idea about the black boxes in cars. That would be very useful.

"Since our current political apparatus is not willing to erect road signs proclaiming the omnipresence of the Lord"
This is the problem - we need to force the government to put up signs like "Remember - God is watching YOU!" and "When red lights show, stop or be damned".


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Mmm (none / 0) (#14)
by asharp on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:14:53 AM PST
Black boxes - agreed (my mate designed and built one at college!).

> "When red lights show, stop or be damned".
-*-chuckle-*-




cool [nt] (none / 0) (#77)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:01:53 AM PST

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Nothing (3.00 / 4) (#9)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:47:01 AM PST
40,000 deaths per year is nothing.

There are about 1.3 million legal murders in the US every year. That works out to about 3561 per day. In one month more than twice as many innocents are murdered than die in an entire year's worth of automobile accidents. The people responsible walk free, and in most cases they are even paid for their deed by their willing accomplices.

I don't think I even need to type the word, but I'm talking about abortion. Baby killing. You want to really save a bunch of children? Grab a protest sign, write your congressman, attend a fundraiser, or stop by the hardware store on your way home and pick up a length of PVC pipe (to make a handle for your sign). Just do something, lives are being snuffed out while we sit here and chit chat.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

I agree (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:40:28 AM PST
These loose women (mostly young women/teens) are the greatest threat to their unborn, so if you see a pregnant looking young woman, TELL them that Aborting their fetus, will land them in the lake of FIRE! I do, and it works 70% of the time. The other 30% will be banished to the land of eternal damnation!


 
Amen brutha! (none / 0) (#25)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:55:05 AM PST
Yep, I just LOVE dropping by the day care in my neighborhood and seeing all the single-parent children down there. There's one who's just adorable. Every time I come in, he comes up to me wanting to get hugged. He won't let go. I asked (jokingly) if his dad didn't hug him at home. Well, he's never seen his dad the teacher told me.
<P>
Don't worry about me though. Go back to your nice, God-fearing suburban neighborhood. Congratulate yourself on your nice lawn and your adorable little kids. Please don't bring your PVC pipe and sign down here though.
<P>
j.



mmm (none / 0) (#26)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:13:09 AM PST
Better he'd never been born, is what you're saying?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Re: mmm (none / 0) (#32)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:28:13 AM PST
Better he'd never been born, is what you're saying?

Y'know, I think about this a lot, because you look at how cute the kids are, and what would it be like if they weren't there. (I like cute kids too), but yeah.

When I go down to my neighborhood day care and it doesn't look like a social disaster area with fully half of the children being from single-parent families, and half of the children needing state aid so that their parents can pay the very modest tuition charged by the school (interestingly, there's a lot of overlap between these halves, whaddya think?), come back and tell me what a sin abortion is.

Some of the traditionalists on this board may point out that the parents of the kids I'm seeing are no younger or more ill-prepared than their peers of fifty years ago. Since the original topic here is the automobile, I'll wrap around and make a half-assed syllogism out of this.

The problem is not the parents. They're idiots, and so are we all. The problem is that our modern, mobile society has demolished the safety net of the extended family. Fifty years ago, three branches of the family would definitely be living in the same neighborhood, and many of them would be in the same house. Now they're spread all over Kingdom Come. My folks are 30 and 100 miles away respectively, which makes them a lot closer-knit than most, but I don't rely on them much for day care just the same.

I wrote a kind of long diatribe after this point, but I didn't like it, so it got bit-bucketed.

My point is simple. If you're not emotionally or economically ready to have kids, don't have them. I don't see much indication that premarital sex is appreciably more popular now than it was 50 years ago, the difference is that the consequences and social structure have changed a lot. Your family isn't going to be of much help, your government isn't going to be of much help. Statistically speaking, you probably aren't a churchgoer in the first place, and there aren't manufacturing or trade jobs to throw semi-literate progeny into.

So other than encouraging abstinence (while you're at it, go for world peace and universal moral righteousness as well!), what do you propose besides agressive family planning?


Nathan, I humbly apologize (none / 0) (#36)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 01:31:59 PM PST
I was reading your very good point about wumingzi saying that the child should never have been born, and in a fit of spasticness I accidentally hit the delete post link. I will talk to the unix experts that run Adequacy, and see if they can remove my delete post privileges.


A. Rightmann

my dear fellow! (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:45:53 PM PST
No trouble at all.

To quickly recap my position: poverty and ignorance are nothing new, and will continue to exist regardless of whether abortions, aka "aggressive family planning," are common or rare. It's better to be alive and poor than it is to never have lived at all. In fact, throughout all of human history, everyone has been poorer, stupider, and more disease-ridden than we are now, but no one would have denied our forefathers life on that account.

How poor do you have to be in order to be denied the right to have children? And how exactly would abortion prevent single parenthood? Giving an unwanted child up for adoption accomplishes the same thing, wouldn't you say?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Don't Stop There (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 03:50:02 PM PST
Every woman carries about 4,000 viable ova in her ovaries. What about those that are denied fertilization? Do they not deserve the right to life just as much as you do? Surely it's better for them to live, even in rampant squalor and starvation, than to never have existed?

The Catholics are on the right path, but merely banning contraceptives does not go far enough. I propose that every fertile and ovulating woman be forced by law to make herself available for insemination. I realize that it's a poor solution, but until such time that medical technology allows us to harvest and fertilize every woman's eggs, it will have to do. To do any less would be to slaughter billions!


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

I'm stopping there. (none / 0) (#43)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 04:21:39 PM PST
I could pull the reverse red ad abs by asking if infanticide is a legitimate means of population control.

I don't recall claiming that every embryo was the moral equivalent of a human being, and I don't consider abortions to be murder (pace Adam and Mr Hand.) That being said, I thought it was pretty creepy that the thread's parent essentially said that poor peoples' lives aren't worth living.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
billions?! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:54:33 PM PST
we are slaughtering trillions by our selfish refusal to develop technology to clone every human being 1000 times a day. the horror!!

heck, i've already not cloned myself a few hundred times already today.

let us pray for these poor victims.




Sweet Nectar (none / 0) (#49)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:17:06 PM PST
Hey, at least my proposal's doable with present technology. And as a bonus, some of you guys might finally Get Some.

As osm might say: "If the fecund ova of Eva Habermann's womanhood were mine for the fertilizing, I'd be frying me up an omelette."

Or something.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
...and continue further! (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 06:59:51 AM PST
Every woman carries about 4,000 viable ova in her ovaries. What about those that are denied fertilization? Do they not deserve the right to life just as much as you do?

This appears to be a little sexist; an egg is only half of what it takes to form a zygote. What about the countless billions of sperms that will never get their chance?

Seems that at the end an average woman with her 4000 wasted potential lives will get it cheap in comparison with billions of unborns every man is responsible for.


The arithmetic of life. (none / 0) (#61)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:43:11 AM PST
Lives aren't "wasted". Either you are alive, or you are dead. You can't be "halfway pregnant".

Please stop this madness; can you not see that you are replacing reality with a half-baked liberalist construction that is based on blind faith? Wake up, we're not talking about "potential lives" or "potential pregnancies" or "potential murders". We're talking about real-life babies that get killed.


--
Peace and much love...




So... (none / 0) (#65)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 09:27:07 AM PST
So you draw the line at conception, right? We've now established that you're a murderer. We're just haggling over the body count.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Who cares? (none / 0) (#69)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:39:56 AM PST
Does it matter where we draw "the line"?

The real world is not a liberalist dream fantasy; the real world never has clear-cut lines and hard-set rules. You should know that by now.


--
Peace and much love...




Reminds me of an old joke (none / 0) (#85)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:35:09 AM PST
... that in American Jewish culture, a fetus is not considered viable, and can therefore be aborted, at any point prior to graduation from medical school.

"... the real world never has clear-cut lines and hard-set rules."

Thank you for confirming that you are a moral relativist. I'm sure your new friends, the Secular Humanists, will welcome you into your ranks with open arms.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Notice... (none / 0) (#107)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:42:37 PM PST
...that I used the phrase "real world". As in, the worldly, material; we all know who the prince of the material world is, do we not?

Just like a liberalist to completely ignore the distinction between the material and the spiritual.


--
Peace and much love...




 
and mine as well! (none / 0) (#83)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:17:06 AM PST
To quickly recap my position: poverty and ignorance are nothing new, and will continue to exist regardless of whether abortions, aka "aggressive family planning," are common or rare. It's better to be alive and poor than it is to never have lived at all. In fact, throughout all of human history, everyone has been poorer, stupider, and more disease-ridden than we are now, but no one would have denied our forefathers life on that account.

Whether or not it is better to be alive and poor than not alive at all is something which I don't buy. I'm not really writing about poverty though. Somewhere in this thread you'll see me ripping into Right Hand Man on this subject. Besides, I like your point of view better.

How poor do you have to be in order to be denied the right to have children? And how exactly would abortion prevent single parenthood? Giving an unwanted child up for adoption accomplishes the same thing, wouldn't you say?

I'm not writing about poverty per se. I'm writing about people having children who are personally unready and have no support mechanism to help them out. If I had a child at 20, that's the boat I would have been in.

As to how does abortion avoid single-parenthood, I'll make it really easy for you. A lot of people who probably shouldn't have been couples in the first place (or were a couple only in the sense of entertainment, not in the sense of a mutual, enduring relationship) wind up popping out kids. Sometimes, they even formalize their previously informal relationship because a kid is coming. Maybe this doesn't happen on your planet. It happens here all the time. Come on down and I'll introduce you to a few just in my close circle of friends!

If kids (and backwards religious beliefs) don't get involved in these relationships, they run their course and end with party a moving out of party b's apartment at the end of the year, and going on to try again next year.

If you want to ask me about the moral validity of relationship-hopping like this, I'll take the fifth today. It's too far off topic, and I don't think I can clearly explain my ideas on this in 1000 words or less.

As to adoption vs. abortion. If you want to carry a child to term, that's fine, I guess. Some of my friends have done just that. If your conscience tells you that aborting your own child is murder, then don't do it. I'm totally behind you. Truth of the matter is, I don't like adoption very much. It says to me: "I want to bring a life into this world, but no way do I want to take responsiblity for it.". That bothers me. It is also a gross simplification to an issue which has a lot of facets, so I don't begrudge people who put their kids up for adoption, or who choose to adopt children themselves.

My problem comes with people prosletyzing that abortion is murder. It is finally an article of faith which is between nobody but yourself and your Creator. If you don't follow this, maybe you should come watch the Vegans holding dead cow posters outside McDonalds. Morally, they are on a similar footing. Personally, I think radical vegans and evangelistic pro-lifers are both a little nuts.

j.


please try to argue coherently. (none / 0) (#90)
by nathan on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:08:56 PM PST
I reiterate: throughout all of human history, all people have been far poorer, more ignorant, and more sickly than virtually any American is today. The difference in world material wealth between even 1929 and 2002 is stupefying. You decry the position of the poor today; fine, it's not good that anyone should be poor. I defy you to get from poverty to abortion as a panacea for it. By that standard, every Angolan should have been aborted.

This isn't as bloody-minded a viewpoint as you probably think it is. You have accepted as an article of (liberalist) faith that abortions aren't a serious emotional or spiritual blow to the mother. I disagree with this, because the idea that the foetus is disposable intrudes on the principle of the inviolable sacredness of human life. Human beings are not just walking meatballs. In Antigone, we hear of
[t]he hapless corpse of Polyneices...le[ft] unwept, unsepulchred, a welcome store for the birds, as they espy him, to feast on at will.
Sophocles thought that here oughtn't even to be disrespect shown to the human form.

The pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy is political, and you must free yourself from that paradigm in order to understand the objections of people who differ from you. If families must form and break up and fail, I say that that is a petty price to pay for preserving our respect for humanity! The solution you propose would, by making human life literally as cheap as dirt, destroy society. Worse, if we lose our respect for human life, we have no basis for any other imaginable virtue.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I wonder if you're reading my comments... (none / 0) (#100)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:24:00 PM PST
... or some version of them which is posted on http://www.parallel-Adequacy.org/

I reiterate: throughout all of human history, all people have been far poorer, more ignorant, and more sickly than virtually any American is today. The difference in world material wealth between even 1929 and 2002 is stupefying. You decry the position of the poor today; fine, it's not good that anyone should be poor. I defy you to get from poverty to abortion as a panacea for it. By that standard, every Angolan should have been aborted.

And I reiterate that while poverty is a symptom of what I'm talking about, it's NOT ABOUT POVERTY!

While we're at it, I doubt that every single citizen of Angola is desperately poor (although a lot of them obviously are), so your attempt at arguing from that point is pretty fallacious to begin with.

This isn't as bloody-minded a viewpoint as you probably think it is. You have accepted as an article of (liberalist) faith that abortions aren't a serious emotional or spiritual blow to the mother. I disagree with this, because the idea that the foetus is disposable intrudes on the principle of the inviolable sacredness of human life.

I'm curious. This is about the fifth time today I've seen the use of the word "liberalist". More interestingly, I'm not sure if I've ever seen it anywhere else. How is a "liberalist" different from a plain old "liberal"? Is it some attempt to tie "liberal" thought with all the bad old -isms such as Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc? Is it a word that you use to imply your opponent is dogmatic? If you think I am, come out and say so.

As to whether or not I take it as an article of faith, I would ask on what basis (besides quoting Sophocles) you are taking the absolute, inviolate sanctity of human life. Are we also no longer to wage war? Can we no longer met out the ultimate punishment to our monsters and murderers?

I am not (to the best of my knowledge) making much of a political point. Since my core argument got overrun by your effort to appear eruidte and quote the ancients, I'll try again:

To give birth to a child is to assume a responsibility to raise it in the best manner in which you are capable. If you are not able or willing to do that, you should not be having children. Fetuses have no free will, they are incapable of rational thought, ergo, they deserve no special protection. If you choose not to raise a child which you have given birth to, you are abrogating on a responsibility which I believe is implicit in the act of giving birth. Adoption is such an abrogration. I won't go so far as to call it a sin, but it's not a terribly responsible thing to do just the same.

Is there anything which I am not making perfectly clear at this point?

j.


README: Liberalism. (none / 0) (#104)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:34:00 PM PST
Here are a few links to get you started on liberalism:

Link 1.
Link 2.

P.S. These pages are from a project I am about to launch. It will go live once the DNS systems process my paperwork.
Stay tuned. :)


--
Peace and much love...




 
for pity's sakes, (none / 0) (#116)
by nathan on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 03:23:48 PM PST
I quoted Sophocles to you because I really like Sophocles, not in an attempt to appear more erudite than you. I'm sorry if the presence of Sophocles in the discussion makes you intellectually insecure, though. For the record, I love literature and read it daily, and this tends to show up in everything I say and do; for which I have no intention of apologizing.

I agree with you that people shouldn't irresponsibly have kids they can't look after. I fear, though, that your uncritical acceptance of the following:

Fetuses have no free will, they are incapable of rational thought, ergo, they deserve no special protection...

will lead to you making the same decisions about, for example, people in a vegetative state. From the position that "some human beings are not valuable," there's no returning to the sanctity of human life. I believe that wars and executions are wrong. Sometimes, though, we must come with fear and trembling to take the responsibility to do something which, although it seems necessary, we must nevertheless regret forever afterward.

Please don't patronize me again, or I will have no alternative except to assume I am being trolled.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

continued... (none / 0) (#131)
by wumingzi on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 10:53:11 PM PST
Before I start, I'd like to, not so much retract, but clarify something I said earlier which seemed to really touch a nerve, about the use of the word "poor". I came off as a Dickensian villian, and I'd like a moment to back off from that.

Poverty is relevant and irrelevant at the same time. The size of a person's bank account has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. Period. At the same time, money is one of a number of tools which provide one with options when things otherwise are tough. It can make the difference between taking a humiliating job because you have to eat and one which allows you to fufill more of your potential as a human being. It gives you breathing space. A number of other things can provide this, family, friends, "street smarts", etc. My experience has been that people who have this bag of resources are certainly not poor in terms of options. If these people don't have fat bank accounts (and some don't), it's usually a question of life priorities rather than an actual inability to make money.

Which is to say that when I talk about "poor", it means more "lacking in options" than "lacking in money".

End of anti-class-struggle speil.

I quoted Sophocles to you because I really like Sophocles, not in an attempt to appear more erudite than you. I'm sorry if the presence of Sophocles in the discussion makes you intellectually insecure, though.

Not particularly. I just felt that you had made a canned speech which was only peripherally on-topic, and I wanted to call you on it. You have given me something serious to respond to this time, so I'll give serious responses.

(own quote deleted...)

will lead to you making the same decisions about, for example, people in a vegetative state. From the position that "some human beings are not valuable," there's no returning to the sanctity of human life.


I actually find that admirable. Unfortunately, the absolutist point of view that says that life is sacrosanct no matter what troubles me on two levels. First, there are decisions one can make which affect the quality of your life. I feel that saying that "all lives are equally valid" is a short step from "all decisions on how to live your life are equally valid". This is wrong. It is not equally valid to spend your days on the street in a drunken haze vs writing stories. (again, this has nothing to do with poverty or economics of any sort. it is about using your God-given abilities to their best potential, or at least some reasonable facimile thereof.)

I also see the entire argument about the value of fetuses as being based on pretty shaky logic. Fetuses are potentially human, therefore we must value them the same way we value human life. I have a bowl of nuts on my dining room table. I do not see it as a cord of oak lumber, nor even as a forest in the making. Perhaps that's my loss.

I believe that wars and executions are wrong.

Then at least we agree on something...

Sometimes, though, we must come with fear and trembling to take the responsibility to do something which, although it seems necessary, we must nevertheless regret forever afterward.

So there are things that make killing OK, but abortion is not one of those?

j.


here comes rhetoric (none / 0) (#134)
by nathan on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 06:48:57 PM PST
I feel that saying that "all lives are equally valid" is a short step from "all decisions on how to live your life are equally valid". This is wrong. It is not equally valid to spend your days on the street in a drunken haze vs writing stories.

Who are you to tell me how to live? That's pretty cheeky of you, considering that some of the greatest poets in history, such as Li Bao, François Villon and Basho have lived the lives of drunkards and vagabonds. I suppose they should have settled down and gotten safe bureaucratic jobs, the archaic equivalent of a mid-level IT position. When you're rounding up the drunks, be sure you don't miss those wastrels Beethoven, Kerouac, Dylan Thomas, Thomas de Quincey, Quincy Jones, and John Cage.

Addressing the point you meant to make. I don't think that all ways of living are equally good. Still, every person is responsible for his own life. No one can live someone else's life, and since every man must live for himself, every man must try to be responsible for himself. Even if I didn't believe that, I don't see why I should listen to your assessment, in particular, of the value of somebody's life. It's clear we'd disagree, but it's not clear that your opinion has any more validity.

We have a moral obligation to the foetus to extend it a right to life. There's nothing magic about the moment of conception; I've got no way of knowing what a soul is, or when a biological process becomes a human process. That's not all that important to me. What is important is that, knowing that she has life growing within her, a woman doesn't first ask what'll be convenient for herself. Love happens when you decide that something matters more to you than merely your own convenience or your own plans, ambitious as they may be.

Imagine a marriage failing because the spouses' jobs move them to different cities. Rather than change jobs in these difficult times, they break up. Well, it couldn't have been much of a marriage to begin with. Let's return to the foetus. A woman has life growing within her, and her first thoughts are, "I can't have a baby! It would mess up my life!" I don't have the right to make her stop. But I think she's wrong not to love for her potential baby. Husband or no husband, America is not an impossible country. You can throw yourself on the mercy of a church; you can beg the government for help and possibly get more than you thought. Even if it fucks your life up properly, you have participated in bringing a priceless treasure into the world, and that can be more rewarding than an air-conditioned condo on the beach and a shiny new Beemer, wouldn't you say?

By the way, I find it absolutely revolting that you compared a foetus with a bowl of nuts. Only the knowledge that you are a boat person prevents me from taking that as troll spoor.

Killing is never acceptable. Period. Sometimes, under the most extreme circumstances, it appears that we have no choice but to kill in order to preserve others; but killing human life for convenience is a hideous crime. Killing human life ought to be a stain on your conscience forever. I hope that's sufficiently clear.

Nathan

PS - I really hope that I have not been trolled here. That's a real sticking point with k5 people. Their opinions are often sufficiently outré that, if I were to hear them in real life, I would laugh them off.
-N
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

10th circle reports snowstorm; details at eleven. (none / 0) (#140)
by derek3000 on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:38:57 AM PST
No one can live someone else's life, and since every man must live for himself, every man must try to be responsible for himself. Even if I didn't believe that, I don't see why I should listen to your assessment, in particular, of the value of somebody's life. It's clear we'd disagree, but it's not clear that your opinion has any more validity.

Nathan, I don't mean to interrupt the conversation, but you are starting to sound like a certain someone who everyone here loves to hate.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

you may well be right (none / 0) (#142)
by nathan on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 07:47:46 PM PST
In some ways, Christian existentialism and Objectivism have plenty in common. In some ways, they are diametrically opposed. Rand would be the first to say that there's much more to Objectivism than the ideas of the individual character of the individual mind, and of radical personal responsibility.

Christianity is a wildly individualistic religion, not that most of its professed practitioners would know it.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Interesting. (none / 0) (#143)
by derek3000 on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 04:50:25 AM PST
I never really thought of it in that light. But I'm getting sick of her anyway, and I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it might just be pointless to try and come up with a cure-all political philosophy.

It's back to the basics for me--Hume and Hobbes and whatnot. I also just picked up Works of Love today at the library.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

good for you (none / 0) (#144)
by nathan on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 07:23:51 AM PST
Check out the quote from Mr K in my user info. I heartily approve of the project of learning more.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

It does feel good. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by derek3000 on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:59:07 PM PST
I think I must have read the first line to "Works of Love" and had to put the book down. It takes time to digest something so...I'm not sure how to describe it.

"If it were true, as a conceited cleverness believes, proud of not being imposed upon, that one should believe nothing that one does not see with the sensual eye, then must one first and foremost cease to believe in love."

Bam, nigga.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Confused. (none / 0) (#127)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 12:50:58 PM PST
I'm still not sure why it is responsible to have an abortion but somehow irresponsible to give your baby up for adoption. Does this mean that childless couples who want to adopt are enablers?



 
Odd (none / 0) (#38)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:12:30 PM PST
You want people who are not emotionally or economically ready to have kids to just not have them. You encourage 'aggressive family planning' (afraid to just call it baby killing?) as a means to that end.

Sure, lets just send a message to the whole world that they are free to sin all they want, and if they get pregnant we'll just punish the baby! Lets just kill the sucker and pretend it never happened. Simple as that. Who cares that it pisses off God, who will surely visit that sin back on a person by denying them entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven. Hey, if some guy runs a red light, lets just kill his wife to ensure that it never happens again, kind of set an example for him. Better yet, lets have the state license people to commit the murders and pay them handsomly for it.

Why stop there. Your house got robbed? Feel free to pick some person off the street at random and just blow their brains out. Or maybe jab at them with an ice pick until they soften up a little, then vacuum them in with a shop vac.

Your desire to turn pregnancy into some sort of bad financial decision that you can get out of by declaring bankrupcy makes me ill. I shudder to think that people like you inhabit our schools, our government, and our streets, and I look forward to the day when right minded individuals will be free of your influences.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Indeed. (none / 0) (#64)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 09:04:31 AM PST
Sure, lets just send a message to the whole world that they are free to sin all they want, and if they get pregnant we'll just punish the baby!

You might be on to something here! You know what I say: Spare the rod, spoil the child.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
You see, it's raining here... (none / 0) (#68)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:26:53 AM PST
... so I have nothing better to do than to respond to you...

You want people who are not emotionally or economically ready to have kids to just not have them.

Well, let's turn it around. Is it better to grow up around physically abusive drug-using parents than to not be born at all? Is it better to be born into hunger and privation than to not be born at all? Is there any life you can imagine which is not worse than not being born at all? Careful how you answer. I am a firm believer in reincarnation, and I'll bet we can work up a real doozy for you next time around. Being a middle-class American Christian is making you a little too comfortable and short-sighted.

Quality of life DOES matter.

You encourage 'aggressive family planning' (afraid to just call it baby killing?) as a means to that end.

"Afraid" has nothing to do with it. You in your deranged belief say that a fetus becomes a human life at conception. Having seen a number of babies, including my own, I don't think they're really infused with a soul until about six months after they're born. (no, I'm not going to go advocating infanticide. I'm not that far gone). Before that, they're pretty unpopulated. Cute, but no more capable of free will than the beasts which we were given dominion over in Genesis. The entire basis of the "Abortion is baby-killing" argument is based on the fact that by comitting abortion, you are snuffing out a human life. Well, there are a few things that make human in my book, and fetuses don't posess any of them. Little fetuses have hearts, spinal cords, etc. So do cows and pigs, and we eat those.

If you want to take it from the argument that "all are God's creatures, harm them not." (it's sort of a Jain thing. You wouldn't understand), we can start over again and argue from there. You ARE a strict vegetarian and don't even swat mosquitoes or flies, yes?

Sure, lets just send a message to the whole world that they are free to sin all they want, and if they get pregnant we'll just punish the baby! Lets just kill the sucker and pretend it never happened. Simple as that. Who cares that it pisses off God, who will surely visit that sin back on a person by denying them entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Show me His anger. Don't bother quoting scripture. I have a Bible here too, thank you.

In this diatribe, you have to answer for a few things:

a) sex is a sin (two sins before I got out of bed today! Boy am I in trouble.)

b) a fetus is worthy of treatment as an individual

c) God punishes intervention in His plans for life. Question: If I get pregnant, and the stress of pregancy causes me to miscarry [somewhat common] is God going to fry me for letting myself get into such a mental state as to terminate my baby?

Hey, if some guy runs a red light, lets just kill his wife to ensure that it never happens again, kind of set an example for him. Better yet, lets have the state license people to commit the murders and pay them handsomly for it.

You're berating a point which you have nothing to back up except dogma. Try harder, please.

Your desire to turn pregnancy into some sort of bad financial decision that you can get out of by declaring bankrupcy makes me ill.

Really? I thought you were just trolling!

I shudder to think that people like you inhabit our schools, our government, and our streets, and I look forward to the day when right minded individuals will be free of your influences.

Well, you can always go somewhere more like-minded.


What? (none / 0) (#73)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:51:57 AM PST
Who died and made you the global judge? I don't think I want to entrust you as the person who decides what life is worth living and what life isn't. That's nobody's decision but the person's whose life is in question.

Not even the parent's, especially when they already made that decision when they decided to have sex, and ESPECIALLY with the plethora of birth-control devices we have today.

There is no way you can sanely argue for abortion, not even if you are the most fuzzy-minded liberalist.

Face it, abortion is just abuse of those who are the most helpless in our society; so helpless, in fact, that they cannot even speak out when they are being abused.


--
Peace and much love...




Another circular, liberalist argument for you. (none / 0) (#78)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:03:47 AM PST
...and ESPECIALLY with the plethora of birth-control devices we have today.

But isn't abortion birth control?

Isn't birth control abortion?




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

No. (none / 0) (#82)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:16:09 AM PST
Abortion is not "birth control" in the same sense that chopping off the head is not an "effective headache treatment."

"Abortion" means "killing the baby in the womb".
"Birth control" means "preventing pregnancy from happening in the first place."


--
Peace and much love...




So an IUD is an abortive device? (none / 0) (#88)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:51:53 AM PST
After all, it doesn't prevent conception - it interferes with the implantation of the blastula in the wall of the uterus.

How about RU486, which has its effect earlier in the lifecycle of the embryo?

What makes conception the special event that defines a human life? Seems you're contradicting another of your posts where you claim that real life has no hard and fast rules.


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

RU486 is great (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:21:07 PM PST
For my girlfriend, it's a standard procedure when we wake up every Saturday and Sunday morning... just like a big glass of water and two aspirins is for me!! :)


 
Yes, they both are baby-killing devices (none / 0) (#92)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:27:49 PM PST
IUDs and Ru-486. I would suggest Natural Family Planning as the least likely to have you end up in Hell.


A. Rightmann

Natural Family Planning (none / 0) (#93)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:51:53 PM PST
is a euphemism for having sex for purely animalistic, non-procreational reasons. In other words, sinning.

Are you advocating sinning, Mr. Rightmann?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Nonsense, Natural Family Planning can properly be (none / 0) (#97)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:11:10 PM PST
used by a Catholic couple to space out their children for reasons of economic hardship, or health reasons. Sex is one of the magic ingredients in a healthy marriage,as regular readers of my column know.


A. Rightmann

Revisionist (none / 0) (#135)
by jvance on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 11:58:54 AM PST
You're no better than Jack Dominion or John Rock.

You reject out of hand the teachings of Paul, Jerome, and Augustine. Sex during menstruation or any other infertile period (such as pregnancy) is an out and out Sin, Mr. Rightmann.

Now admittedly, Pope Pius XI did allow an exception in his Casti Connubii for cases where the mother's life would be endangered, but that does support the rampant Hedonism you encourage.

Frankly, your views, with the emphasis you place on "health" and other Worldly concerns in marriage, sound suspiciously like Liberalism.


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

well, see... (none / 0) (#136)
by nathan on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 01:38:37 PM PST
That's the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholic Church has a dialectic and an expert consensus, rather than a mess of fragmentary and contradictory texts without a clear interpretation.

In other words, if Mr Rightmann is behaving in accordance with the dictates of the Church, he is behaving correctly, by definition.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So you're saying... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by jvance on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:33:23 PM PST
... that right and wrong is not absolute in the Catholic Church, but bends and sways according to opinion and internal politics? That perhaps one day, if the Revisionists like Gregory Baum have their way, abominations such as Homosexuality will be embraced by the Church?

I guess on that day we can expect people like Mr. Rightmann to run around sodomizing every man they fancy. I for one am appalled by this moral relativism you seem to admire.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

sigh (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by nathan on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:37:27 AM PST
Right and wrong are absolutes. Our knowledge of them is not, and cannot be absolute. Moreover, the Catholic Church does not pretend to be capable of preventing its adherents from committing sin. St Paul makes it quite clear that it is impossible to avoid sinning.

It's that last condition that is most important. The Catholic Church does provide the vehicle through which people come into communion with God, and receive His forgiveness. The Catholic Church does not claim to have a monopoly on virtue, but it does claim, warts and all, to be Christ's church on this troubled earth.

Nathan, neither a Catholic nor a sub-bridge dweller.
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Well, the Pope is always right (none / 0) (#146)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 07:31:04 AM PST
under the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. What makes the Catholic Church strong is that it has a 2000 year theological history, and has been able to reconcile the varying texts and sources into a single dogma, ultimately guided by the Pope.

If, for some unseeable reason, the Pope is led to believe that homosexual acts are not sinful, then they would not be.


A. Rightmann

 
Whatever. (none / 0) (#112)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:59:38 PM PST
Abortion == killing an unborn baby.

Simple as that. "UID" and "RU486" have nothing to do with it.


--
Peace and much love...




 
d00d, (none / 0) (#109)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:45:43 PM PST
I just don't like to do anything half-assed.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
yawn yawn yawn dogma dogma dogma (none / 0) (#84)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:24:06 AM PST
Who died and made you the global judge? I don't think I want to entrust you as the person who decides what life is worth living and what life isn't. That's nobody's decision but the person's whose life is in question.

Who ever said I was being a judge? I just said I don't consider fetuses to be human. You're reading something in that I didn't put in.

Other than that, you have nothing to say. This is the same old stuff over and over.

j.


Dogma? (none / 0) (#95)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:59:45 PM PST
I suggest you consult Dr. Mirror for your problems. It doesn't help for those that are too far gone into the void, though.

P.S. Obviously, you consider very young babies to be human, but not fetuses. So, again, how do you judge when somebody is qualified to be a human? Which criteria do you use for this burden?


--
Peace and much love...




Who cares? (none / 0) (#98)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:15:29 PM PST
Speaking of Mr. Mirror, here he is.

Arguing both sides of a position can be fun, but eventually one has to ask: do you have a point?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

The fine art of critical thinking. (none / 0) (#105)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:37:52 PM PST
I'm not arguing both sides; rather, my point was that if you start on the slippery slope of making judgements, you'll have to draw black-and-white lines in a fundamentally gray world.

Notice that I personally never claimed to be "drawing lines"; rather, I claimed that Mr. Wumingzi was drawing lines.


--
Peace and much love...




The Fine Art of Saying Nothing (none / 0) (#110)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:50:13 PM PST
You claim to be not drawing lines on the one hand, and on the other you classify abortion as "baby-killing." I assume by this you mean that abortion is murder, otherwise you are playing word-games with no meaning.

Please, without your conservativist obfuscation, tell us what distinguishes a baby that can be
murdered from a non-baby?





--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

I don't know. (none / 0) (#111)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:56:12 PM PST
Look, I don't know the answer to your question, and, more importantly, I do not care.

I just know that killing defenseless babies is wrong. Logic or illogic aside, this should be obvious to anybody whose mind is not completely clouded by liberalist chimeras.


--
Peace and much love...




Thank You (none / 0) (#113)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 02:07:36 PM PST
You say that as if it's a matter of controversy. I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I believe every ovulating woman should make herself available for fertilization, preferably within the bounds of Holy Matrimony, starting at menarche. Those murderers who do not should be punished accordingly.

I'm glad we could reach agreement on this matter.

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

God you are a moron... (none / 0) (#114)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 02:20:18 PM PST
This may come as news to you, but potential for ovulation != human being.

I should delete this shit for trolling.


--
Peace and much love...




So you do draw a line (none / 0) (#115)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 02:53:51 PM PST
First, please do not engage in ad hominem attacks. It implies weakness or uncertainty in your position.

Second, as if this matters, I did not mention potential for ovulation. I'm talking about actual ovulation.

Third, you have indicated a point in the reproductive process wherein the object in question is _not_ a human being. That implies that you do indeed draw a line. Where is it, and why? Please quote relevent Scripture to buttress your claim.

Finally, this is not trolling. I'm trying, very patiently, to extract a coherent opinion from you. I'm puzzled by your resistance.


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Who cares? (none / 0) (#117)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 02:21:42 AM PST
Any sane individual realizes that a female egg is not a human being; any sane individual realizes that a newborn baby is a human being that deserves any rights a full-grown human deserves.

I, for one, do not wish to debate about the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead; if this sort of idiocy truly interests you, go find some other liberalist to provide you company.


--
Peace and much love...




Homemade Pejoratives (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by jvance on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 09:10:29 AM PST
I find it interesting that you use the exact same argument as a murderous abortionist, and then accuse me of being ...well, what exactly?

I looked at the faq on your website, and apparently "liberalist" is a dreary obfuscatory synonym for "humanist." However, in actual usage, it appears to mean "someone who does not agree with me." I'm sure this debating tactic worked well for you in Elementary School

For the record, I do not believe that "Man is the measure of all things." I do not deny the existence of a spiritual realm, as those Godless Secular Humanists do. You appear to believe that the temporal realm exists in shades of grey, ruled by the Prince of Darkness. That's all very well, but morality is _not_ shades of grey, it is crystal clear, or black as a starless night. We are commanded to walk the narrow path of righteousness in our Worldly affairs. Do you walk that path?

That you allow yourself 9 months slop in your definition of murder tells me that your morality is tainted by material concerns. I will pray for you. I don't know if it will do any good.

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Whatever. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 10:04:56 AM PST
I'm putting you on ignore, troll.


--
Peace and much love...




Pot Kettle Black (none / 0) (#124)
by jvance on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 10:34:16 AM PST
That's funny. You ask people questions that you yourself refuse to answer.

I think we both know who the troll is here.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Keep deluding yourself... (none / 0) (#128)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 01:02:04 PM PST
...that all people who disagree with you aren't really serious, that they are merely "trolling".

If the delusion makes the mental dissonance seem less harsh, go for it.

No amount of self-training will make reality go away, though.


--
Peace and much love...




Okay (3.33 / 3) (#130)
by jvance on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 01:15:04 PM PST
This has devolved from a discussion to "nanny nanny boo boo."

I'm sorry. I expected better from you. I won't hold you to such high standards in the future

Regards,

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
P.S. (none / 0) (#74)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:54:22 AM PST
God doesn't "punish". The only person doing the "punishing" is yourself, due to your own pride and egoism.

When you grow up, you'll learn that the only person you truly have to fear is yourself.


--
Peace and much love...




Actually... (none / 0) (#87)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:49:10 AM PST
God doesn't "punish". The only person doing the "punishing" is yourself, due to your own pride and egoism.

I'm not a big believer in divine punishment, but I was actually asking for some clarification from Right Hand Man who wrote:
Who cares that it pisses off God, who will surely visit that sin back on a person by denying them entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven.
I'd interpret that statement as saying that he (Right Hand Man, not the Almighty) believes in divine punishment. Wouldn't you?

j.


Not necessarily. (none / 0) (#106)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:40:20 PM PST
Not if you consider God to mean "eveything in the universe". (In a strictly metaphorical meaning! I am not advocating any horrendous theosophical heresy here!)


--
Peace and much love...




 
Boy (none / 0) (#80)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:04:46 AM PST
Your repeated attempts to paint me as your idea of a typical suburban WASP are very entertaining. I am about as far removed from middle American suburbia as a person can be.

Next, you probably shouldn't assume that I don't know anything about the Jian cult. My spiritual journies led me to study several cults en route to finding something that fit well. I recall that I found the practitioners of Ahisma based philisophies to be among the most hypocritical people I had ever met.

I don't intend to leave Adequacy, so your efforts to convince me to go elsewhere will be met with failure.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Girl! (none / 0) (#86)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:39:28 AM PST
Your repeated attempts to paint me as your idea of a typical suburban WASP are very entertaining. I am about as far removed from middle American suburbia as a person can be.

I certainly believe that you are socially alientated from WASPish middle-class America. If I was a betting type, I'd put a little money on you being a voluntary exile from suburbia. It doesn't matter though. Your social background is irrelevant to the original question. Is there any life which is worse than no life at all? Explain why you believe that.

Next, you probably shouldn't assume that I don't know anything about the Jian cult.

I was being flippant, mostly because I had you figured for a grade-A troll. I now see that either you really do believe this, or you deserve accolades for persevence in keeping in character in the face of adversity. I will refrain from flippancy in the future. I gather from your commentary that you do not want to argue the sanctity of fetuses from that point of view though, so I'm waiting for a better explanation.

I also never said anything about your leaving Adequacy. We live in a pluralistic society. It is full of fuzzy-headed liberals like me and theocrats like you. The difference is, I don't get bothered by theocrats, as long as they stay at home and confine inflicting their views to their friends and family. When they try to ensconce this worldview into human law whose influence goes outside of like-minded believers, I get extremely upset, and start wishing I believed in real-life here-on-Earth Divine retribution.

j. j.


Well (none / 0) (#96)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:59:52 PM PST
I certainly believe that you are socially alientated from WASPish middle-class America. If I was a betting type, I'd put a little money on you being a voluntary exile from suburbia.

I'm not sure that I would characterize myself as being socially alienated. That implies, to me, that I would be incapable of interacting with suburbanites on a social level, which I am not. An excellent example is that I can hang out around suburban abortion clinics for days without attracting any attention whatsoever. Its a nice skill to have. Neither am I an exile, I've never lived in the suburbs in my life, unless you consider a college campus to be the suburbs, and I got the hell out of there as soon as they graduated me.

Is there any life which is worse than no life at all? Explain why you believe that.

No. I won't bother to explain because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, what would be the point?

as long as they stay at home and confine inflicting their views to their friends and family.

So, in the interest of not bothering you, I should stand iddly by and watch as a river of blood squeezed from the hearts of little children flows through the streets of America? Pardon me for being uncaring, but you'll just have to put up with me.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
It takes care of the problem (none / 0) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 07:01:32 AM PST
I DON'T BELIVE IN GOD!! now that most of you have had a heart attack let me talk further. When it comes down to it I don't like the idea of abortion. BUT I also don't want to see that ame kid that was saved sitting there on a street begging for money so that he can have a meal for the week.


Ok (none / 0) (#123)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 10:21:16 AM PST
I also don't want to see that ame kid that was saved sitting there on a street begging for money so that he can have a meal for the week.

So kill him. You see some kid, or adult for that matter, begging for money on the steet, just take out a gun and put a bullet through his head. Obviously, according to you at least, he will be much better off dead. You would be doing the little guy a favor really, I'm sure God will understand. If he was worth the air he was breathing he would take the initiative to do himself so you wouldn't have to be bothered with it.




-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Question (none / 0) (#27)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:14:55 AM PST
If abortion is murder, then is it not your MORAL AND GODLY OBLIGATION to stop the slaughter at all costs? If you are not taking direct action against the murderous abortionists, are you not tacitly approving of their butchery?

The Bible is very clear on the matter. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. From your .signature I see that you have the tools at your disposal. What are you waiting for, a thunderbolt and a direct commandment from God?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Well (none / 0) (#37)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 01:53:04 PM PST
I agree completely.

I have done my fair share in the battle but there are many forces that conspire to hold me back. Now I tend to work behind the scenes, help out where and when I can, because my face is too well known to be on the front lines. I play more of a support role now, making sure the people who put the handles on the signs know what they are doing, so to speak.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
I respectfully disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:05:09 AM PST
I am of the "murder is murder" position. It is not your position to pass judgement on another human's life, even if that human is a murderer.

The right to start and end life is in the hands of God alone.


 
natural born whores (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:51:31 AM PST
Just do something

We cannot. Apparently, redheaded girls enjoy some sort of Right to live amongst us and incite indiscretions by men in their innocent, impressionable youth.


 
Take your campaign further (none / 0) (#39)
by JoePain on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:35:41 PM PST
While I do not align myself with the "abortion is murder" position I can sympathies with others on this moral position and understand if they cannot compromise with defining abortion as murder. That being said if you continue the reasoning we should hold mothers responsible for they way they raise their children both before and after birth. If, for example, the child is exposed to chemicals prior to birth that makes him/her schizophrenic and dangerous to society, then we should prosecute the mother. Furthermore, we should also pass judgment against the mother that has an abundance of estrogen in her body (prenatal), which causes her potentially normal boy child to become gay. It is not enough that we stop at the murder aspect of prenatal care-- we must extend it further.


 
Alternatives (none / 0) (#11)
by asharp on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:02:19 AM PST
40,000... at least.

I think you're possibly barking up the wrong tree when you point the finger of blame at the movies and tv. OK, they may have some influence (personally, I subscribe to the theory that only the highly highly impressionable 0.1% of our population may be influenced in this manner), but I believe there are other causes that are more worth of your ire.

Firstly, why do we need cars that can travel upwards of 100mph when the speed limits in most areas are roughly half that? A Ferrari that does 180mph plus is ridiculously dangerous when in the wrong hands. There is no reasonable argument against this point (I'm certainly not the first to make it) and I believe that car manufacturers and governments hold a lot of responsibility in this area. Speed limiting chips have been available for years and are not nearly as prevalent as they should be.

Secondly, one of the primary causes of accidents (particularly in the UK where I live) is people driving too close the car ahead. Simple inititives such as painting distance markers on the road to help people judge their distance can help as does education (which the author rightly points out should be on-going). However, the introduction of radar/laser-based distance limiters will help reduce this problem significantly.

Eventually, I would like to see control of our personalised transport taken out of our (falible) hands. Within 10 years I believe, it will be possible to hand over control to computers and we will see dramatic reductions in road accidents and congestion (due to enhanced internet/gps-based route finding).


Speed Limiting Chips (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 01:13:22 PM PST
Are easily disabled.


Details? (none / 0) (#41)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 03:07:22 PM PST
Speed Limiting Chips are easily disabled.

How?

There are no problems with them where I live, presumably because they aren't in use. However, if their time will come, forewarned is forearmed. (And it could be a good side income. I had an unrelated case when a single wire-cutters cut and a drop of liquid solder earned me more than a less fortunate/knowledgeable person gets for a week of 9-5 job - just because I knew where to place them.)

Where are the chips mounted at? How exactly they work? What of their features is generic and what's manufacturer-specific? :)


Simple (none / 0) (#51)
by zikzak on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 02:21:11 AM PST
You buy a new chip, which voids your warranty. If you want more details, try searching the web for after-market racing mods for Japanese cars.


Thanks! (none / 0) (#57)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 05:12:06 AM PST
This was all I needed to know to find the rest :)

I wonder when "open-source" tweak-the-firmware-yourself cars will appear, at least in the "underground"...


Now (none / 0) (#71)
by doofus on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:44:31 AM PST
If you buy a fuel-injected motorcycle, such as a new Triumph or Ducati or some of the standard rice burner bikes, you can get software that will show you the ignition map and allow you to modify it and upload it into the bike.

My bike dealer/mechanic does that all the time for his race bikes.


 
about slowing down car chases in movies (none / 0) (#16)
by Juan Fernandez on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:45:06 AM PST
Maybe governments could take advantage of this technology in some way:


http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3369312,00.html


 
And your point? (none / 0) (#17)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:57:26 AM PST
Your article is factually accurate, but incomplete. You missed the additional 50,000 people who are killed each year by air pollution caused by personal automobiles. You also missed the millions who are maimed yearly in automobile accidents.

Your proposed solution is not Adequate. Or maybe it is, and that's the problem I have with it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to ride my bike to work.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Innacurate Statistics (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:31:42 AM PST
This is a good example of bad math. Mentioning that 3 million people will be killed in auto accidents in our lifetimes, means that 1 out of 100 people going to be killed in an auto accident, since there are 300 million people in the us today, is false. Since the population doesn't decrease, but rather increases each year, it is safe to assume that many more people are born that die in auto accidents in a year basis. So in any given year, there is still going to be 300 million plus people in the US. 40,000 of those are going to die, which is one in 7500 people. While that is still alot, it is a far cry from 1 in 100 people (like less than 1 hundreth of 1 percent).

Many more people die each year of obesity related health problems (which more people using bicycles would solve - per your suggestion) and other death causes home accidents, smoking related deaths, etc).

While I don't disagree that changes could and should be enacted to cut down the motor related deaths, when I read an article that beings with obvious and blatant flasehoods and misleading numbers, I (like many people) tend to disregard the rest of the entire message as garbage, and not worth my time.


Accurate Statistics (none / 0) (#50)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:41:17 PM PST
It is a rare pleasure to meet a statistician of your caliber. You've certainly done an incredible job with this post, however you've overlooked one thing. Since approximately two and a half million Americans die each year, of differing causes, your reasoning would lead me to conclude that over 99% of Americans are immortal.


huh? (none / 0) (#79)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:04:37 AM PST
"your reasoning would lead me to conclude that over 99% of Americans are immortal."

Thats right isnt it???
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I have a small prob w/ ur post (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:34:34 AM PST
y do u blame it on young males under 25 when the majority of accidents arent caused by the guy going a little fast, its the little ole grandmother going 35mph in the fast lane when she can barely see her hand in front of her face much less beyond the steering wheel blocking her view.
these are the cause of the overwhelming accidents for most people know how to slow down and speed up accordingly so they dont go head first into a car, but little old ladies could care less because they've lived there lives and don't mind if they die from a rearend or T-bone accident

-- this is only a comment from experience, i live in dallas, and from what i understand we have some of the worst drivers ... feel free to flame me if my view is a little environmentally biased


Sure. (none / 0) (#33)
by tkatchev on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:28:13 AM PST
So I should take advice concerning large, mechanical, potentially life-threatening machines from somebody who still hasn't mastered the "art" of punctuation?


--
Peace and much love...




 
Too slow? (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 02:35:48 AM PST
Someone driving too slowly is hardly likely to cause you to have an accident unless you're driving too fast to react in the first place. The best road-safety lesson I ever had was riding a motorcycle on English country lanes (and British motorways for that matter.) You ride "to where you can see", assume everyone else on the road is an idiot, and you and your bike might make it home in one piece.


 
Little old lady (none / 0) (#102)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:32:50 PM PST
I cam assure you that this 'little old lady' goes goes and goes and know the difference between slow and fast, buddy!!


 
25 y/o Drivers (none / 0) (#44)
by The dev0 on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:56:15 PM PST
I've thought alot about this myself, ie: raising the legal driving age. But I don't think that will fix anything, I mean, if they start to drive at 25 or 30 or 50 years old, the new licensee will still have no legitimate driving experience.

I know that to drive here in Australia when you are on your learner's permit (at age 17) you MUST have a driver who has been fully licensed for a certain period of time with you in the car at all times. Why not expand this theory so that all drivers must have a specifically trained "driver support officer" in the car with them at all times, which would not only be helpful for learning the necessary skills, it would also address the current lull in employment and increase the average person's social skills. Then, once you reach a certain level of expertise, you too can be chauffeured around and be paid to do so! Thats it! i've solved the problem! everybody vote for me!


Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

 
Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:58:04 PM PST
If the United States has that many traffic fatalities, imagine how many people must die due to automobile accidents in developing countries, like Russia. After all, in such third world nations, people are forced out of poverty to use old, cheap automobiles that lack many modern safety features, such as airbags and windshields.


umm... (none / 0) (#118)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 06:53:35 AM PST
windshields arn't very modern..they have been there in some shape or fashion since the first car


Old idea, but good idea (none / 0) (#126)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 11:50:53 AM PST
Windshield is damn good idea, as anyone who withstood a collision with a wasp while driving a motorcycle at 80 mph can confirm.


 
I dare to disagree (none / 0) (#121)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 09:12:46 AM PST
I've been to a number of countries in the world - both developed and developing. I can say (from my own experience), that US has one the worst drivers in the world. Anyone who is able to read and remember few key points can get a permit and then if you can drive a car from 1 minute and be able to park - off you go - with your driver's license, of course. The argument, that in developing countries (because of old cars), there are more fatalities than in the US is very amusing and apparently comes from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. And I also didn't know about the protective function of a windshield. I don't know the exact numbers, but I dare to say that numbers in developing vountries (per cap) are definitely smaller. Reason is simple: the lack of highways and the lack of cars capable of high speeds. When you're driving on a "bad" road at low speed - what can possibly happen to you compared to driving 90 mph on a 4 lane highway? I'm afraid that neither airbag nor windshield :-)) will not help you.


Hah! (none / 0) (#129)
by jvance on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 01:09:56 PM PST
You state that the US has one of the worst drivers in the world. What is this person's name and where does he live?

I take it you've never been to Saudi Arabia. I have. The driver's test there is, essentially, "are you old enough to see over the dashboard?"


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
this is to the jackass that wrote all the car shit (none / 0) (#157)
by Anonymous on Sun Aug 18th, 2002 at 11:40:24 PM PST
your faggot ass needs to shut the hell up u little bitch, its people like u that end up in jail, sleeping ina cell with two big gay dudes that make you theyre bitch because your a freak, all that shit u wrote about test drive, fran turismo and shit, your a fucking moron.

Anonymous


hell yes (none / 0) (#158)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 08:43:27 PM PST
XD


 
She's real fine my 409 (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:36:34 PM PST
Cars are freedom. Every young man who is not a milk-livered effete Marcel Proust clone knows that the classic AMERICAN manhood ritual goes like this: job...car...sex...independence. The great American road trip tradition, cars and fucking and freedom and fun.

Cars provide a focus for our hopes and dreams. People love their cars, take care of them, pay high parking fees just to be able to drive to work. People dream about one day owning a luxury car, or a sports car, or a big SUV.

Cars are a handy Darwinian culling force. Everybody knows that the only people who die in traffic accidents are total losers: drunks and fools who don't wear their seat belts, and nincompoops who drag-race on crowded streets. Let'em die, I say. I'd be willing to bet that the reason America is such a great country has to do with our high levels of automobile ownership: the traffic accidents kill off the stupid! Ha!

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that walkers are losers, bicycles are for dorks, and CARS RULE! Anyone who doesn't like it should go to North Korea and pull rickshaws all day.


Cars are to freedom (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 09:00:23 AM PST
as drugs are to good health and cosmetics are to beauty.


 
Cars Are For Macho Men (none / 0) (#70)
by doofus on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:41:20 AM PST
I used to love cars, back when I was a teen and early twenty-year-old. I had the fastest small block Ford in my high school and ate 350 ci Camaros for breakfast, lunch, dinner and post-spleef-sparking snack. I worked my way through college partially by working on cars.

But then I rode a motorcycle and I realized that guys who think they go fast in a car are just pussies. So, I bought one. 900 cc, 105 hp Triumph.

Cars are for pussies.


 
The average american... (none / 0) (#125)
by BCFH on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 11:16:18 AM PST
...walks 300 metres per day. I have friends whose parents drive down the street to pick up their son/daughter. I walk further on my way to school!!
Virtually everyone round here walks everywhere if it is less than 2 kilometres. This could explain why the place where i live had- wait for it- 2 traffic accidents where the injury was a sprained joint or worse. If only there were more places like this... I think it's in the upbringing
Perhaps if more people walked when young they would walk in later life


 
You forgot... (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 03:42:23 PM PST
"Everybody knows that the only people who die in traffic accidents are total losers: drunks and fools who don't wear their seat belts, and nincompoops who drag-race on crowded streets."

Let me add one more to that list that you forgot: those that these "nincompoops" have hit and killed, which may be you, or your loved ones. On that note...

Have a nice drive.


 
Alcohol (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:20:31 AM PST
And how many of these were caused by the influence of alcohol? Maybe that's a bigger culprit than the other things you're complaining about.


oh come on (none / 0) (#81)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:08:09 AM PST
Western Culture is founded on alchohol consumption. Its the drug that drives our society.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
re: Alcohol (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:25:34 PM PST
About 40% have alcohol involved, whether or not alcohol had anything to do with the accident. This means that 60% of the deaths are at the hands of stone cold sober drivers and victims. If you eliminate all alcohol related accidents, you still wind up with 24,000 dead, or roughly 8x the number that died in 9-11 and greater than all the AIDS deaths in the USA last year. It is still an unacceptably high number. The solution is not cracking down on alcohol, but cracking down on driving.


 
Excellent proposal (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:59:46 AM PST
That's an excellent proposal, but just writing about it on Adequacy won't do much, and just reading it will do nothing. I just sent off a letter to my representative. Have you?


 
Satire.... ? (none / 0) (#148)
by The Private Fedora on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 03:50:19 PM PST
I'm fervently hoping that this article was an extremly clever satire. With that in mind, I will assume that you were serious (as most other posters have seemed to reply)...


... you have probably been coerced by society into using this device...
No one has coerced me into using a car. I do so by my own choice.

This is precisely what these statistics tell us will happen.
As mentioned in a previos post, your math is wrong.

The rest is really too funny to warrent reply, but if there's enough demand, I will do so.

btw -- why are most of your links to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688158927/adequacy-20 ?


 
again!!! (none / 0) (#150)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 07:06:50 AM PST
you again show your lack of any knowledge with this article. Try and not be such a dumbass.
News for adults my ass.
It's just gossip that is unfounded.


 
Good God! (none / 0) (#151)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 11th, 2002 at 09:11:11 PM PST
I read all three of your articles and I must say I feel sorry for your sheltered children. Get a grasp. Oh well, this proabably wont help... Thanks for the laugh!


 
Astonishing thoughtlessness (none / 0) (#152)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 03:34:20 PM PST
Once again the idiot speaks his corrupted mind. To you, Mr. Gibbons, I have some advice for you: 1) Don't ever speak your mind again; your opinions are unwated and unheard. 2) Get a life. and 3) Don't ever speak your mind again; your opinions are unwated and unheard.



plz, stfu kthx, m4yb3 j00r s0n w1ll c0m3 and h4x0r j00r l4m3 ass.


 
Astonishing thoughtlessness (none / 0) (#153)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 03:37:08 PM PST
Once again the idiot speaks his corrupted mind. To you, Mr. Gibbons, I have some advice for you: 1) Don't ever speak your mind again; your opinions are unwated and unheard. 2) Get a life. and 3) Don't ever speak your mind again; your opinions are unwated and unheard.



plz, stfu kthx, m4yb3 j00r s0n w1ll c0m3 and h4x0r j00r l4m3 ass.

-SoupNazi (and don't even right something about this in that Naziism shit.... go watch Seinfeld instead)


 
You've got to be kidding... (none / 0) (#154)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 02:00:27 AM PST
I just laughed through all three of this doush-bags "articles," and jeez...never have I heard of one so ignorant as you?
let's see...there's that "editing every movie" thing...and the bs video games where one gets points for safe driving. Man, I REALLY REALLY hope you were kidding.
This particular article isn't quite as bad as the one one college...dude you've got to be the most close-minded individual I've ever seen.
And that crappy, terrible, piece-o-s**t thing on hacking? comet curser as a hacking tool! you're an idiot!



Man, I'd like to sit you down for 20 minutes and watch someone play a game of GTA3...then your head would explode and we would all have a good laugh.

-TomMonster



 
Absurdity (none / 0) (#155)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 11:21:30 PM PST
I find this article in general to be offensive and quite absurd.

"Games like "Need for Speed", "Test Drive" and "Gran Turismo" all teach children that best driving practice involves running red lights, ramming cars and driving on the wrong side of the road. Most of these games don't even include turn signals!"

Just having reached the legal driving age, and now having my very own license, I find that games such as these have had no negative impact on my driving. First I'd like to correct you and state that Gran Turismo features driving ONLY on CLOSED RACE COURSES from around the world, making an inclusion of that game a moot point. Also, Need for Speed and Test Drive are so unrealistic as to have no effect on actual driving. In fact, I'd credit a game such as Gran Turismo as being of help with my own driving in the real world. I find it much easier to shift, brake and accelerate my vehicle in a safer fashion having played the game and having an advanced knowledge of automotive mechanics as such. Saying that games like Need for Speed and Gran Turismo impact a teenagers driving is just a pretentious and absurd as saying that Doom was the cause of the Columbine shooting spree. It's simply a cop-out for parents unwilling to shoulder blame for their own shortcomings as role models and teachers for their children.




 
How exactly does Mr. Gibbons define freedom? (none / 0) (#156)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 11:52:45 AM PST
Did anyone else pick up on the irony about freedom. Mr. Gibbons seems to believe that "license suspensions are an insult to freedom" yet he feels that a requiring a black box device in every car and the ability "to institute spot checks of these black box systems, secretly via the internet, to ensure that drivers remain on their best behavior at all times" isn't an insult to freedom?

Wow! I wish I was that na´ve, life would just be so easy. It must be wonderful to create your own reality like that, actually I think Mr. Gibbons would be more comfortable if our government simply dictated reality for him. That would enable Mr. Gibbons to shelter his six wonderfully brainwashed children form having to worry about things like the evilness of higher education, the tempting BSD "hacking system" and the other anti-Christian perils of our modern society.

If being an American means forfeiting my freedoms and right to self-determination, then I don't want to be an American!

Remember that God is watching you.



 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.