101. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136401 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 5:08 am

Ashton, it's not a fallacy to point out death by death stats in terms of numbers as the "number" of a related death to guns always seems to be the canard by which we don't allow freedoms in this area.

Primary Purpose is nothing more than the "intent of use by the individual" which I stated earlier, but it means nothing and doesn't advance the discussion.

Any individual primary purpose for ANYTHING can be found to be of concern, but that's not how we live.

The primary purpose of personal gun ownership is protection - sometimes bad things happen.

The primary purpose of alcohol is enjoyment - sometimes bad things happen.

The primary purpose of a car is transportation - sometimes bad things happen.

So what?

102. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136399 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 5:03 am

BTW - this comment "Vigilante is a word utilized by society to incite fear of self-will-run-riot." addressed your concern about citizens as crime fighters.

Even if it were the case that some, we have no idea how many, worked as crime fighters - is this to understand that you would be opposed to lower crime rates?

You have not defined the crime fighter as anything other than an extension of the police, who for the most part, fight crime to protect others.

103. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136396 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 4:57 am

"Maybe it is just me, but I would feel a bit uncomfortable in a society where a significant number of people thought they were Charles Bronson in Death Wish."

Well, it might be understood then that you are a person who prefers others to take care of you rather than you taking care of yourself.

A police officer usually gets about 6 weeks of training and it's not all spent on handling a firearm.

If yearly training were a requirement to carry a gun, much like your annual test taking/sometime driving test for a driving license, why not.

With that reasoning then safe-sex would be lost on you since it appears that you'd rather leave it to someone else to take personal responsibility.

104. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136392 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 4:34 am

If correlation is causation, then this site tells us that the number of people falling to their death is higher than assault with a firearm.

In which case, then we need to stop building stairs, level all buildings with the potential of anyone getting to a roof along with any other potential access for people who might fall, etc.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

The reality is that people will make choices to behave as they wish because they live in a free society(in the U.S.) this is why we have laws as consequences for those who live their life at a cost to others.

Personally protecting yourself, in sex or the streets, is more reliable than expecting someone else to do it or be responsible for it.

105. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136390 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 4:24 am

"How many people act as crime fighters? Isn't that supposed to be the role of the police, or has the USA progressed to a vigilante society?"

A citizen is always his/her best protection of him/her self; this applies across the board.

Vigilante is a word utilized by society to incite fear of self-will-run-riot.

106. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136387 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 4:09 am

This site refutes some of the earlier claims on this thread, worth researching on their resources

http://www.azccw.com/More Facts & Statistics.htm

This one has good resources to verify:

http://www.guncite.com/

107. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136383 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 4:02 am

Another site, although they don't cite their resource: Resource for Accidents

108. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136381 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 3:57 am

If given "deaths" as the manipulative denominator by which to control guns, then aren't deaths by vehicles more or just as dangerous?

http://www.disastercenter.com/traffic/

These are interesting stats worth just comparing when folks want to give a one-sided view of handgun possesion.

A weapon isn't a weapon of death without the intent of use by the individual.

109. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136379 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 3:38 am

Ashton, your article post is interesting at first glance since the "number of deaths" doesn't give a breakdown of context - were these drug related, gang related, spouse to spouse, et.al.

It makes it sound like self-will-run-riot and there's no controls, when given other studies that I'm sure are out there, reveal that most gun shootings are not random, that the percentage of most shootings are by someone known to you. How about those done while intoxicated?

It's just liberal scare tactics, not worth the "paper to wipe your ass with" research.

Correlation is not causation.

110. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135487 by scooternyc on February 29, 2008 at 3:00 am

The most revealing question to the Christian who believes we were founded as a Christian Nation is:

"What is your self-interest in making the statement that America was founded as a Christian Nation?"

Additionally, it is inherently ANTI-AMERICAN to espouse positions of non-freedom.

Freedom is just that - without constraint of choice.

Laws are consequences to free choices.

Not all laws are necessary or appropriate.

Personal Outcomes infringing on the freedoms of others - are your life's choices at a cost to others, which is observably, not free and not without constraint.

Christians stating that America was founded as a christian nation seek only one thing: their version of sharia law.

111. Moral thinking

Comment #132188 by scooternyc on February 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm

"that's a long way from answering any interesting normative or meta-ethical questions.

This is one of the more interesting observations that I really agree.

So far nothing draws a conclusion other than observation itself. All value is subjective. All interests are self-interests.

Now what?

112. Moral thinking

Comment #131604 by scooternyc on February 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

I find this article interesting in just two questions:

What is the definition of moral?

Who got to decide what moral is?

113. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129917 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm

"I was referring to the entire exchange of pleasantries"

No matter, it still was entertaining, regardless.

114. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129913 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:35 pm

MPhil - LOL! Finally!!!! Someone with a sense of humor!

115. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129909 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:33 pm

"Diacanu: He's not worth it"

Funny, that's what social Darwinism thought about you but then those damn liberals came in and forced your LCD on us and this is the result - Dumb(Diacanu) and Dumber(Steve).

116. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129908 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:31 pm

"Mouse in your pocket?"

Are you kidding me?

Is this all you can come up with..I mean after all...err, I forgot your limited capacity. My bad. Sorry to embarrass you.

117. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129905 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm

"My sole purpose here is to expose fundamentalism and compartmentalization in all its inconsistency and nastiness, especially when it attempts to present itself as rational."

GREAT!

Start with yourself.

118. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129904 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm

"I'll give better when I receive better."

You're incapable because of your limited intellect, we understand.

119. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129901 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm

"You call everyone who deviates from your position in he slightest a moron."

Who's the moron that can't spell? Again, we'll put you down as one of LCD types who needed to attend remedial classes in order to graduate.

Sit and spin? What are you 5? You don't even have the intellect to insult well. How sad for you.

120. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129894 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Diacanu,

I can't say the same about you because you never have anything to say.

121. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129892 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Steve, unfortunately you are not qualified to discuss the foundations for living without cost to others because you're too emotional, but all the best to you.

122. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129891 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 6:08 pm

"Oh, here we go, scooter's dragging it into partisan bullshit land."

LOL! Yeah, cause Jacoby didn't mention anything about politics.

Did you even hear or watch the interview or are you just more of the same stupid, not ignorant, that blog on these threads.

Probably the former, not the latter. We'll mark you down as part of the lowest common denominator that society had to lower the standards for in order to make certain that you even had a chance in society.

123. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129873 by scooternyc on February 19, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Isn't it just rich that Jacoby states that politicians and thus society is pandering to the lowest common denominator, when in fact, it happens to be the touchy-feely liberals who created it.

Among the aspects she gets right, one certainly is that many don't want to hear that which is in opposition to their own "beliefs". In the face of evidence, facts or compelling research, a person who has made up his or her mind will refuse to look at a subject and examine it further and change their mind.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Liberals said it, I believe it, that settles.

Hmmm, what's different about those statements? oh, that's right - nothing.

The same contempt prior to personal investigation.

The sound-bite citizen

The bumper-sticker mentality

Shermer's recent book states this and it couldn't be more true with a great many on this blog and the countless ones around the globe.

124. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124938 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

how this would tie together and produce a better world. Any thoughts you want to share about that yet?

Less tax; more freedom; more choices; greater personal responsibility; greater personal accountability; no longer the free pass and consequence free lifestyle that so many are reinforced now to have by government programs; less dictatorships in the world; greater free markets

People who say that others are holding them down or holding them back, are liars - those people hold themselves down.

Those that say we have a "right" to healthcare, for instance, are full of crap - you have no right to something of such nature - our Constitution does not afford such rights. You have choices; options.

"It's expensive"

So what - get better educated; make more money; have a better life - no one is stopping anyone from achieving greatness in our society except the individual who perceives his/her life as forfeit to choices other than their own - and this is merely perception, not reality.

125. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124932 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Allan W - I'm enjoying this :)

You'd be the first! LOL! : )

"To summarize; a person has to take responsibility for all of the consequences of their chosen actions." In essence, yes. There may be consequences you didn't intend, but your choice would still hold you accountable. The mature adult would then just be response-able to the unintended consequence and act in self-interest.

BTW - don't let anyone on the site say otherwise: all interests are self-interests.

Areas of change? All areas where choices are leading to a cost to others, especially without consent and where others are not being held accountable or not being held responsible.

It's a child's mind that wants others to "take care of" or "to save" - socialism, religious, you name it. These are people who refuse to grow up and take the reigns of their own life.

126. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124923 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I must tell you that I learn far more from him on most issues than I have learnt from you on reading your posts here.

Well, one victim endorsing another is hardly a stretch in terms of your giving credential to Steve's posts.

127. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124916 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Diacanu - you're so entertaining, thanks for the laughs. Always appreciated when things are getting too serious.

128. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124907 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm

And that's why I'm now wondering whether use of the "troll" button would be fair.

Well, I wouldn't hit the troll button on Steve, I think everyone should still be free to say whatever they like.

Question those who would seek to silence others. Hitch once said, that you make a rod for yourself, in potencia, because at some point others will seek to silence you.

I say, let 'em say whatever he wants.

129. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124905 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I think you should re-consider your erroneous and unfair position on this - you are coming over extremely poorly in this thread, and are weakening the import of anything worthwhile you have to say.

As the greatly admired Hitchens would say, "I don't really give a fuck what you think or how you think I'm 'coming over'. Do you have a point to make, then make it.

130. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124903 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Steve Zara is one of the reasons why this site is such a joy to me.

Good for you.

131. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124902 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm

'Natural consequences'; you're going to have to spell it out for me, please. I don't know what you mean here.

If a girl chooses to have sex at an age of not being able to respond appropriately by being able to care for, provide for the child, the natural consequence is that she will now give up part of her life to try and make this choice she alone made, work for her. One choice led to this outcome.

She now has additional choices - abort, give up for adoption, keep the child. Now she must make one of these choices. Now the religious want in on the action...and you see the road we're headed.

Can you suggest a few, please? I'll certainly add some when I think of them :)

Suppose you go out and get drunk last night; we have breakfast and you tell me you had unprotected sex with someone but now you’re in fear of contracting a disease. You’re in fear and want sympathy (let’s say) and I refuse, I hold you accountable for your choices â€" I say to you, "why are you risking your life, your life, dude, for a quickie â€" what’s the matter with you?"

"Well, I was drunk"

"So what, you can’t handle your alcohol, either?"

"Well, I lost my job today because I kept showing up late and I felt bad so I went and had a few drinks to just relax and then that lead to too many and ...besides, if my mom and dad hadn't been so mean to me growing up..."

So now you’re mom and dad, from 30 years ago, are being held responsible because you can’t control how much alcohol goes down your throat which leads to your irresponsible choice of having unprotected sex and potentially this girl getting pregnant or you getting AIDS.

And on and on and on….

What happens if you continue this behavior and everyone around you stops hanging out with you because of your irresponsible choices â€" these are natural consequences for choices made.

If having protected sex is responsible, then having unprotected sex is irresponsible â€" thus you are held accountable.

You’re free to make the choice â€" but others will hold you accountable for YOUR choices.

These are simplistic, but not uncommon, especially here in New York. Yikes!

132. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124882 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:44 am

"It is simply not widely accepted enough to be considered fact"

Nothing be widely accepted to be fact, it need only be consistent to the fact(s).

Science is nothing if not a basis of consistent data which leads to an outcome that shows again and again the hypothesis led to theory. It's falsification is inherent.

When a person behaves a particular way, consistently, again and again, then observation, as in science, leads to conclusions of facts that the person has the propensity to do it again and again.

To be falsified, the individual in question, would have to be able to example the understanding of the precepts I've set forth previously, to the extent, that the next step of understanding determinism or the ability to discuss it, were available to him.

133. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124875 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

"who has a PhD" - Piled High and Deeper (btw - this isn't a credential for anything)

"generally regarded as highly intelligent" Hitler was admired, so what.


Yes, I do know it. I've placed very simple ideas before this "so called intellect" who is unable to understand them much like 2 plus 2, so my observation of fact is that this individual isn't smart enough to speak about the more sophisticated subject of determinism.

134. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124867 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:31 am

Scooter I have no intention of going down that path

Whew! : )

However, Batboy, where are all the numbers of statistics that say we have people in these extreme examples in the United States? Or that we even would have these extremes?

We were given all kinds of rhetoric when the U.S. wanted to clean up the welfare system, but 10 years into it things have changed for the better, not the best, but better. In fact, Clinton was touting his role in the whole thing when he was so dead against it. Whatever.

The fact is that when the numbers came out a year or two ago, "10 years later" things were better.

I just don't give in to emotional ideas rooted in nothing but fear ideals.

135. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124860 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:23 am

"Sorry, but you are not smart enough for me to engage in a conversation about determinism. I save those transactions for those with greater capacity."

This isn't an attack, this is a statement of fact. There's a huge difference.

136. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124855 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:19 am

We may now also have its cousin, the "Scooterism".

It's so interesting, and entertaining, that when anyone on these blogs isn't able to discuss something because it doesn't endorse their "belief" system, that personal attacks become the dujour of the thread.

I don't mind it but it doesn't lend anything to the dialogue except perhaps one's lack of capacity to have a rational discussion is more evidenced.

137. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124853 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:16 am

Batboy- why go down that path of extreme about kids.

Look, it's a fact, is it not from observation, that not all children do well in school?

Then why is it no good to see if they can adopt a trade?

If not then are these not the people who can manage the simple tasks in our society that we allocate to those with little education, now?

Just when I thought you were going down the path of reason. *sigh*

138. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124843 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 11:04 am

You mean like your statements that that there is no free will, and that "determinism" starts at birth?

Sorry, but you are not smart enough for me to engage in a conversation about determinism. I save those transactions for those with greater capacity.

139. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124837 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:58 am

Steve, I'm starting to think you just like trolling when I'm blogging.

"How does this relate to the answers we await for questions we have asked you?"

Dude, you can't answer my simple question placed before you at the beginning of today's thread when you made this silly comment:but anything soppy and kindly that might actually help anyone else

"Tell me, what does it give you when you "help" anyone else?"

If your answer was, "nothing", then you're a liar. Plain and simple.

But this is your game time and again, emotion-statement-emotion-accusation-distraction-distraction. You won't focus on one thing and see it through.

Typically that's what people like you do when
they know intuitively that they're wrong - but I sidestepped the whole "mind reading" garbage as you call it, and just asked simple questions for which you just dodged, distracted, off-in-another-direction unable to focus blog.

140. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124834 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:49 am

Scooternyc - I just can't be bothered to spend time searching and pulling out statistics to show you. Especially for something that seems so basic.

If it's so basic then the stats should be at your finger tips.

Look, this is a problem that people in general continue to propagate - opinions without facts - that's called prejudice and bias.

I have no problem with a bias or prejudice, but making the claim as though it's a fact in order to advance an illogical conclusion, doesn't hold up.

You would never tolerate a religious person coming on this site and making claims that seem quite reasonable but without facts or evidence to back up their simple statements.

To them, they believe it. It's their belief system for which no facts or evidence will shake 'em or are needed. Frustrating, huh?

The same is true of social issues for which people make sweeping statements, as their beliefs, with no facts or evidence to back it up.

Then enough people keep saying it that people start believing it and in the face of evidence, much like the religious, there's no shifting the paradigm.

141. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124832 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:44 am

I view it as an infrastructure development investment in human resources. Great! If you want to choose to have a child and pay for his/her education, I have no issue with that precept. But if you want me to pay for your choice, how is that you being responsible or being held accountable?

Some kids don't do well in school, but may have a trade in them more useful.

Why not have corporation sponsored schools where a national standard is applied; they can offer education to children; they show their contribution to society and the kids can pay it back(those that can't afford the entire tuition)by working it off for 2 years?

We love corporations sponsoring grants and scholarships, this would be no different, but less taxing on individuals.

Why can't each state make these decisions for themselves? If we decide on a national standard, then only the state has itself to monitor, no large government needs to participate.

It's too easy to just say, "the problem is so overwhelming, why bother". Well, I guess lots of change like racism, discrmination, et.al. could all have been viewed as such. Why bother to invent the car when this horse/buggy gets me around just fine.

But if people started banding together, rolling up their sleeves and getting it done - it would.

Look how amazing we can be after 9/11; look how amazing we can be after the latest tornado in Kansas - the strength is out there, you have to shift your paradigm first, hold others to it, then it spreads like a wildfire meme.

But, hey, no choice, is still a choice.

142. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124826 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

what happens to those who fail to take ownership of their choices?

Natural consequences.

how do we deal with people who do not realize in the same way that you do that they need to be responsible for their choices?

You start demanding accountability from every person you know, but first with yourself. Stop giving yourself and consequently others, excuse free â€" consequence free lifestyles. You made a choice (whatever it is), you are held responsible for the choice.

Start to educate children that they have choices before them from which to make selections; that whichever choice they make they will need to be able to respond to the outcome (response-able); no excuses for poor choices taken of which they were incapable of responding appropriately. You can use the mistake as a means to educate observations of action/reaction, but this is only a critical thinking skill for them to master for themselves. You still must face the consequences of your choices - be it natural or law.

How do we educate these people to realize that they should not impose a "cost to others & free of limitations"

By showing how others choices cost them; by educating about the precepts of the United States (presumably someone living here) of Freedom and Choice and how this encourages one to live his/her life without constraint.

Utopian? Not really. It starts with you; then it continues by holding others accountable at no cost to you; then groups holding cities accountable; and on it goes.

I've placed the challenge to many previously to open up, be honest, and use a real life situation of their own to place under the microscope of this idea, but none will take up the challenge.

I suspect because it will come down to the facts of personal choices created personal outcomes; excuses are wanted; free passes are wanted; consequence free living is screamed for. But given these ideas, no excuse, no free pass, nothing but you being held responsible for your own choices which created your own life.

The self-interest to protect the mistake-ridden self that has been a burden to society is so strong it drives the denial, the side step, the lashing out, the _____ you fill in the over-emotional reaction.

People say, "That’s not true"

I say, "Present your case under the microscope and prove me wrong"

None do.

143. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124814 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:12 am

"But all I have to do is show you one doctor who came from a poor family who could not have afforded to pay for education. Then I am 1 up on you."

This proves only "1" doctor but not the plethora of doctors in your sweepingly claims.

132. Comment #124718 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 5:55 am

Everyone who wants education must pay for it. So we would have to kiss goodbye to the millions of state educated doctors, scientists, academics, policemen, pilots, politicians, lawyers, journalists and so on who benefit us all to varying degrees.

So, by this rationale, we should spend billions of dollars in the hopes of producing one doctor?

Someone asked about wasting resources, does this qualify? : )

144. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124807 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 10:01 am

"I know it's asking a lot but I think it would help you to get more of a sympathetic hearing here and may gain you a number of converts rather than antagonists so please consider it."

I don't care about the sympathetic hearing.

Not sure that I stated people are wasting their economic resources or potential, is that a recent statement made on this thread by me?

My consistent stance has been taking ownership of reality (the choices before you); being accountable for your choice that you made from those options; being response-able to those choices(able to respond); at no cost to others & free of limitations.

145. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124803 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 9:51 am

Steve - again, your post distracts. Either you are not reading the thread correctly or you are intentionally dodging the questions:

What do you get out of "helping" others?

Were you religious before you became agnostic/atheist?

146. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124802 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 9:48 am

that the fact that countries with the highest percentages of populations with access to education are also the ones with ther higher standard of living supports my view and does not support yours.

Great! Where are your actual stats to prove such a claim?

Correlation is not causation. Your original claim is that free education is what creates more doctors. You have offered nothing to prove this claim.

The cause of more doctors is not correlated to free education unless you have such statistics to provide that speak to this claim.

147. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124798 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 9:43 am

Batboy - I just got back, too.

If we were to implement all programs of weaning off of IV services instantly, you're correct, it's a problem.

However, if this generation of parents started being subsidized for their children's schooling, then the next generation has less subsidy, then the next generation knows that they are responsible you slowly move the problem out of reliance and dependence. This is approximately a 30 year correction, which is very generous.

The welfare system changes that happened in the 1990's here in the U.S. only took about 5 years to start to show results.

148. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124753 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:45 am

Correlation?

So, show the correlation? Where are the facts to this statement?

You're making an assumption that one causes the other.

You'd not only have to prove that the two exist in the country, but which one caused the other or if a causal relationship exists at all.

149. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124747 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:35 am

I say there exists many doctors, who would not be so unless they were freely educated.

Fine, where are your statistics to prove such a claim?

You ask nothing less of the religious to provide evidence of their claims of god, why are you beyond the same standard?

150. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124746 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:32 am

Batboy - here's the crux of the problem which goes back to my original statement - funding the consequence free lifestyle.

People just keep having children knowing that someone else is going to foot the bill.

If you claim those in jail are not educated, then how do we account for those who are educated and are in jail?

Is education their only problem?

It's like saying if we feed everyone and give away tons of food then poverty ends, we know it's not true. Read Hitchens on this issue; read Thomas Sowell on this issue, there are many to can site statistics to the claims.