Bet he went into the store then got a lotto ticket.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

*ban
Tommy Lotto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_tuqgKiFhI

Bicycle, the last sentences showed me that you have a level head and stopped me from my knee-jerk reaction... The case here was from the start a very possible deadly force.

Double murder suspect...the guy had nothing to lose, already by judgment of safety, because he murdered two people and lets be honest, if he killed the cop he now had another gun. It is not the officer I worry about (though it would be sad if he lost his life) but the innocent guy driving by who gets shot for his car.

Second, the guy here obviously had a method to murder people. Whether he killed those two with a knife or gun would be irrelevant. I can kill you with a knife within 21 feet before you have time to draw your weapon, and that is a fact.

Third, 8% of officers die by their own weapon. That is not a small number. I would play the lotto with those odds...just saying. Once in hand to hand you better be able to win regardless of their skill...

You shoot to kill because of what might happen, not what has happened. Drawing the gun was 100% right. That four seconds where you are scrambling is three shots from the bad guy--at least I can get off three.

I haven't confused anything with anything. The American ideal is ridiculous. Our belief, for the most part, is that everyone can strike it rich. Republicans preach it, so do democrats, our president, etc. Trillions of lotto tickets have been sold. Even poor people spend on some rich man's idea of necessity.

And to your point that the system is rigged. Absolutely. Absolutely absolutely absolutely. That does not diminish my point though...

You know why I am going to school? Why I am have a 3.98 GPA at a prestigious University? Because I want to work in a job that pays less. Yes, I mean that. I want a job that is a pay cut. I can't stand the brutal nature of my job. I want to be an educator. Period.

The lotto logo is a map of New Zealand.........so
*Downunder

I have 28 power points...these things are like gold now with your new limitations. Should I guard them like the Jew, or shall I squander them like diner waitress that wins the lotto?

Thanks, Grimm-bear
In reply to this comment by Grimm:
*backup

Thanks Grimmster! May your days be full of happiness and your belly of lagerIn reply to this comment by Grimm:
*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lotto, lottery, misprint, coke, fur coat' to 'lotto, lottery, misprint, coke, fur coat, reno 911' - edited by Grimm

There are two halves to the assertion. Firstly that people who are currently not wealthy would not in fact become wealthy with an injection of cash... now although as far as I know nobody has done the experiment that @quantumushroom suggests, winning the lotto seems to me to be a reasonable proxy for it and there have been studies of lotto winners, nicely referenced here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=141224

The relevant part is that it really doesn't change people to have a bit more money, one study found that after 5 years on average they had spent 44% of the money, and another found that after 5 years a third had gone bankrupt.

For the second half of the assertion, that the people who are currently wealthy would (in the absence of regulations to prevent it) get wealthy again... well, I can't back up that half of the assertion. I have heard anecdotes of people who have lost everything and then bounced back, but am not aware of any studies.

I think 3 years is too soon. I think it would take 10 years.

>> ^Trancecoach:

>> ^quantumushroom:
<ad hominem deleted>. Divide up all the wealth in America and in 3 years or less, it would look close to the way it does today.

prove it. or at least provide evidence to back it up.