Wow.. that was some convincing argument. I think that maybe you've convinced me and everyone else with your unbelievable use of strong arguments based on sound fact gathering and irrefutable evidence.
Oh wait.. we were talking about coincidences, and I switched to sarcasm. Sorry....
Police can arrest anyone, anytime. Whether a DA will prosecute or a judge and jury will convict on 'strong suspicion' is highly doubtful.
I think I can safely ignore future posts as just being more of the same. Yawn... I think i will search for intellectual discussions elsewhere.
A coincidence doesn't imply that one shouldn't be careful. If I find that money is missing from my car whenever I give Freddie a ride, it doesn't mean Freddie is stealing. Police use coincidences all the time. Fortunately, our legal system requires physical proof rather than coincidence most of the time. Three coincidences probably would not be enough to convict anyone, that damn reasonable doubt thing and all.
I might be more careful leaving money in the car when Freddie is around. But I sure wouldn't go around telling all my friends Freddie is a thief either.
I don't find it a reasonable conclusion. An interesting theory, but without facts it is baseless. That's like saying 'I don't know where those lights in the sky came from, therefore aliens spaceships must be the cause'. Interesting theory, but I'll need more facts.
Your last comment is irrelevant, there could be hundreds of reasons George W Bush is president without any merit that have nothing to do with his father. Sidestepping a discussion this way is a common tactic that conspiracy nuts use when they run out of evidence. That doesn't mean someone who uses it is a conspiracy nut.
By it's very definition, it can be called a coincidence until there is more than simple causal connections . I don't have to call it that at all, it will be that until there is physical evidence. And then linking two people together simply by an accident of birth takes it just beyond conspiracy theory in my opinion.
Or a good story to scare young children and influence naive adults with.
Amazing how one can take pieces of disparate information, couple it with nonsensical comments and very flimsy commonality and turn it into a conspiracy theory.
Remember, just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get them...
5. Circumstances in which craigslist may release information
Craigslist may disclose information about its users if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to respond to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process.
Craigslist may also disclose information about its users to law enforcement officers or others, in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to: enforce our Terms of Use; respond to claims that any posting or other content violates the rights of third-parties; or protect the rights, property, or personal safety of craigslist, its users or the general public.
So... they can give out information to anyone they want at anytime they feel like it.
There is only one supplier, a significant demand, and they charge whatever the market is willing to pay.
Don't like it, don't buy them. If enough people stop buying them, the prices may drop or the company may start producing less and cutting back costs and charge the same. Or charge more to make up for the revenue loss if the ones left will pay the higher prices.
And so it goes....
I will readily accept I don't know the answer to something. I have stated nothing to suggest otherwise. My 'knowing' that their is no god or metaphysical entity is in response to many years of study and reading and thinking. I came to my own realization that nothing metaphysical needs to exist to explain how the universe is or the mechanisms that drove it to this point. That any explanation of god eventually breaks down to an 'I said so' argument without any basis beyond belief, or any need to be.
I have yet to see a reason why something needs to be 'beyond the physical'. Other than 'heck.. I can't think of any other way that could happen'. I just say 'I dunno' when presented with things I can't explain.
In the absence of any proof of the need for something metaphysical, there isn't any reason for me to look into them any further. Science is not in the business of proving things don't exist, only that things do exist and why.
If someone were to provide some proof that metaphysical things exist and why, I'll listen. Until then, such things are nothing more than fairy tales to me, intended to salve minds that can't handle the alternative. Minds that can't cope with our lives being only what we make of them, being an insignificant dust speck in this universe, and not having an omnipotent, omniscient (which is a paradox anyway) being that loves each and every one of us. I'll just have to find someone else to.
Children can be told 'lying is bad, don't do it' and they will for the most part believe it. If they keep doing it, punishments such as being sent to their room or (gasp) spanking can be used. As they get older, they can be told the intricacies of why lying is bad.
When presented with the calculation for gravitational acceleration, you accept it works and then are shown an experiment that proves it. You don't have to know how gravity works (especially since it's still up in the air (yuck yuck...)), but no one comes along next year and says 'That formula we showed you last year? Just made it up.' Instead, 'that formula is the basis for this one. Now, we have to add in air friction and the rotation of the earth, and your mass attracting the earth to get this new one.' Every year builds upon the prior one, increasing the complexity.
One is expected to maintain the lie about god for their entire life because their parents did. Very few parents ever turn to their child and says 'Hey.. remember all that god stuff I told you. It's not true, but it was for your own good'. Instead, they are repulsed if somehow the child becomes a critical thinker and chooses a different religion, or god forbid, removes the lie completely.
Parents will eventually admit, but usually only when the child presents them with the facts, that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny were all stories just made up for a little fun. Too bad they won't admit that about god too.
English is a very literal language, it should be used that way. If it's open to personal interpretation, then it isn't really communicating. It's philosophy. Which is little more than intellectual word games.
Metaphysical, by it's very nature, implies something 'beyond the physical'. How can the universe have anything 'beyond the physical'? What possible force or matter is used for these metaphysical beings to exist. Now, if someone could come up with a theory how a being made of pure energy could exist, become cognitive, and manipulate matter, that I could at least discuss intelligently. Oh, wait.. that would make them physical, now wouldn't it.
Creating metaphysical reasons for physical objects is a great way to trick someone into believing they have an answer without really having one. 'Look, lights in the sky.. it must be a UFO since we can't figure out what else it is' isn't an argument, it's refusing to accept that one doesn't know the answer about something and is either too insecure to be ignorant about it, or too lazy to search for the truth. Or has a huge ego and likes to strut around say 'I know, I know!!! Look at all these fuzzy pictures and poor use of science I can use to prove it.'
I prefer the 'Look, lights in the sky. I wonder what they are' discussion myself. I can live without knowing the answer to everything.
So, science for the smart people. Religion for the dumb ones. Is that it???
Young children can't read and are told 'don't stick a fork in the electrical socket, it's hurts' without religion. Some never try it, some try it and get hurt then don't do it again. The stupid ones try it, get hurt, then get a bigger fork. Eventually, they die and we don't have to worry about having to teach their children not to stick a fork in the electrical socket.
Evolution at it's finest!
Children learn by watching their parents. If their parents are honest, hard working folk, the odds are their children will be that way. If their parents lie, cheat and steal for a living, the odds are their children will also turn out that way. Some don't, some observe others around them and decide the role model their parents project (be it honest or not) isn't for them and choose another one. As someone who raised two kids, it seems once kids reach the age of about 14 or so, parental teaching of values is done and the values they learn from their friends take over.
No need for a religious book to explain morals in any of this, especially since the books are so poor at it. But you can use it as cheap hammer to enforce it. 'If you lie you will go to hell and burn for an eternity!!!! Oh.. by the way, it's OK for me to do it'. Yeah... that will work. (The proceeding sentence was sarcasm for those that missed it.)
There are 'obvious' reasons to both believe in God or not believe in God, both are regularly explained away by believers of both sides.
There are no valid reasons to believe in god. None. Zero. There is only belief. If you drill down into any reason to believe in god, it eventually falls apart into a 'you just have to believe' argument.
So.. let's take this one. It has been shown that the universe came about through a series of events, and use all of the physical laws we know about behind them for explanation. Are there parts we don't know?? Sure, like what was here before the big bang. But saying 'See... the creator had to do that' doesn't fit. Because, then you have to ask 'who created the creator?? And what was here before that?'. So, if the beginning of the universe needed a creator, so did the creator. If the creator was always here, then so was the universe. Therefore, there is no need for a creator to explain it. A creator becomes superfluous and dies before the very argument used to support it.
It is better to not have an answer and keep searching for the answer than to toss out one that has no justification behind it other than 'because I believe it'. Otherwise, why have science at all, we might as well have stopped with 'god made the apple fall' or 'god made the earth the center of the universe'.
The mantra thing is a joke... remember the tag line 'Keep saying to yourself it's only a movie, it's only a movie' for the Craven movie "The Last House on the Left"?? The horror that is religion deserves it's own tag line.
Religious books are only useful in discussing the psychology of religion. Their history is all fucked up and their moral values are contradictory or downright cruel (unless you pick and choose, which again makes the book useless as a guide if there isn't a guide for the guide).
The one value religion consistently instills is an us v/s them attitude in its membership. The 'values' religions try to teach are common amongst a wide range of societies, which suggest an evolutionary root, not a god one. So again, science is best used to understand human culture. Religion is just one cultural aspect out of the many that evolved. To deal with it scientifically is thinking critically. To 'accept' it as it is, is not critical thinking. To assign some hidden meaning like 'god is the universe' seems ludicrous, it doesn't mean anything. Why use the word 'god' for the word 'universe', just use the word 'universe' to start with. Or are big words to difficult for some people, and we need to dumb it down?? (Not referring to the poster, just asking a question.)
Moral values and societies created religion, not the other way around. Religion became the hammer leaders used to herd the sheep and beat back critical thinkers who dared oppose them. It became the hammer used to tell people not to eat shellfish because it can make you sick without having to explain why it makes you sick. It became the hammer used to tell people to not have sex with their sister without having to explain why the gene pool would suffer.
What is the one common theme in religion... don't question it. They don't want you to question it because once you discover the man behind the curtain, it's no longer real.
This is great!!! Let me teach an evolution class and have ID brought up.
Critical thinking means examining theories completely.
Which means bringing up all of the items that show how there is no basis for any intelligence that created the universe. No 'oh.. you can't mention god can't exist' argument anymore, that wouldn't be critical thinking. If one can argue evolution is wrong, one can argue that the basis for ID, that there is a god or some grand intelligence, is also wrong.
And also discuss how most of the arguments against evolution theory and the universe happening due to random occurrences bound together by physical laws can be tossed out on their asses as basically poor use of statistics. Can't talk about that now in class.
By the end of the semester, half the kids will be atheists.
Bring it on MF!! Now is a great time to get rid of religion by exposing our kids to the truths behind ID and the mythology of Christianity. And start to make this world a better place.
Why can't people realize there is nothing metaphysical out there, and that using words like 'God' or 'The Force' or 'Allah' don't really refer to anything??
The scientific communities have facts, the religious communities have... nothing. Their beliefs are based on nothing other than fairy tales and superstition. With historical references thrown in occasionally just to confuse things. The Bible is one of the most poorly written, conflicting books out there with absolutely no moral direction to even begin to follow.
Keep saying to yourself.. "It's only a delusion, it's only a delusion" and you will get over that god thing that holds you back from truly critical thinking.
Yep... let's talk the rude 'Don't Taz me bro boy' to death. That's the way. Let's all stand around and give him his 10, 20, or 60 minutes of fame, hold everyone up no matter however long he wanted to 'make his point'. Or the 'I'm going to stand outside holding a knive forever and keep the police busy so they can't do anything else' guy.
Bullshit. I'm tired of all these just plain rude people who think their point of view is so important that they have the right to interrupt anyone, anywhere to make a point.
They should have asked Taz me nicely once, not so nicely twice, then carried his ass out anyway they could. Oh wait... they did. Bravo!!! Let's see him go down again. He got just what he deserved for interrupting what had been a courteous Q&A just so he could 'make his point'. He's lucky they had Tasers instead of pulling out their nightsticks.
I'm fucking sick and tired of people who see the police as gestapo instead of people trying to keep YOU safe or to keep some sense of civility. Taz me bro guy?? What an ass, I would have loved to seen 10 cops piled on top of him, handcuffed, then carried out by hand. He deserved far more physical violence and greater risk of injury than being tazed.
As soon as someone crosses the line, i.e. refuses to leave a building when security or a cop tells them to, walks out into the street with a knive and won't drop it, etc., they run the risk of having physical force applied to them. Better to leave and seek other legal or civil actions in my opinion.
Yeah!! Get rid of all these taser and microwave weapons. Bring back good old night sticks, trunchons, jack boots, and guns. It's a lot easier to prove that victims were hurt by those weapons than by tasers or microwaves. Or their own decisions to resist arrest or not leave buildings.
Wrong department... you want the humor police instead of the language nazi.
I intentionally used Spanish... it was an attempt at humor. Someone used French to respond to an American English article about France, I used Spanish to respond to the French. I thought maybe if someone got it, they might respond further with Italian, Greek, Latin, Portuguese, Chinese, Ebonics, etc.
There are many reasons, although those aren't about physics.
There's a reason so many people believe.
All the reasons so many people believe can be attributed to mass delusions or hope or inability to deal with reality or avoidance of the nature of death or the need to enforce life-extending behaviors at an early age. Evolution can be used to describe how cults like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, Paganism, and all the other isms evolved.
If someone wants to delude themselves that there is some all mighty entity that loves them no matter what and that even if they die this thing called a soul will continue, that's their choice. Delusions are very easy to foster and keep going, and spread to your children. If that makes it easier for someone to live their life and feel that they have worth, that's their problem and their wasted energy. I don't have any need to believe in a fairy tale to find value in my life or purpose. Or deal with the fact that when I die, I'm dead and nothing survives that isn't biodegradable.
Delusional people should be not allowed to use their delusions to decide what public policy is.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny ... I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Wow .. that was some convincing argument. I think that maybe you've convinced me and everyone else with your unbelievable use of strong arguments based on sound fact gathering and irrefutable evidence.
Oh wait .. we were talking about coincidences, and I switched to sarcasm. Sorry ....
Police can arrest anyone, anytime. Whether a DA will prosecute or a judge and jury will convict on 'strong suspicion' is highly doubtful.
I think I can safely ignore future posts as just being more of the same. Yawn ... I think i will search for intellectual discussions elsewhere.
A coincidence doesn't imply that one shouldn't be careful. If I find that money is missing from my car whenever I give Freddie a ride, it doesn't mean Freddie is stealing. Police use coincidences all the time. Fortunately, our legal system requires physical proof rather than coincidence most of the time. Three coincidences probably would not be enough to convict anyone, that damn reasonable doubt thing and all.
I might be more careful leaving money in the car when Freddie is around. But I sure wouldn't go around telling all my friends Freddie is a thief either.
I don't find it a reasonable conclusion. An interesting theory, but without facts it is baseless. That's like saying 'I don't know where those lights in the sky came from, therefore aliens spaceships must be the cause'. Interesting theory, but I'll need more facts.
Your last comment is irrelevant, there could be hundreds of reasons George W Bush is president without any merit that have nothing to do with his father. Sidestepping a discussion this way is a common tactic that conspiracy nuts use when they run out of evidence. That doesn't mean someone who uses it is a conspiracy nut.
It's just a coincidence, I'm sure.
By it's very definition, it can be called a coincidence until there is more than simple causal connections . I don't have to call it that at all, it will be that until there is physical evidence. And then linking two people together simply by an accident of birth takes it just beyond conspiracy theory in my opinion.
Or a good story to scare young children and influence naive adults with.
Amazing how one can take pieces of disparate information, couple it with nonsensical comments and very flimsy commonality and turn it into a conspiracy theory.
Remember, just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get them ...
The complete section reads ...
So ... they can give out information to anyone they want at anytime they feel like it.
Don't like it ... don't use it.
There is only one supplier, a significant demand, and they charge whatever the market is willing to pay. Don't like it, don't buy them. If enough people stop buying them, the prices may drop or the company may start producing less and cutting back costs and charge the same. Or charge more to make up for the revenue loss if the ones left will pay the higher prices. And so it goes....
Ignore prior post .. for some reason I thought Viacom owned part of You Tube.
This is an outrage!!!!! Down with media giants!!!
The owner of the site makes the rules for using the site.
Don't like it??? Make your own site and grant unlimited privacy to everyone.
The site that pulls in the most revenue with the lowest operating margin ... wins!!!!
Thank you ... I stand corrected.
You are absolutely right, I should have used the word 'supernatural' instead.
Can someone please do a "sed 's/metaphysical/supernatural/g" to all of my prior posts???
I will readily accept I don't know the answer to something. I have stated nothing to suggest otherwise. My 'knowing' that their is no god or metaphysical entity is in response to many years of study and reading and thinking. I came to my own realization that nothing metaphysical needs to exist to explain how the universe is or the mechanisms that drove it to this point. That any explanation of god eventually breaks down to an 'I said so' argument without any basis beyond belief, or any need to be.
I have yet to see a reason why something needs to be 'beyond the physical'. Other than 'heck .. I can't think of any other way that could happen'. I just say 'I dunno' when presented with things I can't explain.
In the absence of any proof of the need for something metaphysical, there isn't any reason for me to look into them any further. Science is not in the business of proving things don't exist, only that things do exist and why.
If someone were to provide some proof that metaphysical things exist and why, I'll listen. Until then, such things are nothing more than fairy tales to me, intended to salve minds that can't handle the alternative. Minds that can't cope with our lives being only what we make of them, being an insignificant dust speck in this universe, and not having an omnipotent, omniscient (which is a paradox anyway) being that loves each and every one of us. I'll just have to find someone else to.
Children can be told 'lying is bad, don't do it' and they will for the most part believe it. If they keep doing it, punishments such as being sent to their room or (gasp) spanking can be used. As they get older, they can be told the intricacies of why lying is bad.
When presented with the calculation for gravitational acceleration, you accept it works and then are shown an experiment that proves it. You don't have to know how gravity works (especially since it's still up in the air (yuck yuck...)), but no one comes along next year and says 'That formula we showed you last year? Just made it up.' Instead, 'that formula is the basis for this one. Now, we have to add in air friction and the rotation of the earth, and your mass attracting the earth to get this new one.' Every year builds upon the prior one, increasing the complexity.
One is expected to maintain the lie about god for their entire life because their parents did. Very few parents ever turn to their child and says 'Hey .. remember all that god stuff I told you. It's not true, but it was for your own good'. Instead, they are repulsed if somehow the child becomes a critical thinker and chooses a different religion, or god forbid, removes the lie completely.
Parents will eventually admit, but usually only when the child presents them with the facts, that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny were all stories just made up for a little fun. Too bad they won't admit that about god too.
English is a very literal language, it should be used that way. If it's open to personal interpretation, then it isn't really communicating. It's philosophy. Which is little more than intellectual word games.
Metaphysical, by it's very nature, implies something 'beyond the physical'. How can the universe have anything 'beyond the physical'? What possible force or matter is used for these metaphysical beings to exist. Now, if someone could come up with a theory how a being made of pure energy could exist, become cognitive, and manipulate matter, that I could at least discuss intelligently. Oh, wait .. that would make them physical, now wouldn't it.
Creating metaphysical reasons for physical objects is a great way to trick someone into believing they have an answer without really having one. 'Look, lights in the sky .. it must be a UFO since we can't figure out what else it is' isn't an argument, it's refusing to accept that one doesn't know the answer about something and is either too insecure to be ignorant about it, or too lazy to search for the truth. Or has a huge ego and likes to strut around say 'I know, I know!!! Look at all these fuzzy pictures and poor use of science I can use to prove it.'
I prefer the 'Look, lights in the sky. I wonder what they are' discussion myself. I can live without knowing the answer to everything.
So, science for the smart people. Religion for the dumb ones. Is that it???
Young children can't read and are told 'don't stick a fork in the electrical socket, it's hurts' without religion. Some never try it, some try it and get hurt then don't do it again. The stupid ones try it, get hurt, then get a bigger fork. Eventually, they die and we don't have to worry about having to teach their children not to stick a fork in the electrical socket.
Evolution at it's finest!
Children learn by watching their parents. If their parents are honest, hard working folk, the odds are their children will be that way. If their parents lie, cheat and steal for a living, the odds are their children will also turn out that way. Some don't, some observe others around them and decide the role model their parents project (be it honest or not) isn't for them and choose another one. As someone who raised two kids, it seems once kids reach the age of about 14 or so, parental teaching of values is done and the values they learn from their friends take over.
No need for a religious book to explain morals in any of this, especially since the books are so poor at it. But you can use it as cheap hammer to enforce it. 'If you lie you will go to hell and burn for an eternity!!!! Oh .. by the way, it's OK for me to do it'. Yeah ... that will work. (The proceeding sentence was sarcasm for those that missed it.)
There are no valid reasons to believe in god. None. Zero. There is only belief. If you drill down into any reason to believe in god, it eventually falls apart into a 'you just have to believe' argument.
.. let's take this one. It has been shown that the universe came about through a series of events, and use all of the physical laws we know about behind them for explanation. Are there parts we don't know?? Sure, like what was here before the big bang. But saying 'See ... the creator had to do that' doesn't fit. Because, then you have to ask 'who created the creator?? And what was here before that?'. So, if the beginning of the universe needed a creator, so did the creator. If the creator was always here, then so was the universe. Therefore, there is no need for a creator to explain it. A creator becomes superfluous and dies before the very argument used to support it.
... remember the tag line 'Keep saying to yourself it's only a movie, it's only a movie' for the Craven movie "The Last House on the Left"?? The horror that is religion deserves it's own tag line.
So
It is better to not have an answer and keep searching for the answer than to toss out one that has no justification behind it other than 'because I believe it'. Otherwise, why have science at all, we might as well have stopped with 'god made the apple fall' or 'god made the earth the center of the universe'.
The mantra thing is a joke
Religious books are only useful in discussing the psychology of religion. Their history is all fucked up and their moral values are contradictory or downright cruel (unless you pick and choose, which again makes the book useless as a guide if there isn't a guide for the guide).
The one value religion consistently instills is an us v/s them attitude in its membership. The 'values' religions try to teach are common amongst a wide range of societies, which suggest an evolutionary root, not a god one. So again, science is best used to understand human culture. Religion is just one cultural aspect out of the many that evolved. To deal with it scientifically is thinking critically. To 'accept' it as it is, is not critical thinking. To assign some hidden meaning like 'god is the universe' seems ludicrous, it doesn't mean anything. Why use the word 'god' for the word 'universe', just use the word 'universe' to start with. Or are big words to difficult for some people, and we need to dumb it down?? (Not referring to the poster, just asking a question.)
Moral values and societies created religion, not the other way around. Religion became the hammer leaders used to herd the sheep and beat back critical thinkers who dared oppose them. It became the hammer used to tell people not to eat shellfish because it can make you sick without having to explain why it makes you sick. It became the hammer used to tell people to not have sex with their sister without having to explain why the gene pool would suffer.
What is the one common theme in religion ... don't question it. They don't want you to question it because once you discover the man behind the curtain, it's no longer real.
This is great!!! Let me teach an evolution class and have ID brought up.
Critical thinking means examining theories completely.
Which means bringing up all of the items that show how there is no basis for any intelligence that created the universe. No 'oh .. you can't mention god can't exist' argument anymore, that wouldn't be critical thinking. If one can argue evolution is wrong, one can argue that the basis for ID, that there is a god or some grand intelligence, is also wrong.
And also discuss how most of the arguments against evolution theory and the universe happening due to random occurrences bound together by physical laws can be tossed out on their asses as basically poor use of statistics. Can't talk about that now in class.
By the end of the semester, half the kids will be atheists.
Bring it on MF!! Now is a great time to get rid of religion by exposing our kids to the truths behind ID and the mythology of Christianity. And start to make this world a better place.
Why can't people realize there is nothing metaphysical out there, and that using words like 'God' or 'The Force' or 'Allah' don't really refer to anything??
The scientific communities have facts, the religious communities have ... nothing. Their beliefs are based on nothing other than fairy tales and superstition. With historical references thrown in occasionally just to confuse things. The Bible is one of the most poorly written, conflicting books out there with absolutely no moral direction to even begin to follow.
Keep saying to yourself .. "It's only a delusion, it's only a delusion" and you will get over that god thing that holds you back from truly critical thinking.
Yep ... let's talk the rude 'Don't Taz me bro boy' to death. That's the way. Let's all stand around and give him his 10, 20, or 60 minutes of fame, hold everyone up no matter however long he wanted to 'make his point'. Or the 'I'm going to stand outside holding a knive forever and keep the police busy so they can't do anything else' guy.
Bullshit. I'm tired of all these just plain rude people who think their point of view is so important that they have the right to interrupt anyone, anywhere to make a point.
They should have asked Taz me nicely once, not so nicely twice, then carried his ass out anyway they could. Oh wait ... they did. Bravo!!! Let's see him go down again. He got just what he deserved for interrupting what had been a courteous Q&A just so he could 'make his point'. He's lucky they had Tasers instead of pulling out their nightsticks.
It was sarcasm ...
I'm fucking sick and tired of people who see the police as gestapo instead of people trying to keep YOU safe or to keep some sense of civility. Taz me bro guy?? What an ass, I would have loved to seen 10 cops piled on top of him, handcuffed, then carried out by hand. He deserved far more physical violence and greater risk of injury than being tazed.
As soon as someone crosses the line, i.e. refuses to leave a building when security or a cop tells them to, walks out into the street with a knive and won't drop it, etc., they run the risk of having physical force applied to them. Better to leave and seek other legal or civil actions in my opinion.
Yeah!! Get rid of all these taser and microwave weapons. Bring back good old night sticks, trunchons, jack boots, and guns. It's a lot easier to prove that victims were hurt by those weapons than by tasers or microwaves. Or their own decisions to resist arrest or not leave buildings.
Wrong department ... you want the humor police instead of the language nazi.
I intentionally used Spanish ... it was an attempt at humor. Someone used French to respond to an American English article about France, I used Spanish to respond to the French. I thought maybe if someone got it, they might respond further with Italian, Greek, Latin, Portuguese, Chinese, Ebonics, etc.
Merde!
Que???
All the reasons so many people believe can be attributed to mass delusions or hope or inability to deal with reality or avoidance of the nature of death or the need to enforce life-extending behaviors at an early age. Evolution can be used to describe how cults like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, Paganism, and all the other isms evolved.
If someone wants to delude themselves that there is some all mighty entity that loves them no matter what and that even if they die this thing called a soul will continue, that's their choice. Delusions are very easy to foster and keep going, and spread to your children. If that makes it easier for someone to live their life and feel that they have worth, that's their problem and their wasted energy. I don't have any need to believe in a fairy tale to find value in my life or purpose. Or deal with the fact that when I die, I'm dead and nothing survives that isn't biodegradable.
Delusional people should be not allowed to use their delusions to decide what public policy is.