Nope. It is quite different. In most cases (and in this specific case too) it is considerably less risky for the person to be handled physically than by electric shock. Electric shock should only be employed when handling the person physically is impossible, will increase the risk of harm to him or her, or is too risky to the cops. A single woman having a fit is easily handled by very moderate physical force and does not present any significant threat to the cops.
Meaning that if you are going to make the argument that there are a comparable number of charitable organizations started by atheists as there are those started by the religious, you are obligated to name at least one.
But it does not prove anything. I can spend the whole day here listing atheist charities and religious charities and we won't still have any useful data to determine if there are more of one or another or how the volume of donations compare between them.
So my point is perfectly valid. Citing three religious organizations is anecdotal evidence and totally useful to prove any argument about the predominance of religious institutions in charity.
Even your own religion says that it is useless to pray for a dead person. If the person did things right it will be in heaven and well. If it didn't your merciful (and sadistic) God will torture him horribly for all eternity in hell. Your prayers won't change it.
Nope. The answer is that if everything the previous poster has to back his theory that Religious people contribute more to charity is the name of three institutions that were founded by religious people, he is just practicing wishful thinking, like it is most likely your case too.
Oh, and one more thing. If a person honestly believes that killing little children is a selfless attempt to help them go to heaven before they grow and commit sins are his acts moral in your opinion?
And how many other similar institutions were started by Atheists? What is the percentages of charity money and institutions that can be attributed to each group?
He is wasting his time "praying for a lost soul". That is not a moral act. He is doing a useless thing and feeling good about himself for doing it, instead of using this impulse to help that made him pray for another to solve real problems of which the World is full. So what he is doing is very negative in the end.
How exactly is starving to death a good way to live? Personally I think dying in ovens/gas is considerably better than dying from starvation (which also happened in German concentration camps). Actually I can't think of many ways to die that are worse than starvation.
The same applies the other way around. US would have to be idiotic to attack a country neighboring China in the same way China would have to be idiotic to decide to attack the Dominican Republic or Haiti, for example. That is why US didn't attack NK and won't likely ever do it.
China would never intervene if NK decided to send a nuclear missile against US. It will just watch how the situation develops while eating some popcorn.
Any functional ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead is a good enough deterrent. No sane country would risk even a single city annihilation without a very strong motive.
North Korea is very stable. It is hell on Earth to most of its population, but it is controlled with an iron fist.
Now, for China it is a good neighbor to have, because it is generally friendly, its leadership knows it cannot go against China and it is a thorn in US back.
That is not what the GP meant. There is nobody stronger than US. US attacks only those that do not present any significant threat, because doing otherwise would risk damage. It is not an unreasonable strategy but maybe not attacking anybody and minding its own business would be a better one, considering that it greatly stimulates countries to go nuclear to guarantee sovereignty.
Exactly. Far from me defending anything about North Korea, but the only guarantee any country can have of sovereignty, for some decades now, is nuclear capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
Sweden has a very small population. Japan, on the other hand, is having considerable problems with unemployment.
Nope. It is quite different. In most cases (and in this specific case too) it is considerably less risky for the person to be handled physically than by electric shock. Electric shock should only be employed when handling the person physically is impossible, will increase the risk of harm to him or her, or is too risky to the cops. A single woman having a fit is easily handled by very moderate physical force and does not present any significant threat to the cops.
Meaning that if you are going to make the argument that there are a comparable number of charitable organizations started by atheists as there are those started by the religious, you are obligated to name at least one.
One, two or three are easy enough:
http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations
But it does not prove anything. I can spend the whole day here listing atheist charities and religious charities and we won't still have any useful data to determine if there are more of one or another or how the volume of donations compare between them.
So my point is perfectly valid. Citing three religious organizations is anecdotal evidence and totally useful to prove any argument about the predominance of religious institutions in charity.
There is always a considerable risk of harm whenever you are hit by a taser. There were cases of death. It should only be used as a last resort.
It is part of the job. And that is why they should be trained to deal with it with minimum injuries to themselves and the arrested person.
That is certainly a possibility... :P
Exactly. An average male cop would easily dominate her overwhelmingly enough to avoid any need of inflicting physical harm to her.
Yes, because a single woman can't be easily dominated by a group of cops without resorting to electric shocks or clubs.
Not on the phone, on the iPhone.
Even your own religion says that it is useless to pray for a dead person. If the person did things right it will be in heaven and well. If it didn't your merciful (and sadistic) God will torture him horribly for all eternity in hell. Your prayers won't change it.
Nope. The answer is that if everything the previous poster has to back his theory that Religious people contribute more to charity is the name of three institutions that were founded by religious people, he is just practicing wishful thinking, like it is most likely your case too.
Oh, and one more thing. If a person honestly believes that killing little children is a selfless attempt to help them go to heaven before they grow and commit sins are his acts moral in your opinion?
And how many other similar institutions were started by Atheists? What is the percentages of charity money and institutions that can be attributed to each group?
He is wasting his time "praying for a lost soul". That is not a moral act. He is doing a useless thing and feeling good about himself for doing it, instead of using this impulse to help that made him pray for another to solve real problems of which the World is full. So what he is doing is very negative in the end.
How exactly is starving to death a good way to live? Personally I think dying in ovens/gas is considerably better than dying from starvation (which also happened in German concentration camps). Actually I can't think of many ways to die that are worse than starvation.
The same applies the other way around. US would have to be idiotic to attack a country neighboring China in the same way China would have to be idiotic to decide to attack the Dominican Republic or Haiti, for example. That is why US didn't attack NK and won't likely ever do it.
Both are not exactly sovereign countries. They are more accurately defined as US backyards.
Then please tell me, what is the country that kills more Americans in the World?
NK will never have the capacity to destroy US, even with nuclear weapons. They may have the capacity to cause some damage in the future though.
China would never intervene if NK decided to send a nuclear missile against US. It will just watch how the situation develops while eating some popcorn.
Intentions are hardly important whenever millions of deaths are involved.
Any functional ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead is a good enough deterrent. No sane country would risk even a single city annihilation without a very strong motive.
North Korea is very stable. It is hell on Earth to most of its population, but it is controlled with an iron fist.
Now, for China it is a good neighbor to have, because it is generally friendly, its leadership knows it cannot go against China and it is a thorn in US back.
That is not what the GP meant. There is nobody stronger than US. US attacks only those that do not present any significant threat, because doing otherwise would risk damage. It is not an unreasonable strategy but maybe not attacking anybody and minding its own business would be a better one, considering that it greatly stimulates countries to go nuclear to guarantee sovereignty.
Exactly. Far from me defending anything about North Korea, but the only guarantee any country can have of sovereignty, for some decades now, is nuclear capacity.