What other reason would you POSSIBLY have for mentioning that this person was homosexual and had HIV? If you were suggesting some other threat, you would have just said "a person" instead of "a homosexual with HIV."
Why, to see how the liberals would react to the question, of course.
The choice of 'the greater threat' is between an inanimite object and a person.
Is the person ALWAYS more of a thrrat than the inanimite object?
A rational person will always say 'yes', as an inanimite object cannot act on its own, while a person can -- that is, the person, can, in and of himself, hurt you, the revolver will always just sit there. Forever. And do nothing. Ever.
Ask yourself these questions:
What might the homosexual decide to do?
What might the gun decide to do?
Right? Follow? Or is this too tough? I can slow down...
Now, liberals say they are rational, that they are reasonable, and their positions all come from knowledge and logic. Given that, their response SHOULD be "the homosexual", every time, because the homosexual is a person and the gun in inanimite. But....
Iits plain from this thread that this is not the case
Skip:
think it is more dangerous that there may be a malfunction and/or the trigger will be pulled back by the box somehow,
The box is going to pull the trigger? :shock:
Hautey, rather than answer the question, attacks the irrelvancies in the given and avoids the question entirely.
Thats right -- attacks the irrelevancies. A rational person would limmediately see that the fact that the guy is a homosexual, in the context of this scenario, is utterly irrelevant.
Caine moves quiclky to the ridiculous, while ignoring the givens and attacking the irrelevancies in the given.
Kandahar makes wild assumptions about the given, and avoids the question
Jallman -- bless his overtaxed little mind -- goies right for the poersonal attacks agianst me, and doesnt answer the question.
And Iremon, as always, says nothing of any importance, and again as always, can be safely ignored.
NONE of the people noted above -- all supposedly rational, intelligent, reasonable, logical people (at least, thats how they like view themselves) actually answer the question -- a question that has but one clear cut, unarguable answer -- that the person is the bigger threat.
Now, why do they do that?
Because their fear of having to agree that a
homosexual is inherently more dangerous than a
gun overrides their ability to reason. They are SO hung up on whatever their liberal dogma tells them about homozexuals (and guns) that they cannot bring themse;ves to agree that the homosexual is the threat.
Thats not it? then what is it?
Would they readily agree that a member of he KKK or the Aryan Nation is more of a threat than the gun? In an instant. But a homosexual? Not a -single person- immeditaely agreed that the homosexual is more dangerous.
What's ths mean?
You people are a TON sadder than I thought -- you get a chance to show how reasonable and rational and logical you are, and you completely blow it. Its pretty darn sad that your ability to reason is so overwhelmed by your sensitivities and your dogma You should be ahsamed of yourselves. :doh
