Butters

Because some people are found innocent (that are guilty) you think the people that are found guilty should have lighter sentences? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The mother sleapt through many minors drinking, smoking, doing drugs, and later shouting racial slurs in and outside of her home ... must be a really sound sleeper (and bad mother). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and the opinions generated by them. However, anybody who suspends, or displays a lack of diligence in the use of their critical thinking skills simply because it looks like the conclusions will contradict their belief or violate their senses, is willfully negligent in their search for the truth. They at least need to examine the contradiction and decide what is more important to them; basing belief on faith, hope, and desire; or basing belief on evidence, reason and logic. Nothing wrong with going with the former, as long as it is not used to investigate and draw conclusions on things that fall within the realm of the latter. For example, it is nothing short of foolish to use faith based beliefs to study the structure of matter, the details of evolution, or the workings of the human genome. Likewise it is foolish to look to the scientific method to explain matters of faith like the purpose of life and reasons for existence. IMO, people who understand that distinction can easily reconcile everything they observe, and have no problem with conflicting beliefs. Those who can not are doomed to reach the most ridiculous conclusions. "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Albert Einstein "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

No, I was merely stating that what you consider to be illogical may well be very logical. I believe the external message is as I stated before. However, there may also be an internal message but since we are not internal we do not know and are not meant to know what that message is. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Agreed, the "slippery" slope is always there. At this point in time I believe there are plenty of areas we have slid to far and plenty of areas we have not slid far enough. It is a shame the government went to far with some people that didn't deserve it but that shouldn't stop the government from going far enough with some people that do deserve it. When we stop using logic and reasoning to create laws and appropriate punishment (which may already be the case in some situations) then it doesn't matter how near or far we have slid. We must be aware of the "slippery" slope but we must not use the "slippery" slope arguement to stop the creation (or modification) of laws and appropriate punishment that are based on sound logic and reasoning. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

No, because the slippery slope arguement is a bad arguement. According to the slippery slope arguement we shouldn't do anything because it may lead to something else. Don't punish murderers or else we may punish people who think about murdering in the future. Don't punish rapists or else we may punish people who think about sex with another person without their permission in the future. PS: To those with the ability to use logic and reasoning the slope is not that slippery. (The problem is that people in a position of authority who are creating or changing the laws are not always using logic and reasoning and may have alterior motives causing them to slide farther.) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Prostitute: To offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money. It is what it is. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I know you (and other people) have the ability to use logic and reasoning to realize that a crime involving the physical and sexual abuse of another person is not the same as speeding and the slope is not and will not be that slippery that they will have the same punishment now or any time in the future. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You cant always get what you want You cant always get what you want You cant always get what you want But if you try sometimes well you might find You get what you need Is this true or false? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Why don't we just execute both of them and give the food and shelter to someone else in the world that needs it? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

This is the same strory as the one I linked. It's on the Associated Press wire. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16145731/ "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16156547/ "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Do you owe your rigger a case of beer or a bottle of liquor in these situations? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I would trade my life for the ability to start my life over with what I know now. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

He is not the only defector and neither was he the most famous/sensitive defector (until someone killed him). You don't kill someone who's death will cost you more than their being alive. More to the point, if you choose to do so (even if its to make a statement), you do it in a manner than can be easily attributed but just as easily denied. eg bullet, knife, bashing etc Heck even the infamous ice pick was deniable. You don't use a traceable radioisotope in such a tell-tale amount. There's a big difference between 'sending a message' and signing your name in blood. Logically, it makes no sense and even more so when you factor in that Putin's background before politics was intel. Whether or not you believe that they acted logically (according to your thoughts) you have to agree that they acted in a way that sent a clear message. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Fixed it for you. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

History, if you know the past, you know the future. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

the key word is 'voluntary'. tell them 'no' it sounds like your issue isn't about whether a homeowner can give permission, it sounds like you are incorrectly relating this to some form of random searches..... I am not referring to the poll, I am referring to the first post in this thread. I don't agree that they should have a written or unwritten policy to ask to search a home without probable cause or a warrant based solely on that home being in an area with higher crime (or based on nothing at all). PS: I understand you can just say no. However, I also understand (first hand experience) how coercive the police can be. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

'voluntary' is the key word of the poll, not 'warrantless' I don't believe the poll said anything about requiring authorities to "walk from house to house". again, how is a right "waived" when you 'choose' to allow a search (for any reason) - the right is exercised/used when you said "yes" or "no" to the request. It makes as much sense and saying your right to free speech is waived by being informed of your right to remain silent. Perhaps a voluntary search should also have the caviat that, since it's voluntary, you can halt that search at any moment........... I was not referring to situations where the figures of authority have a reason. I was referring to the situations where the figures of authority have no reason (other than to search you home for anything illegal without probable cause or a warrant). Example (Good): A shooting occurs and the shooters run through a neighborhood. The police go from door to door asking if they can search the houses. (This is to find the criminal and to protect the citizens.) Example (Bad): The police go from home to home in an area with a high gun crime rate asking to search the homes for illegal guns. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Constants: x0, y0, m, b, c (x - x0)^2 + ((m * x + b) - y0)^2 = c^2 x = ? *This equations is used to find a point on a line given a distance from another point on the line. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

x is not 0; 17x(sq) - 2x = 0 17x(sq) = 2x 17x = 2 x = 2/17 if x = 0 then you would have had 0 = -2 This is a joke right? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

so you voted "Yes" in the poll? They can ask anything they want (the poll specifically notes "voluntary"). You have the right to say yes or no to the request as your choice. This is a stupid poll, people aren't reading it completely. Lawrocket has the right answer, people need to know their rights. Then it doesn't really matter at all if a cop asks or is restricted from even asking. We can always say "no, come back with a warrant, thanks for the warning". I agree that you should know your rights. I disagree that figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights. (This does not appear to be the best thing they can do with their time and our money.) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch