MigL

So again, Phi... An alcoholic strikes a family member while driving drunk. Is he an addict or a criminal ? What tool do you want to use ?

As long as we stipulate Sharia or any other Religiously inspired law, I'm fine with that. Laws SHOULD be based on evidence and facts as they apply to everyone, not beliefs like Religion, which are subjective.

Sorry CharonY, I made an edit about BLM while you posted. Maybe I have a different or wrong idea of what safe space is. I assume it to be where viewpoints which may 'offend', are NOT allowed.

Thanks for a well thought out response CharonY. And you absolutely right, there are many factors to consider. And taking any 'off the table' for discussion is never a good idea.

When you get right down to it, you can make the argument that any crime is a medical issue. Would any sane person commit murder ? Could greed be considered an 'addiction' to money and wealth such that bank robberies are the result of an addiction ? If an alcoholic struck one of your family members while driving drunk, would you excuse it because he's an addict, or would you want him/her prosecuted for a CRIME ? You gotta be consistent in your tool usage. Not use a screwdriver for one nail, and a hammer for another. ( and I do know safe injection sites work, its just the thinking behind them that I can't wrap my head around. Either something is legal, or its illegal )

Well, I do have my own opinions on the matter, and they don't necessarily mesh with Tampitump's. The Middle East does embrace its religion more strongly than our societies do. Somewhat like we did in the middle ages. They are much more likely to interpret religious scriptures literally. And this is where the problem lies. Their religion hasn't 'evolved' with their societies, but exerts a greater influence on their lives, as compared to ours.

I like your answer DrmDoc... As opposed to Swansont who thinks a 'safe space' is one free of opposing viewpoints ( and at least two others strongly agree with ). And Willie's height of arrogance, who seems to think only others can learn from HIS viewpoint, and he learns nothing from others'. AS for the BLM movement, I propose a change to EDUCATION Matters. A willingness to get an education and stay in school, along with easier access to an education would do more for Black Americans and their 'survival' rate than BLM will ever do. Come back and 'stir-up shit' anytime Tampitump. Complacency and the status quo need to be re-thought every once in a while.

I believe Tampitump's excellent response to this ( in one of the other threads possibly ) was that the Muslims in the US are trying to get away from that cultural mindset ( not necessarily the religion or the Quran ) and are more open to new ideas.

Are you saying that if I or anyone have differing ideas which may offend another we have the option of not going to college/university ? And we should go without an education ? Are you saying if I light up a cigarette beside you in a restaurant, you have the option of going to another one, and I don't have to butt-out ? ( I'm assuming smoking laws are the same in Canada and the US, or else I'm gonna look foolish ) There are many 'legitimate' crimes studiot. They may still be in the book as crimes but no one will arrest you for sparking up a doobie ( in Canada anyway ).

And Tamitump is not addressing the Quran vs the Bible. He's addressing the mindset of people who claim to follow those particular religions.

Sorry DrmDoc. Its corrected.

No, because I choose to participate,Swansont . I don't consider being a member a 'right'. It is a privilege. So I don't see how its related. We have BLM in Canada. Very militant and hijacked the PRIDE parade in Toronto this year because they had an issue with Police officers marching in the parade, DrmDoc. And I live 15 min. from the American border. I think there is a big difference between what I said with regards to being OFFENDED ( someone hurt your feelings , Nancy ? ), and what you refer to as an OFFENCE, which could be physical/economic harm.

Sorry it didn't come through Swansont. I was being early morning sarcastic.

Keep it up Tampitump. Remember the good advice all these guys gave you on the education thread ? Don't give up ! If you have an idea, run with it. But while we're on the subject Phi, I've always had a problem with "safe' injection sites ( although I don't question the results ). Drug use IS illegal, as is (slow) suicide. These are state sanctioned suicide sites that diminish the collateral damage. Why not 'safe shooting sites', where gang bangers can go to shoot each other without killing any innocent bystanders.

You totally missed Tampitump's point, Delta. He didn't criticize H. Clinton for arguing against D. Trump followers with solid factual arguments based on evidence ( which, let's face it, she easily could have ). What she did was 'label' them ( with the usual derogatory terms ) in an effort to stifle discussion. As to the other subjects... No one has the right to NOT be offended ( what is this safe spaces bullshit ? ) Black lives don't matter any more than any other lives ( why segregate and make the distinction ? ). I see Islam has its own thread ( that should be interesting ). Don't have a problem with feminism. I like being asked out.

And what percentage of people actually believe stoning is an appropriate response for adultery in North America, Swansont ? How do they compare to the Islamic world ? In post #12, iNow makes the interesting assertion that if you replace 'Muslim ' with the word 'Black' or 'female', and it sounds wrong then it is bigotry, as it is a generalization. What if you replace it with the word 'Conservative', as does happen quite often in this forum ( and possibly the word 'Liberal' in some different forum down south ). Is that not a generalization as well ? And if the argument is that the majority of conservatives are enabling the nutbars by their silence and support, then, cannot the same argument be applied to all of Islam ? Or is it only OK to be bigoted when you consider yourself an 'enlightened Liberal' and it fits your own personal world view.

Even if already occupied ??? Or do you have more 'examples' of violations of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Are you starting to turn green when you get angry ? Or maybe get tingly sensations when something is about to happen, crawl up walls and swing from webs? But seriously, when I was in University, a small piece of radioactive material went missing. There were signs up all over the place suggesting that whoever took it should return it, as it was dangerous. And "Don't keep it in your pocket".

Don't worry about all the negative responses, Tampitump. As if none of them had ever lied to a woman in an attempt to get their way. Men lie. Women lie. You have to get through first impressions before they can get to know the real you. If your using it as a vehicle to meet people and break out of your shell, its perfectly fine. In time, you may want to re-think your position and explain yourself, once they get to know you and you become friends. She may open up and admit some lies of her own. We're all insecure to some extent. Everyone plays the game.

And the OP is not about you and your reaction to women ( although you could start a new thread about it; I'm sure you'd get a lot of contribution ). It is about Hillary Clinton, and the strengths and weaknesses she would bring to the Presidential office..

No Tar, the image I have is that she's opportunistic, and like a true politician, will say ( or use the excuse ) that she thinks is appropriate at the time. Sometimes, but not always, maybe even the truth. And I've never met her, nor, I presume, have you. So we both have just an image of her public persona. Both are subject to personal interpretation. Should yours be any more accurate ?

Sure. Some people put their hand over their chin when concentrating, some over their mouth. You'll notice both H. Clinton and B. Obama are somewhat squinting, which implies focus and concentration. She's certainly not wide eyed, and shocked by what she's seeing. And I really don't see the relevance of personal idiosyncrasies when concentrating. ( much like I didn't see the relevance of G.W. Bush's stunned reaction to the news of the 9/11 attacks while reading to the classroom of kids )

In opposition to Tar's views about the picture... I find her reaction 'humanizes' her, she looks concerned to me. And that's never a bad thing.

I realize there are only two candidates iNow. And were I American, I would be voting for H. Clinton, as I've stated for over a year now. The fact remains that she has 'baggage', too establishment insider and trust issues. And while we can all agree she is the more capable ( and honest ) of the two candidates, this 'baggage' is dragging down her polling. We are examining these issues. Are you suggesting we should cover our eyes, mouths and ears, and pretend these issues are non-existent ( or simply made up by a right wing conspiracy against her ). Edit: My apologies if I misinterpreted your statements Swansont. Your right, there could be some element of apprehension over the fact she's a woman, just like there was ( and is ) over B. Obama being a black American. But it is certainly not a major factor ( probably much less than B. Obama's case ).

To be fair... You accuse him of constantly moving goalposts. You just went and moved to a whole other playing field ! What exactly does D. Trump have to do with H. Clinton's trustworthiness ? Does the fact that he's a scumbag allow you to ignore her shortcomings ?