Contraception, mostly. I'd rather take abortion off the table, but we need to cut unintended pregnancy rates first. We have too many people competing for the same slice of the pie, and I think it's morally and practically preferable to try to reduce the number of people fighting for it, rather...
Your analogy breaks down when considering the relative scarcity of raccoon food vs economic opportunity. There are only so many jobs to go around.
Besides, if an animal hunts for food and fails to find enough, it's a natural indicator of overpopulation. The animal will die, because that's...
Mine tends to lodge between my eye protection and my actual glasses, and usually .45 (smaller brass bounces off instead of carrying enough momentum to pass through the gap). I found a simple fix: a baseball cap.
I can't get a made in USA Hi Power (do they even exist?). I can get a 1911 9mm made here pretty easily. That's a big advantage for the 1911 in my book.
There is one other possibility: the party leadership is so afraid of backlash if they're perceived as meddling, that they're afraid to put a thumb on the scale until they absolutely have to.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, convincing evidence is just that - convincing. I know plenty of people who are religious who aren't idiots.. They profess to have felt the Holy Spirit. The only conclusion that I can come to is that they have convincing evidence, and I don't.
You don't have to prove that God doesn't exist; I admit that I don't know either way, and have no intention of asserting one way or another. But that's apparently enough to merit infinite torture anyway.
I'm reminded of a line from Neal Stephenson's Anathem:
"That's funny because if anyone actually did prove the existence of God we'd just tell him 'nice proof, Fraa Bly' and start believing in God."
The funny thing about Pascal's Wager is that it requires one to presume that an omniscient being cannot tell the difference between legitimate faith and hedging one's bet.
No, I think they're both the aggressor and neither is the defender. I've asked you this before, but I'll say it again: do you actually read these posts before replying, or just imagine what you think I said and reply to that?
Are you saying that one side doesn't put the rules into practice (despite examples to the contrary), or just whining because the other side happens to be better at it?
Rules are rules. How they're characterised has nothing to do with the outcome, should they turn out to be true. Those of us unable to believe without evidence are a small sacrifice to be made to preserve the rules for everyone else. If Christian doctrine turns out to be true, I'm just one of...