Just to throw a wrench in this example. The Amish will use computers and technology if their money making ability is tied to it.
Are you sure you are not getting them mixed up with the Medonites? They overlap in a lot of things such as facial hair preferences, but the Medonites will use technology if it will benefit them. I used to work with both.
No worked right beside some in a saw mill in Pennsylvania and was shocked when one of them was using a computer. I was told by people employed there that they were Amish and they used many technically advanced things when their company is required to. I have always admired the Amish and Mennonites for their views and lifestyle.
Yes, facts rather than emotion. Can you explain your statement? It makes no sense to say that facts relevent to the issue have no connection to the issue. Here's a hint: Just because the facts don't fit your agenda, doesn't make them irrelevant.:roll: What facts do you feel are "more closely involved" in the issue, and are more relevant? And why do you feel they are more relevent? And here we have it...the typical liberal ad-hominem. If you aren't armed with facts to support your position, fall back on the "Nazi-Hitler" comparison. Lame, Wayne...childish...and lame.:roll: I would have expected more from you.
Well, that would depend on each person's idea of reasonable, now wouldn't it? What you consider a "reasonable" person doesn't mean I or others would consider them a "reasonable" person. And it's quite apparent that your ideas of a "reasonable" person differ from many, since you seem to find it fitting to compare the PM of Britain with Hitler. :roll:
Since the "facts" presented were the views of one person, it must be hard to support your claim. Hint: one person's opinion is hardly factual. I can understand your confusion since the definition of "fact" seems to have gotten lost in your dictionary. The fact (provable data) the lower economic strata contains a disproportionate number of blacks would have no connection to the similar disproportionate number of blacks in the legal system, which is sarcasm too, in case that was missed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/macpherson/article/0,,191672,00.html Unemployment stands at 6% for whites, 8% for Indians, 19% among the black community, and 21% among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. [Labour Force Survey (1997-1998)] An African graduate is seven times more likely to be unemployed than a white graduate. [Institute for social & economic research (1985-1995 Uni. of Essex)] More than 40% of 16-17yr olds from ethnic minority groups are unemployed compared with 18% of their white peers. [Labour Force Survey (1997-1998)] Black people are between four and seven times more likely to be sentenced to prison terms than white people. [Statewatch - (police research group 1998)] First, there were few facts presented in the article. As I stated, his opinion is not supported by the others in the Home Office and given the Home Office deals more closely with such things there is sufficient reason to question his opinion unless you happen to agree with it ans want it to be "factual". Given this was one of the few facts presented in this discussion, I can see where you would object. The fact is clear on the ability of a bigot being able to gain an elected office and that is one of the prime examples. That is the problem with using the personal opinion of a leader as "factual". Then you do not understand the simple fact of this being one of the few times such an example is appropriate? I am sorry for you. :-(
No, it is based on the society's definition of reasonable. Which is why the reasonable person determination is made by a group, usually of twelve peers. No, there was no such comparison, but I can see where you became lost in the discussion. If you cannot understand the difference in an example to support a statement and a comparison, you should not be participating in such discussions without assistance.
No problem, I thought maybe there was a religious group I'd never heard of. And, I've met you... YOU ARE NOT OLD!
