If you were asked if you would sacrafice lifes for others convinences, you'd probably say no, right? But if you were asked if you would allow people to continue driving in there car you'd probably say yes? There exacly the same question. Driving a car is only alllowing you to move faster. To get from A to B quicker whilst endangering your own life aswell as others. OK we've got systems in place that mean less lives are lost but the fact remains thats we are sacraficing lives just for our own convinience. And not the odd life. Thousands are lost every year because you couldn't off gone to florida 3 days later.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

...I'm ok with that. In a free society, we allow a wide latitude in personal activities, many of which can lead to death or dismemberment. Life isn't safe.

__________________
What have you done for your people today?

It's not that free a society that you allow killing for enterainment and yet we allow killing for convience?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "killing for entertainment."

As to the point of the thread, however, we don't "allow killing for convenience"...we choose to engage in activities which are not always safe. Very few people get in their car to kill someone, but again, life isn't safe.

Sure, we could lock people up in boxes, and they'd be safe, but that's not the kind of society we want.

__________________
What have you done for your people today?

Two people getting swords and attacking each other for example.

True very few things are safe but driving a car results in more deaths than say typing on a keyboard. If Hitler had of killed 3000 people but made teleportation system would it have been just? Besides think of the death convenience caused in last 4 years. 9/11 could have been avoided if it wern't for us constantly needing to get to that place just a little faster.

I'm not for locking people up in a box but when you consider the massive difference between the amount of lives lost in say entrainment and convenience then you see thats its about time we clamped down on convenience killing.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

I've never encountered anyone that referred to motorized transport as "killing for convenience."

What would you suggest?

__________________
What have you done for your people today?

Walking? Cycling? If you made most roads into cycling routes but left a few for strictly carrying cargo in lorries would that be OK? Of course it wouldn't. It would be completely in-practical to that. But it's completely immoral in anyone but a phycopaths mind to allow mass slaughter just so people can move faster.

I was originally gonna use this thread as a chance to bash the war on terror but as i've been writing i've become completely convinced that cars really should be banned.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

...to someone who thinks drivers are psychopaths. Sorry.

__________________
What have you done for your people today?

I don't think all drivers are phycopaths, i think the ones that don't feel guilty for doing so are.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

...the majority of the first world, I think. I've never killed anyone with a car.

__________________
What have you done for your people today?