Libfas, please explain your ethics

1.  Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?  I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.

2.  Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected?  I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected.  I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.

3.  Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming?  Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people.  Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?

4.  Why do you like Mac so much?

5.  Why do you believe the federal government can fix all of society's ills when it can barely deliver the mail?  It has been proven throughout history that large central governments lead to corruption and abuse.  Why do you continue to support big government?

"3.  Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming?  Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people.  Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?"

The thing to keep in mind is that while faggots like Al Gore say the sea levels will rise like 20 feet, the actual TRUTH is that they WON'T.  They'll rise by roughly ONE foot.  Gore's statistic shows an increase that is like 2000% greater than the actual sea level increase.  Even if global warming is actually happening, it doesn't really mean shit anyways. 

Also, the resulting temperature increase in northern areas will mean fewer people will die from cold deaths... and far more people die of cold deaths than die of heat-related deaths. 

The cost of implimenting Kyoto would be about 160-180billion each year for five years... and would only postpone the effects of global warming by about 7 days at the end of the century.  The costs of implementing Kyoto are FAR greater than the cost of simply sending direct aid to the people who need it NOW, which is yet another reason not to be concerned with it.  The risks of global warming are worth considering, but in the end minuscule.