<DIV>Reckless driving is what you are describing, Keely, and it has a much greater penalty than just speeding. Degree plays a role. Also taken in the decision is the vehicle you are driving, a motorcycle at 120 is not as dangerous as a tractor trailer hauling hazardous materials. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Saundra Lund <sslund@roadrunner.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Then I don't see why the same argument couldn't be made for speeders and all<BR>kinds of other behaviors where there's a chance, however slim, that behavior<BR>may result in another's death.<BR><BR>IOW, "Say a speeder has the intent of getting home as quickly as possible<BR>knowing there is a chance, however slim, that someone could be killed and<BR>still goes through with the action. The knowledge that someone may be<BR>killed is implicit,
whatever the intent, and shows a wanton disregard for<BR>human life, hence a willingness to kill."<BR><BR>Nope, sorry, not buying it: it seems to me you're guilty of using<BR>hypothetical extremes (perhaps making Dawkins' point while arguing against<BR>it) to try to make a value judgment with which you're comfortable *without*<BR>regard to the slippery slope you've started yourself down.<BR><BR><BR>Saundra Lund<BR>Moscow, ID<BR><BR>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<BR>nothing.<BR>- Edmund Burke<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein, editor<BR>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:26 PM<BR>To: Sunil Ramalingam<BR>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?<BR><BR>Even if the chance of someone being killed is 1/1000 of 1 percent, that <BR>chance still must be factored into the action.<BR>Say an
arsonist has the intent of burning something knowing there is a <BR>chance, however slim, that someone could be killed and still goes through <BR>with the action.<BR>The knowledge that someone may be killed is implicit, whatever the intent, <BR>and shows a wanton disregard for human life, hence a willingness to kill.<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <SUNILRAMALINGAM@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>Cc: <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:57 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?<BR><BR><BR>> When someone is killed in an arson fire, yes, the arsonist can be charged<BR>> with muder, not because they intended to kill, but because their separate<BR>> criminal crime resulted in death. That still doesn't mean the arsonist <BR>> had<BR>> the intent to kill.<BR>><BR>> You're playing What If, not me. You want to say they have the intent to<BR>> kill, fine. That doesn't make it so. You started by
talking about <BR>> intent,<BR>> and now have moved to outcomes. I don't have a problem with someone being<BR>> on the hook for the outcome of their actions. But that's a separate <BR>> matter<BR>> from their intent.<BR>><BR>> Someone can do something wrong-headed and illegal without having the <BR>> intent<BR>> to kill. If you want to say that 'ecoterrorists' are willing to kill, <BR>> seems<BR>> to me that's because you want to put them in that box for your own <BR>> reasons.<BR>><BR>> Sunil<BR>><BR>><BR>>>From: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <EDITOR@LATAHEAGLE.COM><BR>>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <SUNILRAMALINGAM@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>>>CC: <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?<BR>>>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:39:06 -0700<BR>>><BR>>>So we go into the "what ifs"<BR>>>What if a custodian or another employee had been working late?<BR>>>Sure, maybe
someone scouted the place out before hand, recorded the times<BR>>>people came and left. But there is always that chance that someone inside<BR>>>had a change of plans.<BR>>>Then again, there are the firefighters, you know, the people that go <BR>>>inside<BR>>>a burning building to make sure no one is inside. What if the building<BR>>>collapses on them?<BR>>>Firefighters have been killed at intentionaly set fires, Sunil. Even if no<BR>>>one was inside the building at the time the fire was set, there is still a<BR>>>chance that a firefighter could be killed. If one is willing to burn a<BR>>>building, one is willing to kill.<BR>> Anyone who is willing to torch a building is willing to kill anyone <BR>> inside.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunil Ramalingam"<BR>>><SUNILRAMALINGAM@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>>>Cc: <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>>>Sent: Monday, October
01, 2007 3:17 PM<BR>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>Kai,<BR>>>><BR>>>>If my memory serves, most of those arsons took place at night, when the<BR>>>>buildings were unoccupied. You make a big leap when you say "Anyone who<BR>>>>is<BR>>>>willing to torch a building is willing to kill anyone inside." If that<BR>>>>were<BR>>>>the case, wouldn't they burn them down in the daytime when labs and<BR>>>>businesses were occupied?<BR>>>><BR>>>>I'm not condoning or defending arson or the tactics you describe below. <BR>>>>I<BR>>>>just don't agree with your premise. Just because someone commits some <BR>>>>bad<BR>>>>acts does not mean they're willing to kill.<BR>>>><BR>>>>Sunil<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>From: "Kai Eiselein, editor"
<EDITOR@LATAHEAGLE.COM><BR>>>>>To: "Ted Moffett" <STARBLISS@GMAIL.COM><BR>>>>>CC: Vision2020 <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?<BR>>>>>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:16:47 -0700<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>Ted,<BR>>>>>I can't believe you've never heard of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)<BR>>>>>or<BR>>>>>the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), both of which engage in attacks <BR>>>>>against<BR>>>>>entities they disagree with. Perhaps you've forgotten the string of<BR>>>>>arsons<BR>>>>>that took place from the 90's and into 2001 in Oregon and Washington in<BR>>>>>which the ELF claimed responsibility? Or the arrests in 2006 of several<BR>>>>>members of ELF in connection with those arsons? Anyone who is willing to<BR>>>>>torch a building is willing to kill
anyone inside.<BR>>>>>I must have struck a nerve, since you are making demands rather than<BR>>>>>engaging in debate. From your posts about global warming, typhoons and<BR>>>>>such, I know you are perfectly capable of finding information on the <BR>>>>>web.<BR>>>>>Quit feigning ignorance/stupidity, it doesn't become you.<BR>>>>>I'll not waste my time digging up information that has been well<BR>>>>>publicized<BR>>>>>and is readily available just because you demand it.<BR>>>>>Debate is the art of point-counter point, Ted. Not demand, counter<BR>>>>>demand.<BR>>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>>>> From: Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> To: Kai Eiselein, editor<BR>>>>> Cc: Andreas Schou ; Paul Rumelhart ; Vision2020<BR>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:19 PM<BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020]
Are you enabling extremism?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Kai et. al.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Will you please offer examples of what you call "eco-terrorism,"<BR>>>>>engaged<BR>>>>>in by what you described as "on the left are extremist environmental<BR>>>>>groups," that have resulted in deliberately caused deaths by "fanatics<BR>>>>>willing to kill," as you phrased it, such as a terrorist bombing (a road<BR>>>>>side IED, or a car bomb, truck bomb, or bombing of a train or bus, etc.)<BR>>>>>of<BR>>>>>civilians would inflict? This is a very serious charge, that should not<BR>>>>>be<BR>>>>>made casually.. I am not saying there are not examples of this, just<BR>>>>>asking you to provide well founded empirical documentation. Please<BR>>>>>provide<BR>>>>>the name of the
environmental group, document their affiliation with <BR>>>>>what<BR>>>>>you termed "the left" (please explain how you define "the left," and why<BR>>>>>they represent "the left," rather than just "left field"), and the date<BR>>>>>and<BR>>>>>details of the terrorist attack.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> ----<BR>>>>> Kai wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Most notably on the left are<BR>>>>> extremist environmental groups that engage in eco-terrorism. Using<BR>>>>>Dawkins<BR>>>>> line of reasoning, anyone who is environmentaly friendly could be<BR>>>>>seen<BR>>>>>as<BR>>>>> supportive of eco-terrorism.<BR>>>>> Any belief, taken too far, can result in fanatical zealots willing<BR>>>>>to<BR>>>>>kill<BR>>>>> anyone opposed to their
viewpoint.<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC"> mobile search
that gives answers</a>, not web links.