Actually, you over-simplified. You presume someone cannot be empathetic AND be able to do a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision. In the military, you do both frequently...PFC Johnny has had his mother go into hospital for cancer. She may not make it. SGT Dave works to ensure PFC Johnny gets home to see Mom before she passes. 12 months later, SGT Dave has no issue sending PFC Johnny through the door first as part of the sweep team as he is the best person for the job. If PFC Johnny gets killed as part of the sweep, SGT Dave will be sad as he has lost a team member and (if he is a good NCO) a protege, but he will move on and scream to his leadership for a replacement for the now dead PFC Johnny while also shedding a tear at the memorial service for PFC Johnny.

The two conditions are mutually exclusive in most people.

Not true....those religions have not pushed for their beleifs to be taught in SCIENCE classes, but a small, but highly vocal subset of Christians have done just that. And found (via the courts) that our Constitution does not allow that to occur in PUBLIC schools. You can still teach religion in schools as long as it is done in a neutral manner. This is usually done in conjuction with subjects where this is applicable (ie World Religions, Literature, History, Sociology, Anthropology, etc), just not in biology.

So...for those who wish to treach religious beliefs as science, they can send their children to a church school or home school them. Of course, the courts have also said that colleges aren't required to accept religous beliefs as substutues for actual science when they consider applicants.

This post shows your ignorance about Islam. Islam recognizes many prophets, but consider Mohamed to be the last one. They even consider Jesus (Isa) to be a prophet, and more powerful one than Mohammed in many ways as he performed miracles, but in the end, simply another mortal prophet. They recognize all the Jewish prophets as well.

Not saying I agree with any of the Abrahamic faiths, just correcting your factually incorrect assertion that Muslims only recognize one prophet.

"Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause."

Actually, the truth is people died at an earlier age and had many more children than we have today. In some societies, the old simply wandered off to die to avoid being a drain on their families. If you had no/not enough children, and were not in reach of a charity, you did die...though probably not on the street. Just alone/with your spouse, usually of disease or starvation or both. We also used ot have debtors' prisons, but did away with them as well if you are interested in going back to the olden days.

Social Security was/is a forced pension scheme to ensure that old people have some income post retirement. This means that some can seek careers that are not financially rewarding but does benefit society.

Why doesn't an ADULT former student not have the right to communicate with a former teacher away from the prying eyes of ANYONE?

And...what if the parents are abusing the child? Do they still have the right to see everything the child does?

But it also says "former students"....so the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.

You give two examples of websites or groups that have ZERO power in the US. We also have Al Qaida supporters in the US, but they are not in any position to influence the country.

While the US has issues, they are NOT as you would imply.

She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.

The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.

Your supply side argument fails when EVERY Swiss household is likely to have a full mil-spec firearm inside it...unlike the US. This means the per household chance of coming in contact with a firearm is HIGHER than in the US. While the US may have 90 firearms per 100 people, many (if not most) of firearms owners have more than 1 gun. I, for example, own 3. I have friends whose collections number in the 100s. The likelihood of there being another house on my block with a firearm is statistically low....lower than the likelihood of them having a dog over 40lbs.

The Culture of the Swiss is not one where firearms are seen as for personal use...hence a lower issue with them. Also, the Swiss' penchant for being the "neutral" nation has caused outsiders who may agitate in some nations to leave the Swiss alone...so they can use Switzerland as the go between (or safe haven for their funds). If they caused issues in Switzerland, then that government may actually take a position on their activities and so become persona non grata.

It is a cultural issue, not a supply and demand issue. If there were a cultural want of firearms, there are plenty of people to supply them. See many parts of Africa, Northern Ireland, etc for examples of where these is a demand, there will be a supply.

While in the military, I discovered while deployed in various places around the world, weapons are cheap and plentiful if you want them. Hell, in some countries, their military will take you to their armory and let you pick out what you want for the right price! And the right price is a LOT lower than you would think!