there are threats and accelerators of threats. Some threats could be less imperative had it not for the "accelerators" coming in to play. Just as an example to illustrate my point, accelerators are for example the far right's inability to accept that anthropomorphic global climate change is nearing criticality. If deniers hadn't been pushing back and scaring people away from the messengers (scientists) with misrepresentations and lies, creating a wall of obfuscation for the uninformed to hide in, there would be a carbon tax by now and we would be entering into agreements with the rest of the world (exc. Australia maybe) to limit or begin to reverse GCC. So what's the larger danger here, climate change or right wing nut jobs? Sure Climate change may be what kills us but for the sake of argument, the right insured that it would happen. Given I don't blame the gun for killing someone, I blame the killer-- I must cast an eye on the deniers following that logic and say they are one of the most serious threats, not climate change. As is the case with ISIS. Who caused ISIS to form. Whence came the seeds of their discontent? The foreign policy of white people over the last 70 or so years? Who is more dangerous?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus