(August 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: ISIS has already had an impact, so you're right in that case: recent history is not imminent. Brilliant point! And of course a "regional problem" in which (a) a radical, militant Sunni sect gains power over areas of the Middle East or (b) the relative balance of power in the Middle East is radically altered by a nuclear-armed Shia state would, in neither case, have worldwide effects in terms of national alliances, international security, trade, and control of resources. Of course not. Brilliant point #2. And human-induced climate change is nothing to worry about since some areas may become more productive (while ignoring the billions -- possibly trillions -- it would take in the long run to shore up those coastal areas that will be negatively affected). A trifecta!
Yeah, I'd say those are MAYS that should be acted on, as opposed to "bigoted fears of possibilities" that may ensue because more people are now allowed to legally marry. But please do let me know when the sky falls just because my cousin was finally able to marry the man he's been with for the past fifteen years.
Please, let me know when you learn the difference between a potentiality and reality.
(a) They have not done that, this would be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
(b) This has not happened, this would also be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
© Global warming has not lead to the moving of a single person much less billions or trillions, another potentiality and not a reality of the world.
I would agree with you in regards to what you have listed being potentialities which we should endeavor to keep from becoming realities. But it has been expressed to me that we should not prohibit the conduct of others based on the potentiality of that conduct.
Or am I to take your post as accepting we may act to prohibit negative potentialities from becoming realities? In which case we may act to prohibit the possibility of Armageddon and Gaymageddon from becoming realities?
