And conservatives in general. Are invariably wrong, that is.

Y’see, no matter how noble the goal, HOW one gets there is important, too. In the real world, intentions are only part of it, actions count, too.

If one REALLY is upset about killing innocent civilians, unnecessarily killing more innocent civilians isn’t OK. There needs to be precautions.

Take global warming, for instance. Or genetically modified foods. Most people would agree that maintaining the environment in which we live is vitally important to the welfare of mankind. Those same weirdos would add that Man and other creatures have adapted to that environment over billions of years.

It makes sense to them that BEFORE upsetting the balances in place ALL the consequences be known and acceptable, not AFTER when the damage may well nigh be irreparable. As an example, many times a new species introduced to control a pest has caused more problems than it solved.

There are climate variations, lots of them. And, ONE OF MANY FACTORS would be the emissions from your beloved power plants and SUVs. Why not limit the man-caused contributions until the facts are known and the effects can be judged acceptable or not?

Nope, conservatives, with their fear of ideas (teaching about communism is teaching communism to them, for instance, teaching about safe sex is urging kids to have sex, to their minds), and their black and white view of the world, their wanting to be judged by intentions (the end justifies the means), will invariably be wrong.

Even when the goal is noble. Ends don't necessarily justify brutal or stupid means, especially when the means create more problems than the goal can solve.

Arf