Comment: >

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: what's "all" got to do with it? (see in situ)

>

1) "what's "all" got to do with it?"

If an argument doesn't hold true in every case, then it is not based on principle; rather it is one of pre-supposed conditions

2) "How about "enough" to be cause for concern?"

This polemic still fails to distinguish between benevolent and malevolent intentions as committed by an individual

3) "Not all bees sting. Not all snakes are venomous"

Incidental argument: I do not believe that animals and humans exercise the same degree of conscionability concerning ethics

4) "Not all drivers cause car accidents. But do you exercise caution in these areas?"

I do my best to act with good will and similar conscionability

5) "Know that your politically correct protection of one group is what helps them get away with the atrocities that they commit on others"

I will concede that dangerous ideologies exist, while a larger point is that ethical/unethical decisions ultimately are made through the conscience of an individual