Leaderboard

In question No2: the caller, in telling the story of the tragic episode that resulted in a car accident that killed five people, admitted he was driving behind and following the car that crashed. Well if his friend was driving at 70mph then so must he have been to be right there at the moment of the accident. What I would have liked to know is: was the caller driving at 70mph as well just to try to keep-up or were the two cars 'racing'. It sounds to me as though the caller could have contributed to the situation that caused the accident and if instead of 'keeping-up' or whatever had just dropped-back and driven safely. That would have taken the pressure off from the lead car to keep motoring along too fast to stay ahead. So I am thinking SM missed-out on this detail which, if he had picked-up on it there could have been a different process to the call and even the conclusion. My thinking is the called added to the circumstance that caused this accident. When I was a youngster, in the motor trade, I would frequently be in a situation where we would be driving in a convoy of two or more cars and we understood the ever present temptation for competitiveness, especially with young guys in quick cars, and understood the inevitably resulting risk. So it was a golden rule: not ever to race on the road - the opposite was the order: to drive to the highest standard of road-craft and show-off that skill instead (just as rewarding when you get it right). I do not think the caller can come to terms with this event until the contributing factor of the two car's racing is faced.

@staff: Please alter the title to "how much irrationality and manipulation can I fit into a single post?" Somebody who inflicts (irrational) conclusions onto their child is not an "all-around good parent." There is no "general hatred of Christianity" "here." Rational thinkers accept that irrationality is antithetical to rational discourse. People who want peace and freedom accept that child abuse is antithetical. Moral people accept that any violation of property rights is immoral. Categorizing these as "hatred" makes it sound as if it is a preference as opposed to the rational conclusion that "religion is child abuse" is.