Assuming both are at a safe distance and currently harmless.
2007-08-01 11:47:46 · 14 answers · asked by Chris cc 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
2nd answer - no I mean louts, not anyone who uses booze a lot.
2007-08-01 11:52:55 · update #1
Googlyworm - the extremist bombers might also have a lot to say that you would understand.
2007-08-01 11:57:28 · update #2
But then some of those martyrs are what people have described here.
2007-08-01 12:06:46 · update #3
Hello,
(ANS) Neither as it would be an utter waste of breath!!
No.1
Why? the fundamentalist would have already decided I was an infidel & that I would burn in hell because I didn't share his or her belief system.
No.2 The fundamentalist would only want to blow me up as his or her duty because they believe they are going to paradise anyway.
No.3 Alcoholics are always a waste of time debating with when under the influence of booze, alcoholics are incapable of having a rational conversation let alone an intellectual debate.
**You'd have to wait many hours until the woke up and several more hours until the hang over wore off before you could even talk to them?
Thats why its a waste of time.
Ivan
2007-08-01 12:01:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Intellectually, the suicide bomber is likely to be more stimulating than the lager lout who, when sober, is invariably as thick as the proverbial plank.
2007-08-01 19:06:29 · answer #2 · answered by Peter Bro 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lout,
The suicide bomber already has his mind made up and is not open to reason or discussion it is only a matter of time until they blow themselves up. They are either getting up the nerve to do it or they are waiting for a big enough crowd.
The lout can at least talk a good game their mind isn't made up already and they can hold a reasonable and rational point of view. One that can be argued about.
You can't argue with someone who has a religious point of conviction that closes their mind to anything short of a surgeon with a crowbar. That's what the absolute conviction of religion does to people.
2007-08-01 18:58:53 · answer #3 · answered by Dan S 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A lager lout because once the beer wears off you can get some rational thinking out of them
2007-08-01 18:53:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
suicide bomber as it would be a lot more interesting.
met plenty of larger louts in my time, myself being one from time to time.
we all will die at some point and if i were to kill others during my death then why would i choose innocent people and not the ones that matter, the ones that shape the future and may have shaped the past .
2007-08-01 19:09:36 · answer #5 · answered by toothache 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lager lout as to why the abuse alcohol so much and how it affects there life. I think it would be very interesting !! :)
2007-08-01 18:51:29 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By "lager lout" I assuming you mean someone who gets drunk on beer frequently.....
I'd debate either of them -- under the above "safe distance and unarmed" conditions.
2007-08-01 18:51:30 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I Don't get this, please explain how you can have,: a/ suicide bomber, b/ lager lout, c/ intellectual viewpoint,?? in your question?? the intellectual viewpoint cancels out, lager lout, and suicide bomber.
Keep taking the tablets.
2007-08-02 06:54:25 · answer #8 · answered by Steiner 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The drunk. He no way can be as radical as the suicide bomber. Now, I would debate the bomber from a hundred yards with a rifle.
2007-08-01 19:00:31 · answer #9 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I prefer to let you do it and watch the News to see what happened... I don't loose my time with those people, they simply can't change and will tell whatever it takes to justify the most incredible stupidity.
2007-08-01 18:59:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋