Karnage

hmmm i believe i was having a conversation with azure earlier in the room, and i hope I made clear that i do love animals, especially those baby harp seals (save the seals!). Yet i do think that we may have to use animal testing to further our knowledge and there's nothing we could do about that. one way or another, something has to be sacrificed for the advancement of our society

To grayfalcon: Ap BC calculus and AB is not so different from each other (i got a 5 on it). BC just learns more in depth, and is a bit faster because of the extra taylor series/infinite series topic that unworthy AB does not learn. Just have ot work hard, put your mind inot it and you'll do well. There is absolutely no point in taking 2 years AB, that's just plain dumb. Save yourself time in college (and money) and take teh Bc man. I have faith in you. Good luck on your decision

i wonder who that guy is...

We all know Steve Irwin from Crocodile Hunter. He was a great man who always loved to take risks and loved nature. he will be remembered "Crikey Mate!" -- Steve Irwin

your not the only one who has had trouble expressing small peptides. Everyone has that problem, including me. But the thing is, i've done peptide expression using ecoli.

why don't you use lab equipment to isolate DNA? This method you use is quite simple and doesn't yield a high percentage of pure DNA

But that doesn't mean you're right' date=' only that we're all human. Sympathizing with and understanding another viewpoint does not equate to agreeing with said viewpoint.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Of course it doesn't mean im right. THere is no right or wrong when it comes down to opinion. I am merely upholding this argument by providing a story to back up my views. I am not asking you to agree with me

Well I suppose that's why decisions made from grief and bloodlust tend to turn out badly.

You would most likely feel the same way as i do if you were in my position

Basically, AP exams are difficult courses, equivalent of college level courses in college (maybe first-year or second-year), that are taken in high school. THe gist of it is that if you do well, like a 4 or a 5 on exams, the scores may exempt you from the courses taken in college. depending on the college you choose. Thus doing so, it will save you tons of money and some college credits.

What did you all get on your AP calculus exams? I got a 5 on BC and 5 on AB subscore. You just gotta love calculus eh? Hard studying pays off for sure!

Chem 1, comparative anatomy, botany, psychology, classics (no english thank god i placed from my AP scores)

I'm not much of an expert on cancer, but after reading a few articles, I wonder if the same mechanism that drives cancer cells to replicate at an accelerated rate (mitosis malfunction) could also be the same mechanism that halts neurons from undergoing mitosis when mature? Anyone have any ideas?

OMG i could understnad wht it does, ut i cant get much of a good understanding cuz im not sure what some of the methods do ie(serialization)

I'm gonna take a look at your code and try to figure it out. Sorry I'm not extremely good at Java (I never paid much attention in class) but nevertheless, I took the AP and i'll try my best to help you out if i can of course.

Ok I think im just gonna close this argument with AzurePheonix and Mokele with a story. I hope this will show both of you why I am for the draft and why I would argue my point in the previous arguments.

On 9/11, I was 13 yrs old and with my uncle at the world trade center birthday shopping (my birthday is 9/11) at the huge mall there. My uncle actually was working there as a salesman, and he knew everything about the mall. Well, we got our stuff and my uncle had to stay for work, so I left the area and took the subway to a station 8 blocks away. And that's when I heard the crash. I never saw the planes come by, but I definitely heard the crash. The events that happened within the next 7 hours will always stick in my mind. So many mixed reactions -- people runnin towards the building to help or take a videos of the phenomena and others running away to avoid harm. I ran. Ran like hell. However, that day was so strange, and it seemed as if everything was rocked out of its routine. The chaos was unbelievable, and it took me a while to actually arrive home. It is with sadness, that my uncle couldn't make it out safely.

Since then, I have always held a great anger and hatred for those damn terrorists. You guys may be ignorant, and have not experienced what I have gone through. But from this event, I will always despise those rascals, and i will support any action to prevent anything like this happen again. They have tainted my life. Every godam year, I have to visit my beloved uncle's grave on my birthday. I have never celebrated my birthday since -- what's the point of celebrating when everyone around you is mourning. As you can see, I will support any action that could prevent this. We cannot just sit down and be on t he defensive. If they strike, more people's lives will be ruined. And I will not back down from my argument to allow this. Im done -- finished

Nobody has litterally no other choice. The other choices are just less desirable, especially with the signing bonuses and college tuition that the military offers. Still, if they *really* didn't want to go, even that would make no difference. A choice made for poor reasons is still a choice.

Indeed. Yet, it doesn't matter the choices (i don't know how many times im repeating this). What matters is the disposition. OK so what if the soldier chose to sign up for war? They still didnt want to join. They still didnt want to fight the war. They cannot be judged differently from citizens resisting a draft.

I do agree that it's a lamentable situation' date=' but there is still a world of difference between a choice, however limited the alternatives, and no choice. [/quote']

 

Yes, however, in this case, the disparities are quite close to each other

 

And how exactly will this war prevent that? It certainly didn't prvent the bombings in Madrid and London.

 

What can I say? You are only using one specific situation. Plus this situation happened last year. What about all the time in between now and the london bombings? Nothing major has truly occurred in that interim' date=' and maybe US intervention has influenced this. But then again, by basing your argument that our intervention in Iraq has had no effect because it didnt prevent the london bombing you fail to take into account that it's nearly impossible to guess the impact of our intervention. It may have occurred that another bombing would've occurred had we not taken some action. That we truly cannot predict.

 

Show me a course of action that actually will be *effective*, then I'll endorse it. So far, I'm not convinced the current course of military action has made a real difference in domestic terrorism vulnerability.

 

Like I stated in my first argument of this thread, I am not a debater, nor am i a politics guy. Infact, I am averse to politics. I am just a college kid who wishes to become a doctor and major in science. I cannot give you another course of action since I am not an expert. But we can certainly rely on those who have had experience int his, such as our president and COngress. And from them we can put our faith that they would make the right decision.

 

But you assume large-scale military intervention' date=' requiring a draft, would be the action needed. I disagree; I think directing that effort towards the NSA, CIA, and FBI to make them more effective (without infringing upon civil liberties) would have a much greater impact. Wise action to forestall danger does not necessarily mean outright war.[/quote']

 

No. Just because i mention a draft doesn't mean a full-blown large-scale military intervention. That would be war. And what is going on in Iraq is simply a conflict. I agree that we should not take that route; however, to be able to put enough troops (or drafted citizens) in the conflict, there is sufficient (in my opinion) action to keep our nation safe. I do not necessarily mean a large-scale war, and if I somehow stated that in some way (which i didn't) then i was wrong. Then again, this is kind of a strawman argument on your part by assuming that I meant a full-blown military action.

 

Way to miss the point.

 

The point is not what I' date=' personally, feel or do not feel. The point is that if the threat is real and dire, a draft will be unnecessary. If the country's citizens are so apathetic or mistreated that the only way to face a threat is to force them to fight, then the country is already so far in the crapper than winning will only prolong the time until it disintigrates.[/quote']

 

This i cannot argue. From your beliefs here, I do not think argument is necessary since it is quite askance from what I am trying to say.

How is it in any way contradictory? If the citizens are either too dissatisfied or just plain lazy to be motivated to preserve the country' date=' why should the country be preserved? It's clearly failed as an institution, so why prop it up? Why not give another country (who can evidently muster enough support to invade) a chance to rule?

 

What I'm saying is that the willingness of the citizens to defend their country is, in my eyes, a metric of that country's performance. In that context, a draft is the equivalent of cheating on the test. A country whose survival is *genuinely* threatened, and which has governed effectively enough that the citizens *genuinely* care shouldn't *need* a draft.[/quote']

 

What is your point? You seem to NOT care about the draft not to protect the citizens but to let them die? And if you don't really care about our institution, why are you even arguing about a draft? you don't even care. You don't need to argue.

 

Strawman: I did not say that. I expressed skepticism towards your proclamation that "we need to take immediate action to safeguard blah blah blah", indicating that I believe our safety as a country is *not* seriously threatened, hence why so many are unwilling to enlist for our current war. Read my damn post, and cut the strawman arguements.

 

Strawman argument for a reason. You say that if our country is not "seriously threatened" then yadda yadda yadda we don't need to enlist . The reason i said this is because we CANT WAIT for our country ot be in danger. We gotta take wise action to forestall it. So what's the problem with that argument?

I couldn't diagree more. I see a major difference in being taken from your home against your will to be sacrificed by your country, compared to signing up, full well knowing that you could die, sacrificing yourself,[/i'] whether for something you believe in or only think you do. I live in the details, and when it comes down to those, the two groups couldn't be any more different.

It doesn't matter if you sign up knowing all the consequences. What does matter is whether you wanted to do it in the first place or not. I'm pretty darn sure 90% of those soldiers never wanted to be one. They most likely had no friggin choice but to sign up. When soldiers came to my school to encourage people to join the army, NOT ONE person even agreed. I mean, what's the difference between a soldier who didnt want to sign up for the army but he had becuase he had no choice, and a citizen who doesn't want to be drafted? Both are still against their own wills.

Or let them do themselves in, or piss off some neighbor who'd be happy to do the dirty. Or wait till they actually do something worth us getting involved in[/i']. And if it's truly worth it, I don't think you'll have any shortage of volunteers.

Yeap, we should just let those godam terrorists come and bomb the subway stations of new york city (btw these subway stations are filled and I regularly take them to college for classes) and let 4000 people die AND THEN we take action?? THEN it's worth getting involved? It's worth getting involved when we wait for the destruction of lives to occur?

OK now im arguing against two people. But no matter, I'll hold my ground.

Nobody, as it should be. If the citizens aren't willing to fight for the country, then maybe that country shouldn't be at all.

NO offense, but that is the most contradicting statement I have ever read. Not only does it contradict America as a country, but you are contradicting yourself (I may only be wrong if you don't live in America). You live in a country that has provided for you, has allowed you to own a computer that enabled you to even access this site. It has protected you and this is what you think? Reconsider your statement.

And that requires a draft how, exactly? The fact that I can even ask that question seriously is the problem: if it's a war over survival, with another country attacking us, a draft would likely be unnecessary. But to expect people to accept being drafted for a war whose initial justification was tenuous at the very best is ridiculous. There's a difference between sacrifice to save one's country, and sacrifice to save the oil companies' bottom line.

How does a war require a draft? Well, in order to stabilize Iraq, you gotta put people over there. DOH. What other alternative do you suggest? Bombing the entire area to get rid of them?

Ok im gonna start backwards.

The inherit sexism still stings

First of all, spelling. INHERENT not inherit. Second: It's not like I haven't seen your expression of sexism ("so-called men":confused: ).

And they made a choice, regardless of anything else.

SO now you're saying that ok troops chose that so who cares? You're saying that they chose that so it don't matter if they lose their families? But I thought you had concern for ordinary people being drafted against their own will. You might not think this makes any sense, but the "take-home" message of this is that whether its soldiers or citizens, IT doesn't make a difference. Whether or not they chose to fight or not doesnt make a difference. This is because they have the same dispositions: they don't want to lose their families. They dont want to lose their lives. And the soldiers, i bet, probably didnt have a choice in being int he army if you know what i mean. So basically, they're on the same page.

I'm most upset that Bush is using veto powers due to his own backwards set of morality. He'd let countless people die of disease before allowing us to 'kill' a cell aggregate.

 

This is what happens when we don't educate people about science' date=' I suppose.[/quote']

 

 

How I agree with you 100%. I find it absolutely absurd to veto stem cell research that could save billions. I mean, sure it involves a bit of sacrifice, but that is a principle that goes for many things. Sometimes you need to sacrifice to allow for the better. You gotta sacrifice those poor, cute mice to further our scientific knowledge. I mean, Bush is willing to sacrifice people for some war in Iraq when he cannot sacrifice embryos for a wondrous technology. What's his problem?

Having regularly done something before doesn't make it any more acceptable the hundredth time around. And I'll never believe any nation could offer total freedom, some sacrifices must be made, but I see a draft as too ridiculously foul to even be considered by a so-called free country.

OK OK OK OK. You just stated that above and I totally agree. Now read what you say below.

By sending some of those same citizens off to likely kill and quite possibly die, possibly against their will, and not mention get labled a traitorous deserter if they had the audacity to refuse their gracious goverment.

But wait! Didn't you say above that "I'll never believe any nation could offer total freedom, some sacrifices must be made"? You might be thinking: oh but the draft is bad ohhhhhh myyyy. But these are the little sacrifices we have to take. Sure it's wrong to take citizens off to kill against their own will; but if citizens won't fight WHO WILL? WHO will preserve our safety? WHO will help to preserve the rights and prerogatives that are dictated in our constitution? WHO is willing to do all this? But you might be thinking: ohhh but there are SOLDIERS and TROOPS out there to protect us we don't need to worry about it. I highly doubt that those soldiers are willing to risk their lives and to LOSE their families over sum stupid war. They are just like us -- not wanting to fight. Plus, soldiers won't last forever. We cannot rely on them to fight this war while we "sit back and sip pomegranate juice watching plasma TV". We need action now. We need to take immediate action to prevent any attack on our safety and welfare.

Something I'm offended by. I'm a better shot with a rifle than all the so-called guys I know, and I'm certainly got a more refined killer instinct. And you seem to be overlooking the fact that I might very well have a few males in my life that I wouldn't be so eager to send off to be riddled with bullets.

That's good to know. But it won't help you if your'e not gonna fight in a war anyway.

BEHOLD!!!!! Read this article AND be Amazed at the wonders of nanotechnology!! --> http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392807

Hmm. To my extent, nanotechnology would come much more in handy and would definitely be an exponentially growing field in the future. There is so many interesting benefits that nanotechnology can afford, I can't even name them all. However there was one article that I had about liquid armor. If only I could grab it again. Ill look for it.

Doesn't that defy what america is supposed to be? Forgetting all the other wonderful or terrible' date=' corrupt or valiant aspects of the United States for a moment, doesn't a draft epitomize the worst sort of loss of freedom? Forcing it's citizens to go to war? To lay down their lives and risk death for a fight [i']that isn't even theirs[/i]?

I'm terribly sorry to intervene...I do not have much opinion on politics but what you say here is quite interesting. I am not saying that I favor the draft, however, You have to realize that there is no such thing as total freedom. Even in the past, freedom has been limited, especially in times of war. Thus saying, if Congress would impose a draft, it would probably be for a good reason -- to ensure the safety of the general american citizens.

By the way, why would you be so concerned about the draft? Women would not engage in any hand-to-hand combat if they were drafted.