-Demosthenes-

What do you mean, simply? Practically none of the matter that was in your body a year ago is still there. Does that mean you died, or that you're not the same person? Ultimately what you consider to be "you" is more or less arbitrary, so there never really is an answer to that question. But would it make you feel better if your brain was replaced a few hundred neurons at a time, while you're awake, so the consciousness is continuous?

Except for your brain, which does not replace itself very often at all.

But then she thinks that Kiwis have four legs.

She is wrong, kiwis have no legs, they are a fuzzy brown sweet tasting fruit

Us ordinary citizens like the fight on Wikipedia too. Many of the current event articles have the label "The neutrality of this article is disputed" on the top. Some pages are even locked (from being edited) until Wikipedia can reach a resolution. Many articles are tied up in this, and the we're forced to look to other resources.

He was elected legally. Therefore, he is Hitler. Q.E.D.

Obvious fallacy, but I do wonder about the rather odd way those who criticize Chávez in the press end up in prison...

Tough break man. Did you argue any of your points? I would have done until he/she raised it to at least an A-.

I'm still in high school, so most of the college courses I can get are through distance learning (and things like that). So I actually mailed this paper in, it would be harder to protest my grade through the mail

Could it have been more leaning toward the grammatical errors?

That's possible, I had a few I suppose. But most of what the reader wrote on my paper said that I didn't' know what I was talking about

Meh, B+.

After ap bio, and completely clepping out of natural sciences I obviously don't know what I'm talking about...

If you're in highschool anything that you can throw together using this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion) should work.

It didn't turn out as well as I had hoped. I got a B+.

Next to my paragraph explaining what ID is the reader wrote: "It's more than that."

Next to Chris Colby's quote from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology,"...However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community," the reader wrote "One experts opinion does not establish it as fact."

Written next to my example of the dolphin evolution from pakicetids the reader wrote "(Micro-, not Macro- evolution)." From the land mammal Pakicetus to the marine mammal beluga whale is "mico-" evolution? Moses.

Homology, vestigial organs, and cell theory was dismissed, "Or had a common creator," and "A lot depends on your paradigm, doesn't it?"

When I quoted the Constitution (the establishment clause) the reader wrote that I should "quote the full text." because this causes me to "make a fallacious argument."

I said that there is the same amount of evidence for the spaghetti monster as there is for ID, the reader writes "Ridiculous! This argument is based on emotion not on objectivity."

It ended with the words: "It's obvious that you're not well informed on intelligent design, it it's impossible for you to be objective and give it a fair hearing. You're all to obvious emotional bias detracts significantly from you credibility (Also the quality of you sources)."

1) We should imprison foreigners and not Americans? Uhhh' date=' is anyone else hearing racism?[/quote']

 

That's not what he said at all, and you're *this* close to a warning for flaming.

 

I supose not.

 

Apart from the method by which they are most commonly taken' date=' tobbaco and cannabis are nothing alike.

 

Nicotine is (very) phisically addictive, cannabis is not (although you can become psycologically dependant); at the doses that it is taken in, nicotine has a very mild psycological effect, cannabis a large one; nicotine effects your mood, cannabis effects your mood and your ability to think strait, descision making, motor skills etc; nicotine is the narcotic responsable for the most deaths per year, cannabis is directly responsable, per year, for 0 acute fatalities, aprox 0 chronic fatalities, and 'very few' indirect deaths (in england -- the figures are presumably the same in the us).

 

So, gurt-big differense between cannabis and tobacco.[/quote']

 

It would seem so.

The war on drugs puts Americans in jail. They may be dealers or users but many are still Americans. When one has prisoners of War they are POW's. If the AMerican government wages was against its citizens' date=' that is not Costitutional.The war on Terror at least goes after foreigners and the prisoner are considered POW's and are given all which that entails.

[/quote']

 

1) We should imprison foreigners and not Americans? Uhhh, is anyone else hearing racism?

 

2) We put thieves and murderers in jail, and their Americans! That's obviously unconstitutional.

 

Lets look at the example of outlawing tube socks so it becomes a crime to wear them. Some would blindly follow the law. Others would be outraged and in protest would wear tube socks. Others would hate those whos dare to oppose the law and would not hesitate to beat and harrass anyone caught wearing them (a legal excuse to be A-holes). An underground would also form against the stupid law' date=' where those who protest the stupid law could trade in tube socks. It would be a symbol of freedom fighting. These tube sock peddlers would now become public enemy number one, such that if a swat team went in a shot one of them is would be considered righteous. The lawyers would love this and many new jobs would be created.

[/quote']

 

If tube socks are equal to drugs, then a logical step has been taken. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

It's very hard to justify a law whose only purpose is to keep people from hurting themselves.

 

The problem is that's not all that we have to worry about. Like the problems I talked about.

How will support those addicted to drugs legally? What if they have no family members to take care of them?

 

Everyone says how bad the tobacco company is (getting people addicted and selling them death sticks for the rest of their lives ultimately killing them )... what kind of power would Amphetamines have on this market? A drug that can get anyone hooked within one or two usages, and many people are physically unable to stop using the drug letting the industry charge whatever they want.

 

What strength would an industry have when you stop using their product the withdrawals could kill you?

 

What do we do with those who cannot take care of their families who are addicted to drugs.

 

What do we do about those who need money for drugs, and are so addicted that they steal and kill for it?

 

What cdan we do until we figure a way to fix these problems?

 

Even from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, there's no good reason something like marijuana should be illegal.

 

I find it curious that marijuana is illegal, when things like tobacco are so similar. I can't help but think that it might end up like tobacco if legalized, I'm not sure how we should fix this whole problem.

 

I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements' date=' stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety.

 

Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isn't necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.

[/quote']

 

This could be a good idea, but what do we do about drug addicts? If they can't take care of themselves should we let them die?

You like risks?

 

Become space colonist - you will travel to distant world' date='

terraform it while living in "space commune",

then engineer a new bio-system to inhabit the planet,

found a new society, and become its historic figure.

 

Become cybernaut - your mind will be merged with machine,

you will become part of greater entity,

you will be free of the warped matrix of human perception,

and you will transcend confines of the flesh.

 

Become bio-engineer - you will experiment with new forms of life,

play god in the role of evolution, and you will you will

design the next generation of humans.

 

Become nano-engineer - you'll assemble everything atom by atom, you will explore the

world of bacteria and viruses, and you will create self-reproducing, self-organizing

automatons that evolve to greater levels of complexity.

 

Become soldier - you'll be trained to shoot rifle, fly jet, operate tank,

you will become part of a giant fighting machine, and you will conquer

new lands in the name of socialism.

[/quote']

 

An attempt to associate socialism with futuristic scifi?

 

"I will work harder!" said Horse.

 

Only to be sent to the glue factory.

 

Socialism precipitated the recession. Chronology' date=' cause and effect. Understand?

[/quote']

 

Extreme socialism without a very good control over the people (such as totalitarianism) provides for democracy but equals economic hardship. Socialism with totalitarianism might be economically viable, but is certainly not democratically viable.

The war on drugs is there to create jobs.

I wonder how many jobs could be created by a war on tube socks...

I think it's there to prevent crime caused directly or indirectly by drug use/sale. The alternative is to let people do what they want (legalize all drugs)... which would open up some new problems...

How will support those addicted to drugs legally? What if they have no family members to take care of them?

Everyone says how bad the tobacco company is (getting people addicted and selling them death sticks for the rest of their lives ultimately killing them )... what kind of power would Amphetamines have on this market? A drug that can get anyone hooked within one or two usages, and many people are physically unable to stop using the drug letting the industry charge whatever they want.

What strength would an industry have when you stop using their product the withdrawals could kill you?

What do we do with those who cannot take care of their families who are addicted to drugs.

What do we do about those who need money for drugs, and are so addicted that they steal and kill for it?

The Russians used to say' date=' "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us."

 

aguy2[/quote']

Ah, to be comrades again...

 

Look at Russia, Communism was cool... unless you were jewish... or Polish... or not a party member... or too smart for your own good... or... you pretty much get the idea.

Socialism doesn't need a tax system' date=' because government already owns all businesses/firms.

Any money the people spend will go to the government,

and the government will then use it to pay the people who work for it.

The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits, and thus justice is served in the eyes of Marxists.[/quote']

The government pays, and therefore effectively controls you. You vote for the current government at re-election, or they don't pay you, and you starve. Ya for your version of socialism.

I honestly do not understand this mindset. Why is this one topic off limits for some people? I don't say this to be confrontational and I certainly understand that there are some issues that may not be resolvable given the current state of human intelligence. At the same time, I don't understand why this is the one topic where you think opinions don't count. Could you explain?

People agree about a lot of things, we should hurt others for example. Most people can agree that we shouldn't hit someone because it will hurt them. Abortion is a unique opinion in that it is based on one thing really, whether or not the fetus has any moral worth. You can't really argue based on the common opinion we shouldn't hurt others (or most any other accepted opinion), because some think that a fetus is morally worthless. What do you have left to argue about? It all boils down to an ideological war, between two different opinions that can't be as easily supported by other generally accepted facts/opinions.

Everytime I have to give someone a gift' date=' and that someone is a guy, I get him tubesocks. I dont know why it works, but guys just LOVE tubesocks.

 

They dont like any other kinds of socks. Not crewcut, not anklecut, and definitely not the no-show socks. Only tubesocks. They love tubesocks almost as much as boxer shorts.

 

I think I can explain it, probably having something to do with evolution. A long time ago, when our ancestors were coming down from the trees, they must have discovered a population of tube socks out on the open plains. So, to protect the tube socks from killing each other off (they are naturally cannibalistic), men started putting them on their feet which felt good to them. And so began the longlasting symbiotic relationship between men and their tubesocks.

 

There is no way that mens love for tubesocks cant be just part of the natural order of the universe, because I've given a lot of men tubesocks and unanimously they've said "oh my god I love you, thank you IMM, how did you know!". Its almost supernatural.

 

[/quote']

Anything that comes out of a sealed plastic bag (shinny helps) is actually quite exciting for most of us

The answers to any question depend on personal opinion. Question is whether offered opinions are equally valuable. I'd bet there's little value in either law or politics for "depends on your personal opinion" where it concerns Roe.

Which opinions are "valuable" depends on opinion doesn't it? (Not about your post, about the whole subject in general) I am beginning to understand why my English or Philosophy professors just refuse to accept papers on abortion.

Don't the answers to most of the questions posed on the politics topic depend on the opinion of the poster? *scratches head*

You are beginning to see my point.

Oh' date=' hell, might as well get this out there since it is primarily what the confirmation hearing was about (and since I love to stir up controversy).

 

1. Will Roe be reversed?

2. Should Roe be reversed?

...

[/quote']

 

1) I don't know.

 

2) Depends on your personal opinion.

 

the constitutionality or lack thereof of abortion, partial birth abortion, etc is totally irrelevant. i ask how any law related to abortion could possibly be enforced. would we prosecute hospitals? doctors? mother? fathers? all? would we launch a criminal investigation for every miscarriage? and we'd see a whole lot of back alley abortions, which we really don't want to see. so, in summary, we'd spend a whooole lot of money and we would hardly get anything out of it.

Depends on your opinion, whether you think that killing a fetus is wrong (and if so, how wrong), doesn't it?

My take is that Alito has done an excellent job and will do just fine in the Supremes. Some of the democratic questioning has been intellectually dishonest but no more than was to be expected. Fortunately' date=' the only clever tactic they have used is to ask questions the know Alito can't ethically answer (e.g. FISA) and then posture about a predictable lack of response.

[/quote']

It's possible that republicans would do the same to a democratic nominee, it was definitely present in this case.

 

So it can be clear, the nominee isn't supposed to tell congress how they would rule on any cases because then the senate could would be able to confirm someone who will rule they way they want, thereby controlling the supreme court and violating the separation of the three branches of government, right?

Seinfeld.

Are we talking about news or entertainment programs? Either way is cool, I just want to be clear.

Oh, both. I can't decide about entertainment, and I don't watch enough news to decide (I think).

I remember thinking how liberal the media was a long time ago, because I saw liberal ideas expressed all the time on TV. But then I decided to look for both liberal and conservative ideas on TV, and I found both! I was a little surprised, but more confused. I admit I didn't watch much news, but other tv programs seem mixed, or just change over time leaning one way and then the other. Some programs seemed to have multiple examples of both sides of the political spectrum all in the same half hour. This isn't something that I can look up on the Internet, each side points their finger at the other, and I can't decide for myself. What do you think?

My high school used to pay for them, for everyone, not just on financial need basis. Of course, you were required to take an AP test if you took the class.

 

It seems, however, that I graduated just in time. My high school has gotten rid of about 3/4 of it's AP program (actually, it wasn't even that big) and replaced it with "college courses" offering credit from Syracuse university. Those credits don't transfer to Ivy league or many other schools. The classes, for credit, would be about $800 per class, and, to put the icing on the cake, if you don't pay for the credits, you're not allowed to take the class.

 

Why did they get rid of AP classes, you ask? Because the administrators claim that our students - our white-bred, middle-class, affluent students - couldn't handle an AP level class. What a load of bullshit. They just don't realize that they hired shit teachers, and pay them far too much money. In my AP Bio class, I'm one of the few who got a 5, which I accomplished by learning the course on my own.

 

The few good AP teachers we've had (my AP US history teacher comes to mind) were so good, that they were promoted out of the classroom and into administration. The new teacher, so I've heard, has no idea how to teach an AP class, and spends most of his time teaching the students mundane details, when you're supposed to focus and major themes... and how to write large research papers... which you don't need for the test. The only good teacher left in AP English.

 

We had a good Ap Bio teacher, he invented some kind of medical test for a chemical in blood, and now it's the standard test for the chemical (I can't remember what it is). Yeah, so he's rich and he teaches for fun (or he used to, he retired last year).

The AP bio test was the easier one I took last year, I got a 4. It did cost me like 80 for each test bucks, but at 8 credits (each) I'll take it.

Yes, peak oil implies a gradual, steady decrease in supply. But you're assuming that demand remains constant. However, wouldn't demand increase due to natural overall growth? Causeing the seperation between supply and demand to grow not steadily, but drastically?

Wouldn't the demand have to increase "drastically" for the effect to by "drastic"?