mad4u689

unfortunately, they're way expensive... not worth it unless you have a lot of people who will be sharing it :( (Btw, I am a vegetarian as well. I'm with you :D)

Being vegetarian, I will be having the side dishes from other people :x I considered cooking my own seitan dish to bring for me and my brother, but decided not to :D So I will have vegetarian stuffing, sweet potatoes, and green bean casserole :D And the CHERRY CHEESE PIE (aka most delicious thing in the universe) I helped bake yesterday :D

The estimate of 8 billion that you quote as a carrying capacity of the earth is not completely valid. Carrying capacity estimates vary greatly from scientist to scientist - a good reason for this is because, are you talking about the carrying capacity for people with an American standard of living or a developing nation's standard of living? For those of you who are saying that "nature will work itself out," keep in mind that one way in which nature works itself out is through the extinction of a species that is no longer well adapted to its environment.

I believe that life is something so absolutely vital that only you should have the final control over it. You should be able to decide whether to live or die. If someone is feeling so sad, feels that life is so unbearable that they would just like to be taken out of their misery, I believe they should have the right to do so. I believe that hospitals should allow people to commit doctor-assisted suicide. There should be a 30-day wait from when you submit the paperwork, to make sure it is not a rash decision. The doctor-assisted suicide would be easier and more painless, and by being regulated, would result in organ donation to people who needed it.

While watching "Kramer" use those words and that language makes me sick, the responses here on this board just make me unbelievably sad. Racism is deeply institutionalized. Modern racism is usually not blatant and it is usually not intentional. There is a fundamental flaw in the idea of having a "White History Month" because the history we're already getting is ALREADY overtly white. History as white history is institutionalized is already institutionalized into our system of education! The definition of racism as prejudiced based upon skin color / race is often used, but within academia and the intellectual community, a new definition of racism is often being accepted as more accurate to describe the modern racism that occurs today. This new definition says that racism is a combination of prejudice PLUS power. Someone is acting racist when they discriminate, but also have the power to abuse that discrimination. For example, being black is something that most black individuals have to deal with every day of their life, if they live in a society where there is an unbalanced power dynamic with whites at the top. If you are white, and someone calls you "Cracker," you don't have to deal with the repurcussions of it every day of your life, for most people - you are intially offended, and then quickly move on. If you are black, and someone calls you "[racist term]," you live with those repurcussions constantly. Racism is embedded into the law in such a way that it affects you every day of your life, and you might not even realize it. So when you guys say "I don't think it's that racist," just note that when Kramer was really angry and riled up and thus probably not inhibited, he resorted to racial slurs. He said, "Shut up! 50 years ago we'd have you upside down with a [bleep]ing fork up your [wagon]! You can talk, you can talk, you can talk! You're brave now, [bleep]! Throw his [wagon] out, He's a [racist term]! A [racist term]! A [racist term]!" He implies that blacks have it so much better now than they did 50 years ago, and now they have to get cocky and "brave" and demand more. This is the same argument white supremacists used back during the civil rights movement, when they kept on pointing out how they should be grateful they weren't slaves anymore. They should be content with their lot. The fact that people can find saying these things acceptable just makes me... yeah. Unbelievably sad.

I don't think it should be easy to get out of prison. I think there are capable psychologists out there who are able to tell the difference between those who are "really reformed" and those who are just faking it. I think the answer is thus in better reform, and better education for people (like psychologists) who can help keep the system working properly.

It's not a minor inconvenience, when you have to stay in reformatory prison and not live your life (spending time with your family and friends, living in your own place, even having a job and your own hobbies). Prison is not just a minor inconvience - it completely interrupts your life - even when its goal is reform, not just punishment. How do I think the victim of a horrible crime will feel? I hope they will feel good, knowing that the criminal will be kept in a prison, away from where ze can harm other people, and that if the criminal truly reforms hirself, ze will become a productive member of society. I hope that the victim will feel anger, but despite their immense pain, will feel some sort of satisfaction knowing that the terrible crime that was committed may eventually result in at least some good for the world, instead of just more pain and death and negativity.

To Anesthesia and Ghost: I didn't mean to suggest that it is illogical to have a view other than my own about the nature of punishment. Rather, I was responding to specific posts, in which the reason for punishment seemed to be purely anger regarding the specific case. I think it is important to go through an objective judicial system of trials to reach the ultimate decision on punishment, rather than popular opinion about "how bad a person" the defendent is, which leaves even more room for biases such as racism and classism than our current institutionalized system. I do not feel that the death penalty is fundamentally illogical - just something that shouldn't exist. However, I would argue that prisons should ideally be only reform centers, aimed at rehabilitating criminals back into society. I have a fundamental problem with the prison system as it stands, and think education and reform are the two most important things to improve society today. If you would like to call these institutions of reform "reprogramming & brainwashing centres," I will accept that as valid; it is true that these ideal centers of reform would be brainwashing criminals to certain standards of morality (similar to how we accept certain standards of morality, such as that murder is not OK, as deserving of punishment now). Also, this is probably as good a time as any for me to note that I don't necessarily believe everything that I argue on tip.it. I do, however, feel that political discussion on tip.it has a decidedly conservative baseline opinion (especially among the intelligent posters), and would like to offer some more liberal perspectives, under the guise of my own opinion, that I hope will cause everyone (liberals and conservatives alike) to challenge some of their preconcieved notions that may have gone unconsidered.

But how can you make an exception in one case - and, not only that, but based on your own subjective opinion? I mean, it is true that the vast majority of individuals (including myself) think that Saddam will not reform himself in this lifetime. But as a human being, shouldn't he have that chance - under a PAROLE type of setting? That is, the idea behind parole is that if someone has shown themself to be reformed - shown that they can be a productive member of society again - then to continue imprisoning them at that point would be JUST revenge punishment, as opposed to keeping society safe. It is doubtful that Saddam Hussein would ever reach that point, but if he did, shouldn't he have the same rights as everyone else? Some of the things he did were twisted and cruel, and they make me sick, and emotional. However, when you're talking about the law and justice, you HAVE to look at things from a logical and reasonable perspective, because humans are biased creatures by nature. And from a logical and reasonable perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

Because we want to show how Saddam is so bad for killing people, we kill him ourselves. Great! "Crimes against humanity" is such a loaded phrase, but I think that if you're going to use it, you should include trying to pass premeditated murder off as justice, as a crime against humanity as well. Then again, I don't believe in life without parole, either. Everyone (even Saddam) should have the chance to reform, no matter how unlikely it might seem now.

Yup, that's the best out there. Also, once you learn the basics of how to use home keys and the like, just typing a lot over IM does wonders for improving your speed :D

1. Marijuana impairs you no matter what. Drinking a glass of wine or a can of beer does not impair you. You can drink responsibly, but you can smoke pot responsibly. 2. I think you are taking it WAY to far to say it is institutionalized racism and classism. The majority of the kids in my school arrested for possesion were white middle-upper class citizens. Also, I think you were very intellectually dishonest with your post because getting arrested for posession does not mean you're never going to get to vote again. Is it possible? Yes. But you make it sound like that is what's going to happen no matter what - and that's dishonest. 3. It is sometimes a victimless crime. But besides that, I support making victimless crimes criminal because I'm a pretty strong ancient ethicist. Modern ethicists focus almost entirely on "right and wrong" (as it pertains to "should be legal" and "should not be legal") based on whether or not the "crime" affects others. I, however, subscribe much more to the more ancient ethicists who believed that crimes against yourself are still immoral - and therefore, able to be criminalized. As always Mad, we disagree on how much freedom people should have. You suggest people should have the freedom to use hard drugs and then decide whether or not to abuse that freedom. But what happens when a crackhead has a kid? That kid either lives a terrible life or becomes a ward of the state and those of us who are responsible start paying for the irresponsibility of others. These victimless crimes are usually not victimless. Coke addicts destroy families and cause kids to grow up under terribly harsh circumstances because their mom, who is addicted to coke, is spending her mother on hard drugs rather than food for her kid. The child is then more likely to become a drug addict and the cycle continues. I don't see this kind of impact on society as "victimless" as you do. I am glad you made some diffentiation between "right" and "wrong" versus "should be legal" and "should not be legal," which IMO are fairly different concepts. I suppose you are looking at drug use from a collective and utilitarian perspective, whereas I am looking at it from an individualistic perspective. A friend recently explained to me his philosophy of the self, which was a collection of mental states, a swirling mass of chemicals. The concept of a core of "selfness" is a construction designed to make us feel more real, whereas we should accept our realness for what it is (which is still beautiful). In thise sense, drugs alter your current mental state, change the mix of swirling chemicals, but does not make your self any less real. if you find this altered mental state better or interesting or an improvement over other mental states, there is nothing wrong with that. If you become addicted and don't buy food for your children and spend your money on coke instead, that is a problem. However, it is not the fault of the drug itself, but rather the individual hirself who is abusing such drugs, and in addition abusing the child. This, then, BECOMES a crime with victims, and the individual should get in trouble - not for using drugs, however, but for child abuse. I would argue that I have many friends who use marijuana responsibly. I do not, however, think that there is much evidence we can use to prove this either way. I am sorry if my post was misleading. However, I reread what I originally wrote, and I think I made it fairly clear that you CAN GET a felony conviction based only on drug laws, and I think that's ridiculous. Of course, I have a huge problem with the concept of not being able to vote after being convicted of a felony in the first place, but that's another issue entirely. I also do not think I am taking it too far to say that it is institutionalized racism and classism. This link (from an admittedly obviously biased source, but a source with whom I agree) explains and gives statistics based on drug laws in New York: http://www.droptherock.org/racial_discrimination.htm

1^(anything) is always 1. :D It is a special wonderful magical property of 1. However, what if it were something else to the (-3/2) power? Let's just call it x^(-3/2). The - in the power means that you take the reciprocal of x^(3/2)... that is, the answer would be 1 / {x^(3/2)}. What does x^(3/2) mean? It means you take the square root (that is, the 1/2 power) of x^3. That is, when a power is expressed as a fraction, the numerator is how many times you multiply x by itself, and then take the denominator'th root of what you get. I hope that wasn't too confusing, and maybe even helped a little! :D

I was "the loss of innocence" :D Aka, like Peter Pan, but sexy. Ironic, no? :D

I think "love" is recognizing the beauty of the connection, the relationship, between you and another person. You might love anyone who you are put in contact with. I think I love fairly easily - I think almost every person I meet is beautiful in some way, and thus I love them. I don't think we cheapen the phrase "I love you" by using it often or early, as long as we mean it when we say it :D

:-s Did you just come back from writing an essay or something? Sounds like you were lol. I agree fully. Nope, just been having a lot of politically oriented discussions with friends lately :D

I believe, in a way, the class system is actually a good thing. I mean, if you have worked hard, have earned lots of money, then you have earned the right to certain privaliges and to a point, gloting. I would rather live among other succesful people, than poor people. Also, sometimes I feel, the poor, also including the top of the lower class, don't apprecate what they've got. In America, the majority of violence, volence caused deaths, and drugs come from the upper portion of the lower class. But also the middle class can contribute to the drug problem, and even upper class does in some way. What I'm trying to say is, the class system helps remove alot of could be influence to other classes. This data isn't perfect, none is, there's always exceptions, but this is all taken in context of the majority. You have set up a dichotomy between "successful" and "poor" which I do not believe exists. You also assume that people who have money have worked harder than peple who are not poor. I don't believe this is true. Rather, for the most part, the richer people had better access to education, which allowed them to be more prepared for the workforce and get better and more specialized jobs, which pay more, and thus allow their kids to have better access to education, furthering the cycle. I do not think that drugs are a problem. I think that violence and violence-caused deaths ARE problems, and more so in the lower classes than in higher classes, and that's primarily because higher classes are privileged and have less need to commit violence. Quality and equal education is the best answer to promote positive change, IMO

Hey, maybe that's because they are also the most common drugs! I'd be interested for you to respond to the points I raised in a previous post :)

I actually lol'd at: Cocaine is much more dangerous to the Human Body then MDMA unless you take a enormously large amount of MDMA. And no, Maijuana and Alcohol normally don't lead onto harder drugs. Rose MDMA can be hugely dangerous if you aren't careful about what you are doing. It messes with your brain insanely, if you do it wrong. If you do it right, it can be fairly safe and an extremely enjoyable experience. This is why it should be legal, and there should be information available about how to take it in a low-risk way.

There is an extreme disconnect between the rich and the poor today. The biggest problem is that the rich do not recognize their privilege, and how far their money gets them in life, and thus do not work to fix the class problem in society, because they don't realize what a problem it is, and since it is "the rich" who have power in this power dynamic of modern society, the problem remains unfixed... and probably will for quite a while longer. People are funny that way; we find it very difficult to actually walk in another person's shoes, despite talking about it a lot.

My biological sex is female. In terms of gender, I identify as a woman.

Marijuana is illegal in the United States because in the 1920s, marijuana was associated with "reefer madness" - that is, it was thought to be used by the lower classes, the jazz musicians. Alcohol was far more mainstream, and when it was prohibited, there was huge uproar among all classes, including the ones on top that are actually listened to - hence the end of Prohibition. Marijuana illegality, however, stood. And so it stands to this day, because still no one in government is willing to risk their career to legalized marijuana, which still has a terrible reputation among many of the more upper classes, despite scientific evidence all pointing to alcohol being more dangerous to the body (and society) than marijuana. That said, I think marijuana should be legal, and alcohol should be legal. These are victimless crimes. I find it ridiculous that you can get a FELONY CONVICTION based purely on dealing marijuana - a felony means you can never vote in this country again. This is institutionalized racism and classism, a way for the government to silence voices it doesn't want to hear. Marijuana is a victimless crime. I don't do pot (though I have tried it), but I think it needs to be legal, for the above mentioned reasons. I even think, for somewhat different reasons, that hard drugs should legalized as well. These are MOSTLY victimless crimes - and in the sense they they do have victims, it should be up to the individual to have the freedom and then not abuse that freedom.

The decision should be left up to the parents. If I were the parent, I would allow my child to have a co-ed sleepover at any age. I don't believe in perpetuating gender roles through gender segregation. I take gender (through not biological sex) as a social construction. This is a fairly radical opinion.

"When the nervous system starts to develop" is fairly arbitrary, unfortunately, as well. According to, say, childdevelopmentinfo.com, within the first month "Nervous system begins to arise, first in form of neural groove.", and within the second month, "Forehead very prominent, reflecting precocious development of brain in comparison to rest of body." According to nlm.nih.gov (a fairly trusted source), in week 3 there is "beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart" and in weeks 4&5, "the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible." From an admittedly fairly biased webpage at vanderbilt.edu, "Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, 'Life or Death by EEG,' JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120. Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, 'appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation,' or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564" If you can measure brain waves, does that mean the baby is feeling enough that you can't murder it? There is no clear answer, but I believe you should err on the side of NOT murdering :P Therefore, I think that abortion should not be allowed after 4 weeks after conception, which is before most people choose to have an abortion. Therefore, I consider myself pro-life.

That's not the debate. The debate surrounds the idea of whether or not it is a child that's being killed. This is actually where the large problem with the abortion debate comes in. Pro-choicers tend to argue that it is the mother's choice because it is her body - pro-lifers tend to argue that killing the unborn baby that resides in the mother's uterus is still murder. The two arguments are almost, but not entirely, mutually exclusive. Most pro-choicers will concede that third trimester abortions are "not OK" and that ideally, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. However, when do you consider the mother's body to cease to be the mother's body? Only at birth? This is not what most pro-choicers argue. So why this arbitrary third trimester junk? What most people, if they think hard enough about it, consider to define their "humanness" is consciousness. The ability to feel. When is the baby capable of such consciousness, or at least the beginnings of such consciousness? When the nervous system begins to develop significantly, which occurs within the first month after contraception. By this argument, stem cell research would by definition be okay, since you're aiming to get stem cells that haven't differentiated into, say, neurons yet. The point you would pause development of the fetus is necessarily before the fetus feels anything resembling consciousness. By this argument also, the "morning-after pill" would be OK, which would be a significant stop towards preventing abortions, because we all know that mess-ups DO happen.