mad4u689

This supports my point that life is something so precious and so personal that only the individual whose life is at stake (and nature) should have control over. Thus, an individual has the right to hir own opinion about whether death will be better or not, and can make the ultimate decision.

:( You were a great author and a fascinating man, Mr. Vonnegut.

My grandfather was on medicinal marijuana for about six months to a year before he passed away. It helped him greatly - not just in terms of pain relief, but also as an appetite stimulator (really - he probably would not have lasted so long without it, just because he hadn't been eating, even in the hospital. Yes, "the munchies" can be beneficial in a medicinal way.) So yes, I think medicinal marijuana should be legalized and there is no question of that in my mind. I also think marijuana should be legalized, period. I won't go into that argument here and now, however.

I think life is... the most important thing. And so legislation about the taking of life is tricky. However, ultimately I think the burden lies with the individual - if someone wants to die, they should be able to die. If someone doesn't want to die, their life shouldn't be taken from them prematurely. Life is so precious - and that's why only the individual whose life is in question has the right to decide. For this reason, I am extremely against the death penalty, extremely in support of doctor-assisted suicide, and against abortion (except in case of danger to the life of the mother).

10/10. I mean, I feel like it's not fair to give a completely perfect rating, but I can't imagine a better school situation than I'm in right now. The classes I'm taking are all fascinating (Sociology, the Meaning of Life and Death, and two advanced math classes - Discrete mathematics and Galois Theory), the professors are brilliant and accessible and engaging... and my peers are amazing.

That's not true, in this particular case. Granting asylum works in funny (and sometimes unfair) ways - granting asylum because of popular support has happened in the past and will happen again

Yup :D I also have been in situations where my friends have decided to just split the bill evenly, when I ordered something cheaper (though never in a situation quite as extreme as yours!), and it can be fairly frustrating, though. You don't want to be the obnoxious one who makes everything more complicated for the sake of $2 - but when you're a poor student trying to be frugal, sometimes you don't really have another option. :P

They aren't all just "religious sickos." To make the war seem just by dehumanizing the enemy into "sickos" is tempting, but such rationalizations won't actually bring about justice. LK-true, and I wasn't implying the 1.3+ billion Muslims in the world are sickos, just the select few who are fanatical to the degree that they think killing themselves or their children to cast out the disbelievers/"occupiers" is a viable option, brainwashing at it's finest, lifelong religious rhetoric showing it's true power. First of all, most Iraqis don't fall into the group of people who do consider martyrdom to be an ideal to strive for. LK- True, I see them everyday, they smile and shake our hands and thank us for being here, that doesnt sell tv shows though... However, in the groups of Iraqis that do think so, it must be understood where that feeling is coming from (even if, upon analyzing it, we still find it personally revolting, as I do). They think of themselves as being in the midst of a defensive war. Other people came and wreaked havoc and destroyed their way of life (even the same majority who are glad that Saddam is gone, often say they would take him back if it meant they could be rid of their current American oppressors!) LK-yup, that is very disconcerting that they think they would be better off livng the life they had before, where as long as they didnt say anyhting against the governments daily cleansing and assaults on their women and children...they had a sorta stable life, or at least one they were used to living..sad how humans can become comfortable with that kind of travesty. and now they are trying to restore some order to their lives, through the means of temporary disorder to achieve a greater end. As in all war (not that this justifies it, but at least makes it understandable - an important distinction), atrocities occur for the "greater good". LK- I have stood over the bodies of dismembered children in the streets who came out smiling and crying before they blewup....nothing makes that okay. I'm not saying they're valiant; I'm saying they're human. I'm saying that the US army going in and "getting the terrorists" from each of the different groups - Sunni, shiite, kurds - won't actually change anything or improve the situation, because as we kill more people and the situation gets more "dire," more "terrorists" will rise up to take their place, LK-excellent point, and i agree, so what's the answer?..because terrorists are not all that significantly different from the general population (and this is true of terrorists in many various cultures, i.e. in Palestine or in Ireland just as much, according to research done in social psychology and in sociology). If we want to actually make a difference in Iraq, we need to reexamine what we're doign and take a totally different strategy LK-true, the problem is you can not diplomatically work with zealots who view the fact that we try to talk to them as a sign of weakness, and use our rules against us, they only understand one thing, death. LK-answered throughout, and nice to talk with an intelligent person who quantifies his statements. Yeah - I think we do agree on most of stuff :) I guess, the judgment call which is difficult to make, but where I do differ, is that I don't think we should be sending more troops to Iraq. I think that the more troops we send in, the more Iraqis resent the "occupiers" who are mostly there for the best of intentions, and the worse the situation gets. I think that it also isn't really the place of the US government or military to decide whether there should be three separate states (think North and South Korea... not that that worked out so well) or whether the different regions should work things out. What has been proven to combat terrorism? Well, very little, unfortunately. One fairly effective strategy is to not be terrified when terrorists commit terrorist acts, taking the power away from them; unfortunately, this isn't very practical, because it's not so easy to ignore the fact that your friends and family could be harmed at any moment. So what can we do? I'm not sure I can really offer a solution. Still, I think it would be better overall if we did try to phase out the American/int'l military presence in Iraq, and instead tried to increase humanitarian aid, and also maintain some peacekeeping troops to make sure no genocidal acts (or similar, even if they don't get the official title of genocide) are attempted. Edit: Btw, likewise :D it is quite nice to talk to someone intelligent about this subject :D

They aren't all just "religious sickos." To make the war seem just by dehumanizing the enemy into "sickos" is tempting, but such rationalizations won't actually bring about justice. First of all, most Iraqis don't fall into the group of people who do consider martyrdom to be an ideal to strive for. However, in the groups of Iraqis that do think so, it must be understood where that feeling is coming from (even if, upon analyzing it, we still find it personally revolting, as I do). They think of themselves as being in the midst of a defensive war. Other people came and wreaked havoc and destroyed their way of life (even the same majority who are glad that Saddam is gone, often say they would take him back if it meant they could be rid of their current American oppressors!) and now they are trying to restore some order to their lives, through the means of temporary disorder to achieve a greater end. As in all war (not that this justifies it, but at least makes it understandable - an important distinction), atrocities occur for the "greater good". I'm not saying they're valiant; I'm saying they're human. I'm saying that the US army going in and "getting the terrorists" from each of the different groups - Sunni, shiite, kurds - won't actually change anything or improve the situation, because as we kill more people and the situation gets more "dire," more "terrorists" will rise up to take their place, because terrorists are not all that significantly different from the general population (and this is true of terrorists in many various cultures, i.e. in Palestine or in Ireland just as much, according to research done in social psychology and in sociology). If we want to actually make a difference in Iraq, we need to reexamine what we're doign and take a totally different strategy.

But the problem is, the distinction between "good" ants and "bad" ants is quite difficult to make. Someone else suggested that you could just "Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly. " But you can't just try really hard and take down the terrorists - it's not just terrorists who are "the enemy" at this point. What is happening in Iraq is a complicated situation akin to a Civil War. There are Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations, and they mostly live in isolated communities from one another. The Kurdish "community" is practically its own nation already, Kurdistan, and we're still trying to fight that by "killing terrorists." But it's just not a black and white case. Is someone who is fighting this civil war automatically a terrorist? What about if they kill a civilian accidentally? What if they kill civilians intentionally in order to speed up the war (the US has done that as well - think Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? As soon as you view what is happening over there as akin to a civil war (which, really, IT IS), you realize how complicated things are. It's not so simple as good guys and bad guys. And the problem is that it's a complicated problem of Iraqi cultures and religions clashing, and the US knows very little about how to solve it. And yet we keep bumbling around over there, mumbling about terrorism, and we're just confusing the situation further. Here's a fact: most Iraqis don't like the US presence. Sunni and Shiite alike, they see Americans as oppressors. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Either way, it's clear that we aren't having the effect we intended. Are we there to help Iraqis, or are we there for our own reason? If all we're doing is picking out the terrorists who are opposed to us, then we should admit that to ourselves. But anyone who is still trying to justify our place in Iraq by how we must be charitable to the Iraqis and help out a burgeoning country in need of freedom, needs to get off their high horse and stop thinking they're so great and noble, and reexamine the actual situation.

In case any of you are interested, there is a professor at the University of Connecticut who is working on time travel right now. He has a theory, and he thinks that he might be able to create a "time machine" within 15 years. The Department of Defense has become interested in his work. Some people think he's crazy, but he is a real and actual physicist who has some idea of what he's talking about. Here's a very accessible article about some of his work: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html Also, here's something (also very accessible) published in my school newspaper about it: http://wesleyanargus.com/article.php?article_id=4726

Most attractive: I know it's cliche, but definitely someone's eyes. If you're talking to someone and looking into their eyes, there's just either this intense attraction or there isn't. It's not the colour of the eyes, it's just... staring compatibility? I don't know, I can't describe it. But it's somehow very sensual. Least attractive: Feet. I just really can't deal with them. Also, I really just can't stand people who are overly muscley. Also, on women, I'm really extremely attracted to the hourglass curve of the body. On men, sexy grabbable hair is very attractive.

Yes yes yes yes :(

New York City seems less segregated and more hopping with things to do 24/7 to me. I'm hoping to live in NYC :D

I consider myself flexual. While I am primarily interested in men (or at least have had the most experience with them), I am open to other relationships (physical or emotional) with all genders (male, female, and also outside of the gender binary)

Well, I mean, I think there's a point to the fact that we shouldn't tokenize him for his blackness, but rather appreciate him for his own unique viewpoints and perspectives.

I'm worried that in the terrible pattern of Howard Dean, his campaign would continue to gain steam for a while on the "progressive" bill, but then people would realize they don't actually know what he stands for, and look toward someone else (perhaps a dark horse candidate, like Chris Dodd). This would be a shame, because I quite like Obama. His platforms on education and prison reform really appeal to me, and are pleasantly surprisingly progressive for a presidential candidate. Also, he is as charismatic and (hopefully - remains to be seen) as intelligent as Bill Clinton - traits that have been sorely missed, IMO, in the years of George W. Bush (though Bush does have other redeeming qualities.)

The only shampoo / conditioner system I've used in ages is: V05 Oasis "Soothe and Smooth" with honey and almond. :D It smells amazing, is relatively cheap compared to many, and is one of the only conditioners that makes my hair totally manageable. (It is evil and thick and long and wavy :() It also isn't tested on animals :D (It must say so on the bottle for me to use it)

I love the smell of VANILLA :D I also kind of like the smell of body odor - at least when I'm around people I might be attracted to. It seems very natural and kind of sexual to me, and kind of turns me on :D (If this is inappropriate, feel free to delete this bit, mods :x)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There are plenty of psychologists who will say that it's not necessarily bad to grow up without a mom and a dad. Are all single mothers forced to find some dude to marry? Do all their kids wind up delinquents? Certainly not. One of my best friends was raised by a single mother, and is one of the top students in her class at a top liberal arts college, and has a healthy relationship with her boyfriend of 2 years. Historically, slavery has existed. Why change that? I'm sorry - I can understand some anti-gay-marriage arguments, even when I disagree with them, but yours are just painful to read. I agree. Much more important to prevent murder than not give rights to loving couples. Woo pro-life :D

Err, I think the majority of those who have posted so far have kind of missed the point... I think it's fine for ridiculous legislation to be proposed in order to prove a point. It helps bring to the forefront the hypocrisy and illogical rationale for banning gay marriage.

Have a good life living near me and all :D Who knows - maybe I'll run into ya and never even know it

I'd like to change my name to my husband's. Double-barreling it gets so messy - I think I'd like to keep it simple. Also, my last name begins with "W," which is quite annoying because you're always one of the last to be called for anything ;) Also, I'm kind of a traditionalist when it comes to gender roles (for my own personal life - not to force those standards upon others), and would like to live the role of a good, traditional wife.

It's really helpful to just go to a library. It just feels like a place where work gets done, psychologically, and then you do it :D

That's actually really not true. I think you're another person who would benefit from seeing the 2006 documentary "Iraq in Fragments." I was actually able to see it this past Wednesday, and the director spoke afterwards - after living with Iraqis (Kurds, Sunni, AND Shiite) for two years and following their daily lives and documenting them on film, he said that most Iraqis really just feel the continued US presence is threatening and they view it as an occupation. Most of them were happy that Saddam was toppled, but many viewed the American occupation is worse, because at least Saddam was honest about oppressing them. These are not my words; these are theirs and James Longley's (the director's). The movie is pretty impartial, but upon speaking to Longley afterwards, after he immersed himself in Iraqi culture for two years, I respect Longley's assertion that the best thing for the Iraqis right now would be immediate withdrawal of American troops. That won't solve all the problems (Iraq might still be split into three countries, which Longley admitted would probably just cause more problems and wasn't the best solution either), but it's better than what we have now.