A Tripolation

Oh, so NOW everyone thinks running's a good idea. A few posts ago, I was the maniac endangering everyone's life by running places.

Ha, that was my reasoning too, except I didn't dare to bring it up since people acted like I wanted to run around with a machete in my hands randomly swinging it. And bicycles are for pansies. Oh, and Jill, cycling down a school hallway is quite possibly the most fun thing I've ever done. That's either incredibly awesome or incredibly sad. I still think people should start running everywhere. Seems to me like the world would be a better place that way.

Yes, of course. I don't mean blithely running around unaware of everyone else. I just mean in situations where you have room to run around. Ok, point taken people...running could be dangerous I suppose. But I'll be damned if I walk across the horribly long main-field again.

Now, I've been taught since I was little to "not run in the halls" and to "quit tearing around the store", but now, I really wonder why. I mean, there are so many times that it would be SOOO much quicker to just run somewhere. Why walk for 10 minutes when you can run and be there in 5? But, when I tried this at my uni to get to my class quicker, I get looks from almost everyone as if I'm some sort of loon. So I ask all you adults, why is it that society hates people getting to places quicker? I honestly don't see how someone running somewhere is bad, or why we teach our kids not to. Any thoughts?

Not that I'm taking anyone's side, but if that's the case, why even have a forum? How do you discuss scientific theories? I thought those were pretty much as factual as information gets. How do you argue against what has been proven to be as true as gravity? I think that Homer-16 was trying to say that he meant it as an idea, and not something that is able to stand up to the scientific method relative to the stuff that is published in all those journals that make my head hurt.

This is something I would definitely advise against. I took organic chem 1 & 2 online and it was a horrible experience. You are basically trying to learn on your own, and the instructor can only provide minimal guidance. Maybe I just suck at chemistry, but to me, Organic Chem is one of the classes that needs to be taken in person. But you should be fine taking General Chem as an online course. I didn't even attend most lectures, as it was mostly stuff I covered in 10th grade, so I'm guessing it will be like that for you too.

Kid, math and science are pure evil. Run far far away and never look back. Hm, have you looked into your school's Advanced Placement program? Almost every high school has some sort of honors or AP course system that provides more challenge to the more gifted students. There was a sophomore in my AP Calculus class, so they pretty much let you in if you can prove that you can do the work. Well, at least at my old high school.

Yeah, but don't democrats outnumber conservatives now? What with them being the majority in government, which means more people vote democrat than republican, right? And the assumption is that liberals are more "intelligent" than conservatives, so what's there to worry about? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

C'mon guys...you gotta admit that it was pretty funny. Why do you all care when no educated person believes that Fox News is balanced?

Ok. What straight single guy would turn her down? There Nice, Severian.

QFT. I mean, dam. What straight guy would turn her down?

.Love the hair style. I don't know how to describe that face. She's just hot. And auburn/red hair would make her even hotter.

Pure Awesome, Mr Skeptic. Props on that one.

Not true. If there could be a COMPLETE disconnect, and the child wasn't being harmed in any way by the consumer, then I have no reason to be against it. But, this scenario can never be true, thus, I will always be against the viewing of child pornography.

Actually, I'll say this. I support punishment of viewers of child pornography because I'm angry that I couldn't stop the child from being abused in the first place. And again iNow...a lot of people here have explicitly stated that they cannot see an incident in which there is TOTAL disconnect between producer and consumer. Your arguments only hold when that is true, a fact you keep on casually ignoring.

Wait, wait, wait...don't I pay taxes to make sure this doesn't happen?

Oh wow. EVERYTHING is an arbitrary social construct. If you want to view it all nihilistically like that, then your "inherent human rights" are just manifestations of your wants and needs on a material level. And many people HAVE defined what they consider a human. For me, it's when the fetus (which matches human DNA to around...oh...100%), starts to develop into a recognizable human. Now, I realize that's not all science-y, but it still fits into a general area of development. Mokele, this is how I see it. So, let's say that there was some sort of species that was just as primitive as a fetus, and they would turn into a human in nine months. If they belonged to no one, and I decided to kill them all, going by "pro choice" logic, I'm guilty of no crime whatsoever. I can do what I want so long as it harms no humans. That's my right.

My logic no longer holds under your assumptions, no. I guess you missed this: That's a mighty big thing to just "accept" iNow.

Oh, I love this arguement. Such a favorite amongst pro-choice groups (as if we're not all pro-choice to some extent). Thing is Mokele, I would consider cancer surgery illegal if the cancer cells would turn into a human within 9 months. And do you really feel that the father ought not and have ANY say over whether or not his contribution will get the chance to become a human? That's just plain misandry right there. All I'm saying is that if I got a girl pregnant, and she wanted an abortion, I would fight against it with every fiber of my being. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? What if I assume all expenses and she gets to have nothing to do with the child? I find it hard to believe that this doesn't have a semblance of humanity. If cancer cells looked like that, and would leave your body in nine months, I would be against removing them.

This is spot on. Instead of sitting down and voicing their concerns to the democrats in a mature manner, they resort to this and make all conservatives look like idiots. But I also have to wonder if the democratic party would have the maturity to listen and compromise, if the republicans did the same.

That's fairly accurate. Except for the first two on the "Then, moving on:" section. I can't disagree using the argument I've been using, but I think it should be disallowed because it is a deplorable thing to do, and I say 99.9% of humanity agrees with me. But, couldn't you also argue that people who view it for free more than once are most likely going to end up paying for it? Isn't that the whole "first sample of drugs is free" mentality? Like Cap'n said, I don't think the total disconnect between consumer and producer exists.

I believe something along these lines. I seriously doubt the people that make CP available in various forms are doing it as a "hobby". They have what I would think would be a highly profitable niche (because of the fact that they would be SEVERLY punished for getting caught) and they are doing it as a job.

Perfectly stated Cap'n Refsmmat. iNow, how my idea (that is based on the principals of supply and demand) less valid than your assumption that S/D doesn't apply to C.P.? Hm' date=' that is an interesting point. The [i']only[/i] time I ever saw a child being killed (the actual showing of the killing) was in the recent Rambo movie, which was quite possibly the bloodiest movie I've ever seen. But, even then, it wasn't just gratuitous violence. In an interview, one of the writers said that that scene in the movie was designed to make you HATE the rebels, and not to just show a child being killed. And I must say, it worked for me, as that scene made me literally hate those actors.

There WOUDLN'T BE A MOVIE, were it not for the fact that the producers are EXPECTING PEOPLE TO WATCH IT. The idea that PEOPLE WILL WATCH IT leads to it being PRODUCED. Stop dodging that fact and address it. If nobody went to see the original Saw, then there most certainly wouldn't be like 5 sequels.

This is my response to you Cap'n. Enjoy