Ringer

They come from the food you eat, just like almost any other molecules and such. They do what every other ion would do in your body I would assume, though I can't say I've read up on it. They are probably used, some will be used as neurotransmitters or hormones, be broken down and either reused or metabolized and removed as waste. At least that would be my assumption.

Wiki can probably explain it better than I can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#Ions_and_the_forces_driving_their_motion

The movements of ions in and out of the cells are what create action potentials so they would be doing so while large amounts of, or any, brain activity are happening. As I said, though, the same things will happen to the ions being used by neurons as any other ion in the body that is being used by a cell. A single ion will not, so far as I am aware, be preserved any more than any other ion of that same type. since many neurons are dispersed throughout the body the ions that they use will travel throughout the body and be incorporated into different things. But if you mean a type of ion there are certain types of ion gated channels that work very selectively and will only work for certain types of ions or ion pairs.

I never really thought much about it but I would assume both. The resting potential is restored so the K+, Cl-, and Na+ are put back in their 'proper' places but they wouldn't be static. So they would move around and be used/absorbed by other neurons and be metabolized and all the other things that tend to happen to ions in cells. On the same token, though, once they are used doesn't mean they are no longer usable so they would still be usable for neuronal communication.

There are tons of things you could point out and say, our bodies would be better if . . . Natural selection doesn't work that way, though. Natural selection hasn't favored a 2 liver system in us because there wasn't a time in our evolutionary history where 2 livers was necessary, perhaps even substantially, better for survival.

This should probably be moved to the neuroscience sub-forum. Anyway, action potentials travel through the neuron by using ion gated channels throughout the axon. The ions will move into the neuron creating a difference in charge inside the cell than it's surroundings. The action potential will cause, if it's excitatory, the pre-synaptic neuron to release a neurotransmitter into the synapse. The transmitters will bind to the post-synaptic cell opening ion gates. If enough ion gates are opened to break the threshold of its resting potential another action potential will occur.

I was mistaken and I apologize for that. I agree that some people are unjustly treated differently because of being charged, but not convicted, of the crime, but that is a different conversation all together than the actual legal repercussions that are dealt out. Unless I am, again, mistaken that is what the topic of this thread is. I apologize if it's just me but I don't see how this changes my point.

Yes we did talk about bonobos, but we are not bonobos. There are very few species that rape of a female from almost all males are not at least attempted to be stopped. Chimp societies the males protect the females from rape if there are others around. The only primates that I can think of that rape happens fairly consistently without other primates within the group attempting to stop it is orangutans, and that's probably because they don't really for 'societal' groupings. The marriage thing is not all that unbelievable. Just because they don't have the christian ideologies of what we think of as marriage doesn't mean it's amazing, it is much like what teenagers and non-religious people in the western world do. So they don't force couples to have a long term, the Mosuos aren't the only tribe or society that practice walking marriages. So there's not divorce because there is no marriage but my point was this society is most likely not as ideologically pure as most people like to make them out to be.

You are not 'charged' unless you are convicted. Without conviction none of the things you state happen. It's not the presence of the fake ID necessarily, it the act of purposefully fooling someone into believing that the minor is of age. Thus being coerced into having sex with a minor. They aren't forced to put locks on their cars or their doors. I for one never lock my doors, nor do many of the people I know. The warnings, for the most part, aren't there because they are required, they are there to protect the company from being sued. Mostly companies are required to do that because 1.) They can harm people who are unaware what is inside the product 2.) The product can be harmful in general. You do realize that for a very long time most people denied that cigarettes were harmful at all.

I don't think it's an issue of making a distinct human/other animal species. I don't even think that would be realistically possible with the genetics of it (There's a reason we can't have kids with horses). The issue, as Brainteaserfan said, is probably mostly religious. People thinking that people aren't part of the animal kingdom and putting DNA, cell, or an embryo from a human into an animal would be an abomination to those types; regardless of the good it could do for medical research.

Oh they exist. My fiancee is a huge nerd, I just don't consider Twilight to be in the zone of nerdiness.

This only talks about what date rape is not about how harsh penalties are or anything you were talking about. Rape is rape and should be treated as such. Statutory rape is a different thing all together. I have had friends, yes multiple friends, be accused of rape for retraction of consent after that fact and, guess what, they were never convicted of rape because that's not rape. I haven't ever really had the fake ID thing come up in but I would assume, unless you have evidence otherwise, that they would not be convicted of statutory rape because they were lead to believe that the female was of age. Sexual impulses are completely natural, and so are violent impulses. But by your argument since women should avoid being alone with a male for fear of being raped I could say the same thing about violent impulses. If women should take responsibility for being in a situation that ends with them being raped, a wife should then take responsibility for being beaten because she was around her husband when he was in a bad mood. Both are wrong because the actions are wrong, it doesn't matter if they are 'natural'. On a side note I hate when people bring the word natural into arguments like this. Anything that happens is natural, you show me an example of something natural I can show the exact opposite and it is just as natural as your example. How is that not wrong? Why would you force someone to completely cover themselves instead of expecting someone else to respect them as a person? And not being alone with another man except her husband? So what about people that don't get married? Should they NEVER be alone with a man? I agree that it is dumb to put them on the sexual offenders list for having sex with a willing partner, but they broke the law. It sucks but you also get put on the sex offenders list some places if you pee outdoors. Like most things the offenders list was started with good intentions but ended up just going overboard. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's right. I'm sure there are millions of women that think it makes sense to not have to worry about being raped every time they were out. So when a girl goes into a bar with a short skirt on she should be able to be gang raped by all the men in attendance because she was dressed like she wanted to have sex, and drinking at a bar? Obviously this is grossly over-exaggerated but still, how do you dress for sex. Unless you are in lingerie or underwear you are not dressed for sex. And what situations are apt to lead to sex? Hanging out with a man that isn't your husband? If that were true I would have had sex with my fiancee way before we started dating. Your idea of a situation that is apt to lead for sex and being dressed for sex is way different than other peoples. So there could be a man that you are with that thinks that you just hanging out is one of those situations and you have clothes on that he thinks are attractive, is it your fault he raped you even though you didn't think you were putting yourself in that situation? What restitution? We are talking about rape, not willing partners. Statutory rape is just a bad term and not what most would think of as rape.

We talked about the culture from your link in my human sexuality class. From what my professor said, I haven't personally looked into it, it is much like how Margaret Mead said there was no rape or any thing akin to our gender roles in the societies she studied. Meaning there is rape, divorces, murder, etc. The people inside the society usually just hide it or the people reporting on it are falsifying. Think about the middle eastern country that doesn't have any gay people. Again I may be wrong that is just how my prof presented the story of that place.

What's with all this talk about rape lately? Anyway, Athena are you actually saying that because a girl under 21 gets a fake ID it's her fault if she gets date raped? Because I honestly hope that's not what your saying because that could just as easily apply to girls who are 21 and get drunk and date raped. You are right in that people should take responsibility for their actions, but, really, your saying someone should take responsibility that it is their fault for being raped because they were too drunk to fight it off. So then only the one who was raped should take responsibility for their actions.

No I'm pretty sure he is just confusing reality with ideology.

Where did this gecko go to med school to have such an amazing ability to cure. Joking aside, what studies have been done to see what chemicals the tokay gecko produces that would cure both AIDS and cancer because the only way I can think of that they are similar is that they both suck pretty bad.

It disturbs me that there is a Twilight question on a nerdy quiz but other than that it's pretty fun.

Being controversial and making things up are totally different.

Consciousness is just thought patterns. As I said action potentials would be disabled due to the cold temperature so no thought process would be executed. Short answer is they would not be conscious.

A person will be dead at far before absolute zero. If one were to survive no ion exchange could occur throughout the nervous system so no sort of thought process could occur (this would also cause death).

That's not what you have been asserting. How about you addressing everyone's call for evidence as well and not ignore the majority of my post.

So they are not treated preferentially, just that the punishment must be done by an individual of the same sex. Just like strip searches are done in the U.S. must be done by someone of the same sex. The clitorectomy is neither sexual-torture nor is it random (not that it's not terrible). It is a societal norm in some cultures that it be done to prove virginity and it is usually done by one's own mother. It is none of the things you assume it to be except to be unbelievably horrible. This is not molestation as I said before. So it doesn't show your assertions are right in any way. This is the last time I will ask, give sources for ANYTHING you have said.

That's why I said assume not said. You have not yet talked about if females are allowed to punish girls in a physical manner. And if they are, if they are allowed to do the same without having any fear of punishment themselves. Again the same problem. You are singling out men/girl punishment without giving examples of the opposite. Also, could you provide a link to the exact rules you are speaking of? The would be illogical if it were true. I train in various martial arts and have been to various martial arts schools. Every one I have been to this is a false statement. If you start training in a martial arts school you, or your parent, sign a waiver acknowledging you are engaging in martial arts training and all that comes with it. I have personally rolled with several females of varying ages and have never been accused of sexual harassment. The same thing happens for female wrestlers, I helped coach a Jr. High team while I was in high school, they wrestle with the males and the male coaches and it is not seen as harassment. Again they would be if you showed the opposite was untrue and show that what you are saying is true. [edit] When I say rolled I mean sparring in a Jiu Jitsu[/edit]

My point is that you are only assuming everything that is happening is done by men and not actions of both genders. While assuming that you are not providing evidence for these claims. I have no problem of punishment being gender-neutral, I have a problem with you assuming punishment is given out only by males. What gender specific restrictions exist about how male teachers may discipline male students but may not do the same to females? Yes you are saying that males are treated worse than their female counter-parts in similar situations, but do you have the evidence to support this. [sarcasm] Because I know when I hear about about a girl being molested I feel bad for her, but when it's a boy I know he's just a pansy[/sarcasm]

I'm sorry, I forgot the rules of the forum were, 'look up other peoples statements to make sure they are factual.'