-Demosthenes-

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

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.

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

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 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)."

I supose not.

The problem is that's not all that we have to worry about. Like the problems I talked about. What cdan we do until we figure a way to fix these problems? 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.

Only to be sent to the glue factory.

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?

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.

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.

You are beginning to see my point.

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

Seinfeld.

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?

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.

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