The13thMan

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Also I do wonder how much aliens could possibly achieve by regularly probing humans. At this point it's clearly entertainment for them, rather than science. :drunk:[/font][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Hey, it's just as entertaining to me as it is for them! I laugh my *** off about it all the time! Get it?! As for time going on longer than we thought, i don't know, but i kinda doubt it. We know how old the universe is today because all the stellar objects that we can observe have a certain velocity (unless of course they're stuck in orbit). And if we reverse that velocity they all come back to a single point in space at a single point in time. This is how the big bang theory came about. There's actually a person out there who believes that the current state of our economy is actually much better than it actually is because of a virutal reality created by aliens. And in reality we're all like in these messed up worlds or in the matrix or something insane like that. That guy really [B]is [/B]a nut job![/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']Aw, heck yeah!!! Wait...maybe that's not too much of a good thing... Yeah, but...I was recently watching a special on people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. And my verdict? THEY WERE ALL NUT-JOBS!!! So I think I can at least say that I don't believe aliens have ever visited us.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Isn't it funny that all the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are nut jobs? They're always like backwater rednecks with poor grammar. "'Dem aliens done took my baby! They took meh baby!" That's my impression of one of them. Either aliens are super smart and have realized that we won't listen to these nut jobs or these nut jobs are really just nuts. I said "nut" in this post too many times...[/FONT]

[quote name='lunar']Which is best: A job you enjoy doing but doesn't pay alot of money or a job that causes alot of stress yet pays alot of money?[/quote][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]The question kind of leaves out a lot of other stuff out, but it's cool. If i were to answer your question as is then i'd say i'd choose the job i enjoy with little money. I already live on a fairly small amount of money. The first option is simply adding a job that i enjoy. The second option makes me super stressed but gives me some money... i don't honestly know what i'd do with a lot of money beyond some basic things. I'd buy a guitar, a car, and i'd travel with people. That's all i can imagine i'd buy with lots of money. And i can get those things in moderation with the first job. So yeah, i want to do something i enjoy. Hopefully i'll get both with biomedical engineering. I really love science, anatomy fascinates me, and i think engineering is the most practical use of science. And biomedical engineers get payed by the truck load! =P[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']I'm right in the middle of YES and NO. There could be, there could not. I suppose that if they existed and came to visit us, I'd be suspicious and avoid them like the flu. And if I couldn't avoid them, I'd be fine as long as they didn't touch my stuff. They bother me, poke me, or take anything of mine and they'll be so dead that the body will rot ahead of time. Or maybe that'll just be an alien thing...:animedepr[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Hah, i can imagine you killing an alien for getting too close and starting an intergalactic war. You will be forever remembered in human history (if there is one after the war's over) as the one who started it all - domino number 1. [/FONT][quote name='Vicky'][size=1]The problem is with humans we're insanely arrogant. We think we've got the Universe in a nutshell and, therefore, we've figured out the answer (like you said Maths doesn't change in the Universe - that's a human assumption). Our understanding might be completely wrong - you said that there's 'only elements in our periodic table'. How do you know? How do we know? We haven't even been outside the confines of our own solar system. We use telescopes and science - [i]human[/i] understanding - to make sense of something we can never touch or see with the naked eye. That, and, our own senses often deceive us. I just think as a species we're very limited and set in the 'science proves all' theories. Science is our understanding, and it can make sense of the planet we live on, but the Universe is another story. That's why I think aliens are out of our wildest imagination, because we're too confined to our own little world of science and human knowledge that we probably wouldn't be able to comprehend anything that slightly breaks the laws of our 'truth'. A lot of what we [i]think[/i] is logical and true could very well be completely stupid. Which pretty much neglects most of what I said in the first paragraph or so of my previous post, but I still stand with this explanation. The Universe might not even be that big at all - maybe it really is only as far as our eyes can see. Give it a few millenia then maybe human understanding and our ability to make sense of things can be trusted. As of now, we've got nothing.[/size][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I think it's arrogant of you to claim that our current understanding of the universe makes us arrogant. I say this because i'm quite certain that you do not know all of the current science about our universe. This isn't a, "you don't know science, haha" thing, it's that nobody can know all the science in all the science textbooks we've got out right now. I doubt that you understand the amount of evidence that we have and the thoroughness of our understanding of the universe currently. How do i know that the elements on the periodic table are basically all there is? Well, first off, by definition if we were to discover a new element it would go on the periodic table of elements. Secondly because of the way its organized and its power to predict elements we have yet to discover. I'm sure you've heard of this, but if you haven't then ask and i'll tell you. Why do i think the physics of the universe apply for all places in the universe? Simply because all the points in our universe that we have observed have shown that the physics are the same. What evidence is there that physics works differently in different parts of the universe? None, really. Sure, there's physics out there that we do not understand and are trying to figure out (the LHC coming online can atest to that), but so what? That does not mean that the physics in other places do not work or would be different. You're exhibiting the ad ignorantium logical fallacy. [quote name='SGU']Ad ignorantiam - The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft. [/quote] I understand your skepticism. Your skepticism alone is quite healthy and i commend it. But added with the logical fallacy and you've gone and turned the healthy skepticism into something different. Bottom line is that the amount of evidence that the laws of physics in our universe acts the way that we understand it is greater than the amount of evidence that the laws of physics changes or are different throughout the galaxy. Therefore, if one were to believe in that which shows more evidence, one would believe that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. If you want to add skepticism to that, then go for it, i sure as hell do. So to wrap this back into the deal with aliens, i think that the way aliens will look and possibly develop [B]are [/B]within the realms of our imagination. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I should really really be studying... but, naw. To gavin: Well, you kept saying that it depended upon their intentions. I guess the next logical question is, what do you think their intentions would be? Keep in mind that copping out by saying, "Oh, there is no way I could ever know!" is totally lame. And feel free to organize my questions however you want next time. To Vicky: I don't understand why you think they'd be completely outside of the realm of our imagination. Certainly you could say that they'd probably be extremely different than ourselves, but out of the realm of imagination? I don't think so. There are only so many forms that life can take on. There are only as many elements in our universe as the ones in the periodic table of elements. That said, i do think they'd be pretty odd. But there are certain universal laws that limits the possibilities of what is and is not possible. I also don't understand why you don't think they'd be able to communicate with us or vice versa. Have you ever seen the movie Contact? The aliens in that movie communicated through mathematics. 1+1=2 true, 1+1=0 false. That sort of stuff. There are, as i've already said, things that do not change in our universe. One of those things is mathematics. But i do understand where you're coming from, slightly. I read a book once where there was an alien species that communicated through manipulating DNA. They would send DNA to one another that would have a physiological effect on the other being and that would be their message. But then the real question that comes up is whether these creatures could be considered intelligent or not. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Holy Crap!!! Hah, that's just what you have to say if you ever hear anyone scream, "Aliens!" It's required... What do you guys think about aliens? Do you think we've been visitied? Do you think they exist? Would you like them to visit us if they do exist? What sort of crazy alien technologies do you think their could be? Would you be one of the crazy people protesting at the top of a NYC building like in Independence Day (waiting to get vaporized)? Do aliens frighten you? I don't want this to only be a question and answer thread. I'd like it if a decent debate got going about a number of these questions. I personally don't believe aliens have ever visited us. There isn't currently any sufficient evidence for me to believe that we've been visited. I do think they exist somewhere in the universe. I also think it would be incredible if we were visited. I welcome them! Because of the physical limitations of our universe i don't think we ever will see aliens. The universal speed limit is the speed of light, which means for any ET to visit us they'd have to have been traveling for a very long time... otherwise they'd be hiding from us. Though... the book Ender's Game did bring up an interesting concept - faster than light communication. Basically, in the book, there was a natural phenomenon that occured called philotic twining where one particle interacted the same as another somewhere else in the universe regardless of the distance between them. I've heard recently of a quantum phenomenon called quantum entanglement that seems similar. I'm no quantum physicist, so i don't know if you'd ever be able to use quantum entanglement practically, but it's fun to think about. I had a conversation with a good friend of mine, and he said that he'd be afraid of aliens visiting. He thinks they'd likely be hostile. I disagree with him. If aliens were advanced enough to have acquired interplanetary travel then i'd imagine their society to be peaceful enough for the science to have come that far. Of course, it's pure speculation... So, what do you guys think?[/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I love that you whipped out the dictionary to school my ***. I sincerely ask for a clarification on something that you said and you condescend to me. How typical. =P You still think that the christian faith has changed a reasonable amount since its creation... ok, why? Keep in mind that 2000 years is a long long time. ...Actually, nevermind. I really don't want to argue this point with you. It would be completely fruitless and i haven't got the time. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I usually skip breakfast. But this is mainly because i wake up 20 minutes before class and just don't have time for breakfast. I've tried getting up earlier, it just doesn't work. Breakfast isn't enough motivation. Breakfast in the evening time, on the other hand, is pretty great. Actually, i'd say i prefer breakfast in the evening. Then your apetite is at its maximum and breakfast food is good food. I do not drink coffee. I don't like it at all. It makes me uneasy. If i'm ever tired and drink coffee i never feel more energetic. I just go a period of time feeling slightly uneasy then i'm tired again. Crap, i must be drinking the coffee wrong. [/FONT]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]...so I doubt more of that old tired canard will be trotted out except by the most overtly passionate, loud-mouthed, or radical of our kind.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Which are the ones we all hear about, regardless of the majority opinion. Those are the ones i'm interested in hearing. Not because i value their opinion... but because i need to giggle from time to time. Besiiiiides, i'm not really [I][U]that [/U][/I]ignorant. Most of my friends are religious and my best friend is a catholic. I just like to give ya'll crap. Feel free to throw some back at me time and time again. [/FONT]

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"]It's more likely that you simply forgot your password since your older account here: [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?u=14339"][U]Attimus331[/U][/URL] Isn't locked or banned. =P [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not sure, but i think i was thinking of a different one. Vash331? I'll give it a look-see. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I have a subscription to the New Scientist magazine and i tried finding the article Rach's link refered to but could not. Instead i found an oddly similar one. The one i read said they took stem cells from baby teeth and injected them into mouse testes to produce sperm cells. Some of the sperm cells produced resembled human ones, but some mixed with the mouse cells and were...weird. That aside, i think it'll be interesting to see it. It can be beneficial to anybody that cannot have a baby on his/her own. I'd love to see how the churchs and various religions of the world see this. Science gone horribly wrong! When will man learn not to play God?! Oh lord! Ah, fooey. Either way i think the science is a long way off before any of us sees any practical use of it... if ever. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I think my last account was locked up by a mod for some various reason. I guess i've got a knack for either pissing people off or breaking rules that i don't agree with. A mesh of the two? So i needed a name in a hurry to reply to some person's idiotic opinion on one of the threads. The first thing that popped into my head was the name that i currently use. I had in my head some romantic idea of the 13th man left alive after some sort of dirty conflict. Or maybe i simply am the 13th of 6.some-odd billion people on this planet and decided to let that sort of irony play out in my name. Either way, i grow tired of it... but i don't want to change it because all the posts that i've posted are linked to this name. Perhaps i will though, anyways.[/FONT]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I don't intend to really reply to your post and this obvious problem with your logic that really isn't logic explains it: Religion hasn't changed in 2000 years according to your post. Interesting to know that you understand ALL religions well enough to be able to state that. For starters, witch hunts and crusades are in the past. The Salem witch trials no longer happen. Women not only have the right to vote, they often do more than their husbands do and can even hold political positions of... Wait I forgot, you said they haven't changed, silly me. Or is it silly you? Try to be a bit smarter with your comeback dear. Try and actually [I]learn[/I] about the religion that you are claiming hasn't changed in 2000 years. Because I have a serious news flash for you. The LDS church hasn't even been around for a Millennia let alone 2000 years.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]So your single rebuttal to all the points that i have made thus far is to attack a statement i made after misunderstanding it? Bravo, i do say, bravo! When i asked the question how long it took the church to accept a well proven scientific theory i was not being cynical or joking. It was to show that i understand that my statement is false when taken completely literally, as you have. Of course there have been changes, changes in the technicalities of different situations, but not the actual core behavior. Christians (and many of other faiths) are still as arrogant and stubborn as ever. Refusing to pass out condoms when it's painfully obvious that it would be better (all the proof is there) is an amazing testament to just how right i am. If my post is so rife of fallacious logic then please point it out. Otherwise i will not and cannot debate with you anymore. If i did, it would be just as one sided as getting down on my knees by my bed and praying to the good lord himself. And we both know i don't waste my time with [I][U]that[/U][/I]. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]That video kicks ***. That link's pretty bomb diggity too. [/FONT]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Africa seems to be the catch phrase of why any and all religion should toss out their core beliefs systems when it comes to sex education. I've heard that argument so many times. Plus at the same time, you're veering off on a tangent here instead of sticking to the topic. Which is sex education for teens and pre-teens. People who by law are considered unable to give consent to having sex in the first place. [/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It may be a "catch phrase" but stating it so does not invalidate the point Retribution made. Neither does the amount of times that you have heard the argument. I think it's unclear as to who these condoms are being passed out to. I read Retribution's posts and i didn't get the impression that these condoms would be handed out to people that can't have sex in any situation. Of course, this differs from state to state. My understanding is that in most states there is an age of consent, maybe 16 or 18, and a 2 or 4 year grace period. Say, a 15 year old can have sex with a 19 year old with a 4 year grace period, but not a 20 year old. I've also been told there's an age limit for a person to have sex at all, maybe 14 years old. Of course, i'm unclear on the laws in states other than my own so if you'd like to clarify for me then i welcome it. [/FONT] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom'] So to turn around and admonish any religion for not handing out condoms to someone who by law shouldn't be having sex in the first place is what's contradictory and hypocritical. It would be silly of them to encourage them by placing the means to avoid STD's in their hands and send them on their way. You know damn well that any parent of a kid who got pregnant or got an STD would then turn around and sue said religion for giving them the condom/contraceptive in the first place. [/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I agree that it would be hypocritical to hand out condoms to people who cannot legally have consensual sex in any circumstance, but if they can then it would not be hypocritical in the sense that you meant there. I don't know whether a parent would sue a "religion" for passing out condoms or not... but it doesn't matter. Doing so would be silly, and is a different problem. [/FONT] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom'] Tossing contraceptives in any form out there is like putting a one inch band-aide on a six inch gash. It might help a few people, but it doesn't address the real issue. Fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete is one step, and I'm in favor of that, but expecting [I]any[/I] religion to hand them the end means to do so is downright silly. [/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm sorry, i don't understand what you mean by "fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete." I don't think people are expecting religions to hand out condoms. I certainly know that i'm not. I'm just disagreeing with their methods, stating that i think they should pass out condoms instead of preach abstinence. I never expect much change from religions. I mean... the christian faith has been around for 2000 years and there still has been very little change. And really, the change only seems to come around when it's completely inevitable. How long did it take them to accept the world wasn't flat? [/FONT] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom'] And once one is an adult, that's something they can decide themselves if they plan on using them or not. So really, the argument here isn't about handing it out, it's about a more rounded education and blaming religion does nothing to fix it.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I see placing the blame as the first step of addressing the problem. And addressing the problem is the first step to fixing it. So, yes, i think placing blame is productive so long as it doesn't stop there. I do agree with you where you say it's more about educating people better. As Sir Francis Bacon put it, "Knowledge is power."[/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]A few people brought up the point that it's not the doll's fault as much as it is the parent's fault. This, to me, feels like a tu quoque logical fallacy. [quote name='SGU']Tu quoque - Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours." [/quote] I'm not certain if it's exactly the same thing, perhaps someone could help me. Regardless, i wanted to say that yes it could be moreso the parents' fault but that does not excuse the faults of the doll. Regardless of what the parent does i think the doll is intrinsically in fault here because of the way it looks and what it promotes. And i think it has more of an effect than people realize. When kids are young enough to play with dolls they're extremely impressionable. I do agree, though, that it is mostly the parents' responsibility to raise the child. If a parent thinks the dolls are messed up, then they shouldn't buy them. I sure as heck know i won't buy dolls for my girl unless i aprove of the message they're sending. I just didn't want that point to be misunderstood as an excuse for the dolls. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]If i understand you correctly, Gelgoog, then you're saying that we should at least feel a little responsible for the actions of 9/11 due to the role each individual citizen of america plays in his or her government? To that i have to almost completely disagree. I say almost, because perhaps we should feel a little bit responsible. But really, not a lot. Why do i say this? Because the terrorists that attacked us on that day were extremists attacking extremely. There was no way a person could have known that this was going to happen. By person i mean a typical individual not directly involved in intelligence gathering that might have actually received this sort of information pre-9/11. The persons we should place any sort of blame on are the ones that had the intel and took it less seriously than what protocal dictated. Keep in mind that the government or intelligence or whatever receives threats on a daily basis. You have to go on the information provided. Doing anything other than that would be irresponsible and foolhardy. That said, my heart goes out to the victims of 9/11 and anybody involved. I don't think, at this point, placing blame will do any real good. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it on an open forum like this. [/FONT]

[quote=Allamorph]Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh. It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/quote] [quote name='aaryanna']If they did that, they wouldn't be a religion now would they? And in their view, teaching abstinence is gearing their kids up for success based on their beliefs. The day religions start handing out condoms is the day I'll wonder if hell suddenly froze over or something equally as dramatic. o_O[/quote] [quote=Retribution]The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength. You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the spirit of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Retribution pretty much said it here, i think. I'll still throw in my two cents, though. When a person sees a problem that they desire to fix what route should they take? The quickest, most effiecient route? Or an inferior one constrained by ideology? Perhaps 'quick and efficient' isn't quite proper in describing the distribution of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. But it certainly is the better of the two, ideology aside. So then, why should we simply discard this obviously poor choice on the part of the christians simply because of what they believe? The bottom line is they chose the weaker of the two options and we, being the logical people that we are, should stand up and say something. Discarding it as just another silly thing that silly christians do is such a lame way to give up. Of course, there are other common situations with different religions that pop up. Just ask yourself how you feel about some of these more immediately dangerous choices. A Jehovah's Witness that needs a blood transfusion, or else that person will die. Creationists trying to teach creation in the science classrooms. Evangelists bringing false hope to sick people with faith healing. Christian scientists that refuse any medical treatment for their sick and dying baby. Actually, that last one is (in my opinion) by far the worst. Here's a link to a whole ton of cases where this actually happened: [URL="http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html"]http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html[/URL] And to save anybody the trouble of being pissed at me for making these harsh comparisons, let me just say, i know they're just that. Obviously a lot of those aren't as bad as christians not providing condoms. I was simply making a point and then got carried away. =D But back to the topic of abstinence only sex ed. Regardless of where we place the blame for the flaws in this program, it is above all most important to see these flaws and set out a plan to fix them. It doesn't matter whether there are a bunch of religious people backing it up with ideology or a bunch of nonreligious secularites that simply think it's superior, we know better than they do and we'll fight them to the end on it. ...How dramatic. [/FONT]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While it's a woman's body, a baby born or not is it's own person. Being an insane knuckle dragging right wing totalitarian, I believe that human life starts at conception and don't need to tell you that it's "above my pay grade" to believe it completely. Maybe it's because I was raised Christian, maybe it's because six women in my family have gotten pregnant out of wedlock and chose to keep their baby or give it up for adoption every time. Call me crazy.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I disagree. [/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] I believe abortion itself is a state's right's issue and I'm not going to advocate for the abolishment of the procedure. However I do have concerns about how some women are using it as its own form of birth control, some are given abortions without proper medical and psychological counseling beforehand, and babies that are sometimes born alive healthy or not are simply killed. Abortion is the most unregulated medical procedure in America today thanks to Planned Parenthood and American society's pathological fear of telling feminists and pro-abortionists that they need to be careful with how abortion is pitched.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not saying you said this, but i will point out that a person's poor use of abortion or the less than ideal practices of it are not valid reasons to abolish it. They are good reasons to improve on it and regulate it better. Which i believe is what you implied (if not directly said). If i read correctly.[/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Before you tell me that it's religious groups that are to blame, there are plenty of people who believe the same things Christians do without being crazy zealots for abstinence. They're referred to I believe as 'moral people.' [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Are you implying that those who do not believe in abstinence are immoral people? My point about religion effecting the current abstinence only sex ed is that christians support it and probably had a hand in coming up with it. Certainly there must have been some non-christians that felt the same way. But stating that there were others does not abolish those that are or were. But, for the sake of not pissing people off, i will say that it's not the christians and instead are the people who hold christian values (christian or not). Better yet, it's the people who impose christian values. That's really what abstinence only sex ed is doing, imposing the values of abstinence. Anyways, i read through all the posts, and i think a few of the points being made are irrelevant or are nonpoints. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I think the real question with Palin and her daughter shouldn't be whether abstinence only education works or not, but instead should be why Palin still supports it when she's got a prime example that it doesn't work right smack dab in her own immediate family. I mean c'mon! Open your eyes, Palin! Sorry... i just had to say something. Let me try to find a political funny now... ::rummage:: [IMG]http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/04/political-pictures-mccain-puppies.jpg[/IMG] Best i could do. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm pro-choice both in the political sense and the literal sense. A woman should be given the option to abort if she so decides. It's her body and all that jazz. Though, i do think it brings up the question of how much say should the father have in the matter. Some would argue just as much as the woman, others say it should be completely up to the woman. I don't know how fair this is... People say it's the woman's body. But that's just the birthing process. There's just as much DNA from the man as there is from the woman. It's still part of the man's body. Just... not in the same sense as it is for a woman. So i'm not quite sure where i stand on that matter. I guess the only advice i can give to a man who wants a baby is to make sure to impregnate a gal you know will be willing to birth your son. In other words, be in a healthy relationship. When i say i'm pro-choice in the literal sense i mean that i think a person has the right to make a choice once he/she is of a decent age. Regardless of what the choices are. I also believe that that person should be as informed as possible before making the choice. But i also think it should be the person's choice when to make that choice, be it at an informed or uninformed state. This is why i think sex ed in schools should be completely optional to students given parental consent. I'm not sure how it is now... i think it's something like that already. I think the majority of responsibility for providing good information with regards to sex should be up to the parents. But i don't think that issue's been brought up here, so i'll avoid it for now. I guess the main question in this thread is, "What material should be taught in sex ed classes in highschool?" I do agree that the abstinence only stance is naive and ultimately worthless for the typical teenager. But i don't think the option of abstinence should be completely ignored either. The reason i think sex ed fails as often as it does is because the people behind it are trying to make the choice of having sex or not for the teenager. They shouldn't be. They should instead simply be there to provide information so that said teenager can make an educated choice. Abstinence, safe sex, stds, everything should be taught. There should be no implication of whether it's alright to have sex or not. I partially think it's the infiltration of church into the schools that has influenced sex ed towards the abstinence end of the spectrum. It's a shame. I don't want to piss off any religious types, but i just hate it when religions try to make choices for other people, especially in public situations. [/FONT]

[quote name='Andrew'][size=1]It's just another thing we're never going to see in real life and just have facts, figures, half-truths and lies shoved in our faces like with everything else and then say what we've heard like it's our own opinion. ¬_¬[/size][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]This to me is very very sad. I'm a huge supporter of science education and the reforming of it in our public schools. Let's face it, science education is crap today. There are those few teachers out there that do their job well, but for the most part, it's total crap. The text books are absolutely abysmal. Kids often times just don't care. The large majority of people that come out of highschool have little to know scientific or critical thinking skills. And it's just sad! But i'll end rant right now since it's completely off topic. I have been following the lhc. I've only looked into it a little tiny bit. It's truly incredible, though. The protons that are shot around the rings reach speeds of up to 99.9999991% of the speed of light (i don't know if i got the amount of 9's right or not, but it's something like that). That's absolutely insane! I think most of all i'm interested in seeing if they find the Higg's boson, or the awkwardly named "god particle." Also, they're trying to understand why matter dominates over anti-matter, which i think ought to be interesting to know. There are just too many things that physicists are going to learn from this. I'm envious of those physicists that get to be there. It's practically my dream job. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]At first, i tried to think of any food i ever ate that made me throw up. That instantly made me think of white cheddar cheetos. ... I used to like them, now i can't stand them. One time i got sick and i ate a few of those and it made me want to throw up. So i just have a stigma against white cheddar cheetos. Now if i were to think of the most disgusting thing i've ever eaten (not because of any psychological stigma) i'd have to say... raw ginger or raw garlic is pretty nasty on its own. With all the fast food i've eaten i'm sure i've ingested some fecal matter. But i typically don't eat something if i know i will not enjoy it. If there's a chance i will then i probably will. But nobody can make me eat something stupid-gross like...say, a bug of any kind. Have you ever seen Bear Grylls on the discovery channel on man vs. wild? He eats all kinds of nasty crap for the hell of it! It just seems so unnecessary to me when i see him eat that stuff. [IMG]http://pjbottoms.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/beargrylls4.jpg[/IMG] And another one of Bear just for the heck of it. [IMG]http://www.stitthappens.com/images/random/bear_grylls_mordor.jpg[/IMG] [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]My name is nicholas, but my friends call me cinnamon buns. That's a lie... I wish they called me that, it's just so awesome! My only nickname is nick. Which, when i was younger, thought it was funny since my [B]nick[/B]name was nick... That's about it! Sometimes i call my little brother, zack, Zack-attack or jack. Zack-attack because of this old xbox game called Fuzion Frenzy. There was a character named zack who would say that all the time. Jack because my mom is Korean and sometimes she calls him jack instead of zack simply because of her accent. My friend, Stefan, is sometimes called stephanie. This too is because of my mom. I guess she's never really heard the name Stefan, but has heard the name stephanie. That one's a little funnier. I love my mom though, so in no way are these names meant to be mocking towards my mother. They're all in good fun. =D[/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]There's not a lot of slang that i can think of from good ol' Pleasant View, Tennessee. But i'll give it a go. Knoxvegas - Knoxville K-town - Knoxville PV - Pleasant View Ballin' - Awesome (often times used as a confirmation) Let's rock the casbah! - Just a sign of enthusiasm for whatever we're about to do. Bunk - bogus Don't pull a Hillary Swank! - I just made that one up... i don't know what it means. Sweetee? - Would you like a glass of sweet tea? Tits - nice Cash - nice Money - nice (Example: Yo, this new Wendy's Jr. Baconator is money!) That's all i can think of. [/FONT]