Sorry, if I said anyone who likes guns is a bad person, I didn't mean to say that. I don't think I said that though.

You're right, more children die from other things. However, I'd argue that playgrounds are very important for playing, and playing is very necessary for kids. I do not think the dangerous out weight the benefits, and I think that safer design schemes can be explored.

Guns, however, are an unnecessary recreational activity that everyone can do with out. The argument is out there that guns don't provide any significant means of protection, especially when quitting smoking, drinking less, eating less, and exercising more are probably better measures to ensure one's safety and good health. In addition, it is arguable that a ban on guns would make society safer overall because even criminals would have a harder time getting their hands on guns.

You're not entirely correct on that one. First, if guns were more difficult to acquire, much fewer criminals would have them. Not every criminal has the means, knowhow, or money to get into the black market. Second, I'd bet that in most places, you are probably more likely to encounter an armed criminal when outside your house, and since having a gun on you in public is, I think, illegal, it probably wouldn't help you. Also, when you're in your house, you probably won't be robbed by too many armed robbers. I think most breaking and entering happens with criminals trying to pull a quiet and uneventful job, don't you? So, the armed criminals you refer to probably don't fit the description even when you're in your house.

As for the Bill of Rights...
From Wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights:

1. Congress must protect the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, and freedom of religion. Congress cannot promote any one religion more than others.

Speech - Patriot Act violated this right.
Press - Fox, CNN, NBC are controlled by corporations who restrict what is shown to the American people.
Promotion of religion - Our government, and congress, clearly favor Christianity over other religions. For example, in recent years, it was voted that the Ten Commandments should be hung in Congress. It can be argued that this promotes Christianity over other religions.

3. The government cannot put a person on trial for a crime until a grand jury has written an indictment...The government must follow due process of law before punishing a person or taking their property.

This says nothing about anything having to be within US borders, so it looks like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib are clear violations.


...you know, I can go on about the Bill of Rights. Seeing as the US government has already broken on several occasions parts of the Bill of Rights, I really don't see why removing the clause about guns is such a problem.

That's good thumper. However, if most people were like you, accidents like the one we are discussing wouldn't happen. Your comment still says nothing about people who get guns to use for bad purposes.

And also, although you'd definitely be a different person without guns in your life, you would still find plenty of fun things to do. Guns are hardly a necessity as far as hobbies are concerned.

Again, I disagree. Most people are ignorant of gun safety, and in fact, most children are ignorant of gun safety. What's more, even a child who has been educated about gun safety is still clumsy and forgetful.

Even if it is a person who caused an action, it doesn't mean that the mechanism of action - the gun in this case - still cannot be blamed. It is generally a good idea to assume people will do stupid things and go from there, especially when safety is concerned.



That is a twisting of words, nogames39: I did not say that all guns kill people; I implied that the accessibility of guns makes it easy for these sorts of accidents to happen.

That's also a non sequitur. All guns kill people says nothing about people killing people. To say that all cups were meant to hold things is not akin to saying that all people were meant to hold things.

Finally, the "Guns don't kill people - people kill people" isn't to be taken literally. Of course an inanimate object cannot spontaneously jump up and shoot someone in the face. I don't think anyone ever argued that it did. That's one reason why the argument is lame - it states the obvious to make a valid point, yes, that it's people's aggression that is dangerous, but it missing the fact that accidents with guns are totally possible. What's more, the accessibility of guns makes it easier to intimidate and kill others. Two examples of this is that it is much harder to rob an entire bank with only a knife. It is much harder to go into a school and kill 30 classmates with only a knife.

Yes, but it's not so easy to kill someone by accident by strangling or with an amphetamine capsule, a chain, etc. However, with a gun, accidents, especially with children, have happened more than enough to cause alarm. Thus, you're missing a vital part of the equation, which is that in these situations, we are not dealing with murder, we are dealing with an accident.

And again and again, we hear this better parenting argument, or this safety argument. If everyone was so responsible or such a good parent, hardly anyone would feel they needed guns in the first place would they? The whole reason for guns is for safety against an aggressor. Well, our crime rate would be lower if people were more responsible or were better parents. The argument is self-defeating.

What's more, do you think the child who pulled the trigger maliciously shot his friend in the face? Do you think that if the gun had *not* been there, this accident would have happened with, say, a length of string or a baseball bat? No, it was the presence of the gun that made this tragedy more probable. Kids are naturally curious, especially about what they "aren't supposed to handle," so finally, it's civilian access to guns in general that is the problem. Finally, guns do kill, even if there is no malicious intent.

One more thing: Heroine, porn, and torture and gas chambers are also inanimate. However, I don't think everyone would give any of these items two thumbs up. The "Guns don't kill people - people kill people" argument is and has always been lame.

boo2u posted the article:
http://www.wiretapmag.org/race/31727/

I find it telling that Morgan Freeman, and reportedly, some "black intellectuals," as well as others, make these sorts of statements. It just says to me that these Black people don't read many history books. That or they don't know too much about their own history or about their current situation. After all, Black people are still much lower economically than Whites.

...that said, I do feel like I can come up with some reasons why there are Blacks who make this sort of statement. However, I would think they'd retract the statement in good time unless pride gets in the way.

What's more, I think we should never get rid of this Black History Month. Even when the socioeconomic situation of black people is on-par with Whites, I feel a culture should always have a period when it remembers the injustices it has committed, especially an injustice as grievous as slavery!

On that note, I think we should have a Native American History Month, don't you? Millions upon millions of Natives were maltreated and killed as the result of European and American expansion. The Trail of Tears seems like rosy good times when compared to the rest of Native American maltreatment at the hands of Whites. T_T

1) Everyday is White History Day - many Western textbooks focus on a White-centric history.

2) White people are the uneducated majority, not the uneducated minority. Minorities often face racism and adversity in the world, as well as a general disadvantage due to poorer upbringings, especially the children of immigrants.

3) I don't really watch TV, so you got me. However, you'd probably find that most Western entertainment targets a predominantly White audience. Ethnic protagonists are certainly less - no Black James Bond, no Hispanic House, no Arab Dorian, no Asian Jack Bauer. If there are ethnic people, they tend to be in supporting roles. Thus, one might go as far to say that most channels are "White Entertainment Channels." --->>> FOX NEWS certainly is aimed at White people, simply because the Republican base is overwhelmingly White.

4) Thanksgiving Day, at least on the final Thursday of November as we celebrate it today, was begun by Lincoln. If you like, you can think of that as Lincoln Day. ;-)



Maybe I should have read her post first? lol
Anyhow, I suppose my post helped to flesh things out a bit, don't you? ^_^

P.S. I had to look up the names of themain characters of the TV programs I referenced!

haha hoho heehee...

Since when have "should" and "should not"s applied to people? Breaking and entering *should not* happen, but it does. Thus, people feel like they need protection in the form of guns.



Again, with something so dangerous and arguably unnecessary as guns, one can ask, why even take the chance? Is your gun really worth more to you than your child's life? What's more, we are humans and mistakes happen. Even adults sometimes accidentally shoot other adults (Cheney recently).

To be fair, the same argument could be made against cars, but these vehicles are necessary. Second, the same argument could be made against alcohol and cigarettes, and I agree that these substances, in a better society, would be banned. Both substances have done so much damage to lives, but they are still aroundis. This is so, I guess, because of their widespread use, because these substances are very much so a part of the world's cultures, and because there are many companies that make a killing (i.e. a lot of profit) off the sales.

Sorry, what are the advantages? The only advantage I can come up with is safety against burglary, and there's a simple argument against that:

If you're not close to where your gun is when you hear someone breaking in, you may not be able to get to your gun. Second, if the burglar is already in your room, you won't have time to get to the locked-up gun.

Here are two alternatives:
1) Keep your valuables someplace safe and away from where a burglar would have easy access for god's sake! And realize that someone stealing your big screen is better than you shooting another human being! Seriously, relax - it's just a T.V.. Next, keep a metal baseball bat in your room. If someone breaks, hide to one side of your doorway. If the burglar enters your room, just beat him over the head, lols.

2) In the US, you don't need a license to buy a BB gun in most states (I think). If you use that gun on a burglar, he'll probably freak out about being shot at and leave.
3) Buy a bunch of throwing knives and practice everyday for 30 minutes. Sure, a kid can cut himself with a knife, but it's unlikely that he'll slit his own throat. Plus, you're going to be keeping these weapons locked up, right? And for good measure, you can coat the knives with some sort of hot sauce! That'll really burn!
4) Buy and train with a bow & arrows. Most kids won't even be able to pull the string.
5) Invest in a good security system.
6) Move to a good neighborhood.
7) Look at 1) again, lol. I think it's your best bet.

I think you're asking too much of people to be smart enough to do things safely. I don't think the ownership of a gun should be legal.

Though I know a few excuses why guns are still legal, it still strikes me that such a dangerous object is allowed when marijuana is not. This is not to argue for the legalization of marijuana (an issue which I have not totally decided on), but to argue for the banning of gun sales.

Initially, I was going to disagree with FearandLoathing outright, I think I agree.

If you find yourself wanting to date someone who has a bunch of kids with different fathers/mothers, just go slow with that person. Nothing is forcing you to have sex, so give him/her a chance and go slow. I imagine that in most dating situations, there is no need to be in a hurry to get in bed.

The discussions above, however, lead to judging the person. Many of the judgments may be accurate (many children, many fathers point to carelessness), but it's always better to go into a relationship, romantic or not, with not too many negative prejudgments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

It is understandable if you do not trust Wikipedia as a source. However, if you scroll all the way down, you'll find ample reliable news sources, books, etc. Note that when they say homosexuality in animals, they mean the full gamut: from affection to parenting to male on male anal sex.



I must disagree: Not liking this private school's judgment as well as the Supreme Court's judgment is the point. We make no law about hindering the free exercise, but we also have laws protecting the free exercise of this and that. I contend that freedom of sexual preference should be protected as well, and that discrimination against LBGT individuals should be illegal in all institutions.

As for churches marrying LGBTs, I agree with you. Oddly enough - that is, in light of the above paragraph - I do not think the government should force unwilling churches to marry LGBT individuals. Either way you slice that issue, though, you're going to be discriminating against either a couple or a religious sect. *shrug*



Why wouldn't the history matter? When making any decision, it is generally good to consider precedents as well as theory of practice. Therefore, I think history should always be *among the factors* that decide how a law is written.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you wrote, beginning with "since" and ending with "opposed?"



I do not understand your question: Are you asking, "By what standards should these decisions be made?"

I would say the moral standard by which we make such decisions is a humane moral stance, as well as a stance that is nurturing towards nature and nature's creatures. Such a moral standard, at least for me, leads me to the above views on bestiality and polygamy.



Yes, it's nice to discuss and debate ideas. ^_^

Atheism is to deny the existence of any type of God or gods. Perhaps, it also denies the existence of souls and a spiritual collective consciousness as well?

Anyhow, what makes the atheist stance much more logical than belief in a religion?

Is the truly logical stance agnosticism? After all, how does one *know* that there is no creator or powerful being?

So, hypothetically, if I'm the headmaster of a private school, is it my right to decide that no black students are allowed in join?

I think this sort of discrimination should be illegal whether a school is public or private. Anyhow, in general, US schools suck and skipping a year or two and going directly to college is not always such a bad thing. Hopefully, these two girls will have a good time at college.



1) In many traditions, marriage has not been a union by a church. What's more, there are plenty of people these days (and before) who choose to marry without involving a church or religion. There is nothing about the agreement or contract of marriage that says it HAS to be done under God, or that it has to be religious.

Examples: China, Slavic countries, and many European countries have high numbers of atheists or agnostics who marry everyday without involving religion.

Thus, even with legal documents aside, marriage is not defined to be a holy union of two individuals. This means that all the fuss about changing the definition of marriage has little grounding, because for *some* people, marriage was *never* defined as being a holy union.

2) Homosexuality *is* natural. It occurs in nature among several species: cats, dogs, dolphins to name but a few.
Secondly, how can you say that the sole purpose of sex is procreation? If that was the only purpose, then why all the endorphins? Why all the relief of Why is sex and sexual desire such a complicated emotion? Obviously, there is more to sex than simple procreation. What's more, humanity does not need to procreate like it did before. The majority of our children survive and the human population continues to escalate to the point where an entire planet of resources may not be enough in 50-100 years at this rate. We are not rabbits designed for sex (although even rabbits are not designed explicitly for sex) - there is more to Mankind than that!
One more reason why homosexuality is natural: humans are homosexual. I mean, you wouldn't call being left-handed unnatural just because less of us are left-handed, would you? So, why wouldn't the same apply? And, for example, what about being good at golf? Isn't that unnatural because it doesn't help us reproduce? Honestly, not many girls are turned on by golf...

In conclusion: 1) marriage has been and can be a secular union of two individuals. 2) Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

As for multiple people getting married, historically, such arrangements end up with one gender being treated poorly or unfairly. I would say that is the main reason why it isn't legal. If I was assured that such gender inequality could be 100% eliminated, then why would polygamy be bad?

Now, when it comes to bestiality, I do feel we must draw a line. In terms of intellect and understanding, I feel animals are more like children or babies like adults. With that in mind, marriage to or sex with an animal would be like statutory rape. If a viewpoint such as mine is taken, the animal issue is, well, not an issue.

As for giving animals the same rights as man, I would have to agree, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. I've always wondered what my cat thought about the way we painted the house a few years back, but he never felt that he could express himself without persecution...

;-)

First, let me stray off-topic. I'll come back to the meaning of life in a bit --

Sorry, by what you said, do you mean to make the insurance companies and government richer? Longer life = more taxes and more insurance money paid. >_O Maybe some people think we are the ones who benefit off our insurance policies, but insurance companies are for-profit; they are corporations run by businessmen.

And for the record (and as far as I know), AMA members have to *pay* to be in the AMA (my parents are members). This allows the AMA to provide different services to doctors like medical literature in the mail, medical conferences, the financing of research, etc.

Now, the quality of some of those services is debatable. My dad's recently been thinking of quitting the AMA because America is in the midst of a health care crisis. The AMA is in a position to help fix things, and perhaps they are taking steps. Some people, however, don't think the AMA is doing a good enough job handling the crisis, my dad included...but that's a discussion for another thread.

To be fair to TelephoneMan though, I'm sure the upper echelons of the AMA give themselves nice, fat paychecks. Not to mention that there are probably a few things the AMA does with all that money that people wouldn't approve of. Point is, by and large, the AMA isn't (again, as far as I know) profiteering off life-extension.

As for the "Meaning of Life" - well, I hold that there *is* no inherent meaning to life. Humans make up a lot of **** that isn't actually true or that isn't natural law, so to speak. And so, I hold that it's up to each of us to fabricate or stumble upon our own supposed "Meaning of Life," and go from there. After all, there's nothing wrong with that...unless, of course, your "Meaning of Life" entails killing **** loads of babies 'cause it tickles your fancy or something similarly evil.

Other than that, I can't help but agree, at least to a certain extent, with what TelephoneMan wrote:
We are born. We live for 'x' amount of years. And, we die.

I *believe* (to avoid an untimely and off-topic debate with certain religious people) that Life was a random but inevitable occurrence. We are the children of the stars, what we are is but stardust, plain-cold matter that, with all our distinctions and labels, we have decided to dub "organic" material.

However, I think that if we allow ourselves step back and look at what we really are, where we really came from, what we have in common even with a rock or a piece of meat, and for God's sake with each other, we'd realize that so much of how mankind lives is just...dumb and downright inconceivable.
To step back in this way, I feel the way I look at what's around me change: To pollute our Earth becomes like desecrating my father. To mistreat animals and slaughter them by the billions when we have other sources of food becomes like murdering my baby cousins. To hate, kill, rape, steal, denounce, bomb, and torture our fellow man? Would you do that to your brothers and sisters? Some people are crazies, I know, and do these things, but even us supposed "non-crazies" do these things too...

Problems and disagreements are part of life, as are hardship, and taking what we can while we can. Greed, competition, Capitalism, war, weapons, possessions - all these things are, as far as I can tell, necessary and have useful and sometimes great things about them. You see, I try not to live with my head too far in the clouds, and I try not to deserve the label "idealist." However, I look around me and see a certain deal of respect for who and what is around us seems to be missing; I can't help but want to make a difference, to want to change things (can you tell I'm a college student?? lol).
We all have things to work on - none of us are perfect - so, let's work on this *notquite00 points to the things he's written above*. Times are changing and the stakes grow higher - global warming, terrorism, nuclear proliferation. The post-nuclear holocaust world of the Fallout series is not the sort of future I want for my children!

Whew, well...sorry for the length. Time to go to sleep...thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear my thoughts a bit. ;-)

You're very right about that, but such radical climate change has never happened in "civilized history." Whether the climate change is natural or caused by humans does not change the fact that humans live will, due to Earth's changing climate, change significantly in the next 20-100 years. For one, if you can believe Nat. Geographic, the intensity and frequency of hurricanes has been increasing and the oceans have been rising. As a result, certain inhabited coastal and island regions may be completely submerged in the next 20-50 years.

Of course, whether the climate changes are man-made or not is still an important question. If we have caused, or at least, accelerated the changes that are happening, we need to adapt and start being more careful. Even if there's a 70% chance that global warming is not at all influenced by mankind, we just can't afford to keep doing what we've been doing all along.

In short, we've got to do something.


P.S. Yeah, I think Star Trek-esque warp drives, or something similar, is how we are going to get off this rock. It is known that a bigger combustion engine and more fuel is *not* and will never be the answer.
Anyhow, physicists (the geeks that they all are at heart) have been theorizing about innovative ways to create starships for a while now.

One way, which *is* how the Star Trek warp drives actually work, is called the Alcubierre Drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

If you're really an ST junkie, though, you'll remember a couple experimental warp drives from Voyager that actually used the same idea...but give the writers a break; it's tough to make up that sort of stuff, lol.

Two other resources on space travel and warp drives:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/28/warp-speed-engine-02.html

One of the scientists from the second link quotes how much energy would be needed to employ the Alcubierre Drive. Personally, I'm banking on cold fusion and/or some other yet-undiscovered form of energy...maybe something to do with dark matter (?!?!). I don't know if anti-matter (ala Star Trek) has this sort of potential, but who knows what the future will bring. Just think - Rudolf Diesel built the first Diesel Combustion Engine in 1897. We've come a long way in the past 100 years compared to how fast mankind has progressed throughout history. Science moves faster everyday. I still have my fingers crossed that I'll one day see the first starship leave Earth's atmosphere. ;-)

And maybe some pointy-eared aliens will just then decide to pay us a visit. XD

These two styles can be done with *any* vegetable. Spinach and broccoli are trademark for the first one. Cabbage, string beans for the second.
These are really good, very healthy, and 100% authentic.


Prep + Cook time: < 5min
Eaten with rice.

Qingchao style - "Clear-fried" style:
Trademark vegetables: Spinach, broccoli

-Garlic (not necessary)
-Ginger (my own addition - not traditional)
-Salt (a little or to taste)
-Oil

1. Bring oil to boil in wok or cylindrical pan.
2. Fry garlic for 20 secs.
3. Add Spinach and salt. Fry until Spinach begins to loose its shape a little.

DONE
It's really good, very healthy, and it's 100% authentic.

If you like it spicy --
Mala style - "Tingly-spicy" style:
Trademark vegetables: String beans, Cabbage (not the "Chinese Cabbage")

-A couple Sichuan chilies (whole or cracked/cut open)
-Two big pinches of Chinese Peppercorn (Hua jiao)

This style is done exactly like the "Clear-fried," except that you add these two ingredients at the beginning. Careful not to let the chillies and peppercorns burn! Stir a lot!

The peppercorns add a tingly, almost spicy flavor. I've never found this flavor in Chinese restaurants in the West, perhaps because we're not used to it. It's often found in Sichuanese dishes.

Again, these styles really be used for any vegetable. Try using cucumbers too!

A Shanghainese (I think) variant is to do the "Clear-fried" style with cucumbers, except you don't use garlic or ginger. Once everything's done and on the serving plate, liberally sprinkle sugar over the cucumbers. ;-)

-->Meat:
Uh...you're on your own. I'm vegan. XD

Seriously, though - I think what you would do is cook the meat. When things are more or less done, you put the meat on one side of the pan. You fry the garlic with a spoon each of Haisun Sauce and/or Fermented Bean Sauce (fry 10 secs). Finally, you add the chillies and peppercorns for a little, then you mix everything with the meat. Add a *little* water if you think it'll help get the sauces into the meat better.

Don't take my word on this, though. That's just how I think you'd do it. ;-)

Spider, if you don't mind, would you answer the following question?

Is there something that you saw, heard, or read that made the Bible true in your eyes?

Well, maybe my father just doesn't know, but he said that he's never heard of a donated organ deteriorating due to immune suppressing medications.

But, like you said, perhaps the pancreas is a special case. Each organ's function is very different, so who knows? Maybe my father hasn't ever heard of someone who accepted a cadaver's pancreas specifically.