PitonPeludo
iamcaudle says:
"Obviously the original post was satirical, but I believe it was still making a point I agree with. The plain and simple fact is, ID is not science. It does not adhere to any of the rules science does, nor does it allow itself to be scrutinized and tested the way science has to be. If the Bible can be used as evidence of ID, and the Bible is the only evidence that the Bible is legitimate, than writing a book on the FSM makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster just as legitimate."
This, I can agree with. I don't believe in teaching something to more people mainly on the fact that a large majority of people believe this fact. This connects with ID, in which the majority of people will support ID because the Bible says so.
If someone is not necessarily a male or a female, then what are you? A hermaphrodite? Well, I don't think so... I don't think the people dictating whom shall marry whom even have the slightest idea that there are people with sex-chromosome abnormalities. I'm sure many of them still follow the theologically-speculated sculpting of earth to make babies, rather than the scientifically-proven fusion of two cells.
I agree with several points. If people feel obliged to chant the Allegiance, they don't have to really believe in what they are saying. Everybody in my high school class recited the Allegiance with even less enthusiasm than used in Math class, and I see that as a sign that nobody really cared about what they were saying. I feel that it is also wrong for people to ostracize others for choosing not to say the Allegiance. The class that held the recital for me was Spanish class, and I just sat quietly and skimmed through the lesson plan for that day while everybody moaned on like a pack of zombies. Although some people pointed fingers, I told them to shove off, because they weren't showing any dedication to chanting enthusiastically. This was one way I found out who were my friends and who weren't - those who didn't like what I was doing and called me out were lame, while those who, no matter what their opinion, could care less what I did, were alright. Plus, the Spanish teacher didn't mind, because I was often the only person to participate in the class discussion. Mainly because I was the only one to READ the lessons.
Focusing on a mandatory pledge of allegiance isn't something that is beneficial to society. Sure, pledging allegiance to the nation is a good way of showing your support of your nation, but anybody can say things without meaning them. In school, I'd rather spend that one minute of monotonous chanting on something more reliable, like performing a lexicon. Congress has better things to look at - I don't want to waste tax money and valuable time talking about a chant of support where the focus could be put on other more pressing issues, like public smoking or NCLB to name two.
This seems too much like the story line of a recent movie...hmm... But Colbert just isn't taking politics that serious. How do I know if he knows whats going on himself, or just having people behind the scenes telling him what's going on. I don't, so therefore I don't have any confidence in him running for president.
It wouldn't surprise me, though, if the election poles for South Carolina increased threefold this upcoming election, and this increase was equal to the number of Colbert votes.
I do feel the substitutions of a male and female are not properly defined. Individuals with an abnormality in sexual chromosomes are still classified as male or female, depending on the presence of a Y chromosome. A female has no Y chromosome present, while a male does. Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (XO) are the two examples of nondisjunction (faulty seperating of chromosomes during meiosis, the splitting of diploid cells into the reproductive haploids, sperm and egg cells.) occurring in the pre-zygotic stages of reproduction that produce physical defects on the offspring produced. There are other chromosomal abnormalities, but these don't produce any easily-noticeable effects to the person. The main reason I'm detailing the information about the abnormalities is because they don't connect to the topic at hand. The main discussion page is focusing mainly on the governmental benefits that come out of a marriage, and not the allowance of gay relationships. I have several gay friends who have gotten married, but not officially recognized. They could care less, because in their eyes, and the eyes of their peers, they are married. A relationship is one thing; marriage is another. Genetic details of individuals is completely irrelevant.
And the difference from heterosexuals is?
I do support gay marriage, and also find humor in the idea that a gay couple should be given the opportunity to experience a nasty divorce as nearly half the straight couples experience. Marriages offer an easier life for many couples, since it allows for financial benefits and marital rights. If a person has the preferred choice of a same-gender partner, then they should be allowed to marry and be protected by the rights under marriage. The people of this nation that vote against homosexual marriages hold mindsets that I just can't understand. It is the happiness of people that matters, so long as this doesn't effect the public in any harmful way. Marriages should be allowed between two people of any gender-partnership. If this isn't allowed, then I feel that the person who denies these rights to a couple have not the ability to see through the eyes of others.
Too dangerous? Or a neccesity?
Nuclear power is a tough issue to call by. I have several stands on this issue: Support for nuclear power 1) Megawatts of energy can be made from a fairly small amount of uranium. This is the basis of Einstein's almost universally know formula, E=MC^2 (the amount of energy capable of production by matter - E - is equal to the product of the mass of the matter - M - and the squared speed of light - C^2). This is a very efficient source of energy, as it is much more greater than the energy produced by natural gas and oil burning. 2) With nuclear energy being used instead of natural gas and oil, the emissions to the atmosphere are reduced instantly over time. It is energy burned from power plants that causes a great majority of the polution to the atmosphere. For example, according to an article created by the US Department of Energy, the energy needed to power buildings along is approximately 40% of the total natural gas production (DOE). What this says is that a large majority of the polutants in the air are caused by other sources than cars. If convert the energy needed to power buildings from using natural gas to nuclear, then a lot of tree huggers will be much happier. Against nuclear power 1) The free-radicals that come out of a fission reaction often take millions of years to become safe for exposure to the elements. Some decompose quite quickly, but a great majority still has the potential of causing nasty damage to the environment. 2) I don't particularly like the methods of disposing the free-radicals. What happens is the radioactive goo is deposited in a giant concrete container and buried deep underground, usually near uninhabited locations. But there is still the chance of something going wrong. The massive forces on top of the container could cause the container to collapse. The goo could be caught by aquifers and ground water and brought back up to the surface. By this time, the whole surrounding ecosystem is screwed because of radiation mutations and cancer.
Frankly, if you ask me, I'd rather install a $1000 solar panel on my roof, with only a 2% effeciency of energy production, than support nuclear energy.
Pedestrians are threatening? Consider them targets.
It does seem very strange, though. How are we to determine if a person felt legitimately threatened. Its all a basis of interpretation; I can say I felt threatened when a man stares at me blankly - it happens almost daily in my college. But what line is there to draw where I don't use a deadly force. I know your topic is about more serious situations, such as a bully threatening to "beat the living s**t out of" someone, or a mugger. Its just, in certain situations, I could create an argument that states that I was threatened by a person of authority. If a police officer held a gun to my head, can't I say I felt threatened? I can, because my life depends on whether or not this officer has a random spasm in his trigger finger. When it comes down to this topic, I'd says its just too general of what a "threatening" situation really is. Needs more detail.
Well, If You Want to Be Like France,
It might be a fact that English has become a necessity in learning because of the level of establishment held by many English-speaking organizations. In recent years, however, has this establishment been recognized. I sit here with only two years of education in the Spanish language - the reason I still remember the meaning of "Soy es el piton peludo" is because I recognize the benefit of learning multiple languages. In the past, the nationalism that commonly flowed through the many institutions of a country would often lead to many publications being written in the primary language of said country. To hold an example I know too well is to look into the variety of scientific publications. Over the past two centuries, each nation has learned unique aspects of science, but this information was written and published in that nation's language - for instance, Germany, France, and Russia are nations that have many publications on scientific research. A major problem is that these publications were written in that nation's own language. I understand the significance of learning other languages, because if I want to succeed as a scientific researcher, I will have to be able to read and understand the many journals that have been created over the decades from other countries, as well as communication with other researchers in similar fields on recent findings they have made.
In order to advance more efficiently, one way being through scientific research, it is necessary to have the opportunity of multi-lingual education throughout the course of general schooling.
