I disagree with your point. I never really liked math until recently and always thought I would write or edit or something similar. So I took all the math that was required, but never more than that. It was a mistake. I'm now trying to major in statistics.... I wish now that I'd had to take more math.
It's not that I didn't think or care about my future, I just never imagined that I would be interested in something mathematically based because I hated it in high school.
Part of going to school is about being well-rounded. Being required to take math classes in high school (and before) seems to me like a good thing, simply because of my experience.
Even if, on the other hand, you never major in mathematics or a mathematically based subject, the groundwork built through taking math is crucial (as I've heard) to the development of logic and critical thinking skills. This is bound to be useful to people whether or not they actually pursue a numbers-based career/major.
Not only that, but who gets the credit for the debates? How are you going to combine the debates? Will the arguments just get shuffled in together? Will they be sorted by date? How will you know which post by this one person someone else is responding to? While it would be nice if after a while, debates were left to rest for a while, this just isn't a practical plan.
Even if you don't like plain cheese pizzas, how many pizzas are there that don't have cheese somewhere in the description?
(I know there are some, but as far as I know, there aren't that many.)
Also, if you start saying something online, then decide you don't know enough about the topic, as long as you haven't hit the "post" button, you can change your mind. Once you open your mouth, though, you're done for.
Though the real advantage for me is that it gives me an opportunity to give my opinions in a "safe" way. I don't really like talking to people I don't know and I certainly don't like conflict with people I don't know (in face-to-face conversations). But I have a lot more confidence online. (Though I respect the people I'm talking to, I actually say something instead of sitting in silence)
If I were told I had to choose either hugs or kisses (but not both), I'd choose hugs. They last longer! ;) Kisses are nice, but it's just not the same as cuddling up with someone for a good, long hug. There seems to be something more intimate about bodies being held close than smashing lips together.
No, no. But someone playing with a nuclear sub? Don't you think that'd make someone mad? :)
You like making people mad, huh? I'll take the telescope so I can watch the destruction from a safe distance. :)
I have a Facebook account and not a Myspace account, so I may be a bit biased. I've snooped around a bit on Myspace (open accounts and my sister has a Myspace account that she showed me some stuff on once) and it wasn't nearly as nice (in my opinion). I like that Facebook controls (to a certain extent) the content that can be on your page. Some of the Myspace pages I've seen were illegible because of the background or fonts or layout. Yeah, it's nice to be able to design your own page, but what one person thinks looks nice might be really hard for another person to read.
Hillary Clinton will still play a significant role in the Obama government. From looking at Wikipedia, if her appointment to Secretary of State goes through, she'll get a more interesting job than Biden and she's fourth in line for the Presidency, if something really bad happens.
As for who's better, I can't really say. I've only heard biased reports about both of them.
People would disagree that you have the right to say whatever you want. They would argue that you have the right to say whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to be respected.
It's a nice idea and it would solve a lot of the problems that people have with the world as it stands, but I'm too pessimistic to believe that it will happen. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to help those around us (and around the world).
Human rights should be enforced, but by each person's moral code or by a large group of people standing up with the person whose rights are being violated.
I don't think I could have the courage to talk to a teacher about it, but their cheating and making a better grade could mess up the curve (depending on how/if the teacher curves), which would affect your grade.
For myself, I try to "protect" my work on my tests by covering answers as I mark/write them.
How do you define "social networking site?" Is CD a social networking site? Has it had a negative influence? I can't imagine it would (other than that people might allow their feelings to get hurt, taking things too personally in a debate).
How do you define "positive impact?" I use Facebook as a way to keep in contact with people I might not otherwise stay in touch with and that means a lot to me. I'd consider that a positive impact. I've also heard that younger people are getting involved in causes bigger than the world they might otherwise have not experienced through sites like Facebook because of their "Causes" (and similar) applications.
I'm not saying that all social networking sites are all good, but some of them do some good.
But it's cold outside (usually) at Christmas, so there wouldn't be a chance for the chips to melt....
Besides, if I'm gonna make a couple of cookies for Santa, I might as well make some I like (since I'm gonna eat the rest of them).
I had to do a paper on this and didn't use all the references I read, so I didn't keep track of them, unfortunately....
The Greenpeace paper doesn't really explain the concern of dangers to organisms other than the original one, but one of the papers I read (some of them?) mentioned that there's concern that pests will become "superpests" through sexual reproduction and there will have to be more and more done to fight them. Similarly, there is fear that weeds will take up the genes from nearby plants (through sexual reproduction also) and become "superweeds," requiring more (rather than less) in the way of herbicides. That's really what I was going for in my original question, but I wasn't quite sure how to ask it like that....
I saw how long the Enviropig™ has been around and was surprised until I read all the papers and articles and such of people who are so afraid of them...Europe especially.
It may be true that people are only surviving because of GMOs...I don't really know. I don't mean to be callous, but is there some kind of concern that those people might also be contributing to global warming? Being that global warming is considered a threat to the environment, does that mean that those people are a threat to the environment?
Natural mutations may "happen all the time," but how often are those mutations actually helpful to the organism in survival? There are frequently "mistakes," right?
In "speeding up the natural course of things," are we getting too involved with things we don't know enough about, thereby creating a bigger mess than we know how to clean up?
But if your creatures can't live in the environment they live in...?
First off, let me say that I don't think homeschooling is entirely bad; there are just things that parents considering homeschooling should be careful of.
I was homeschooled from 6th grade to 12th and I feel like I got a decent education. I took a couple of classes at the local community college and got to be involved in things that, time-wise, I may not otherwise have been able to be involved in. On the other hand, my whole life was spent pretty far away from other kids my age. Even when I was in public school, I never really interacted with kids from school because my friends all lived too far away. When my parents made the decision to homeschool my sister and me, it was that much harder to spend time with anyone other than my family. We moved when I was in 7th grade and in 5 years, I never really made any friends my own age, even though I was involved in church and other activities.
I went to a college in NY and lived in a dorm. That setting forced me to get involved with the people around me and that was a good thing...I found people that I really liked and I keep in contact with them, even though I haven't seen them in a couple of years. I've since returned to the town I was from and am attending the local community college. I'm nearly done with my associate's degree and am only now becoming comfortable enough to be interactive with those around me, much less finding friends.
I'm not blaming my problems entirely on homeschooling, but I don't think it did anything to help. It allowed me to continue the habits that I'm finding so restrictive today. My sister returned to public school a couple of years before graduation and is a lot more social than I am, but she seems to collect friends no matter where she goes.
The other thing that is something to be careful of (in my experience) is time planning. They say we're better at it than other kids, and I guess in some ways that's true. But I know I took advantage of the leniency I had. Fortunately, we worked through a correspondence school, which forced us to keep progressing. I wouldn't say that if we'd been on our own I'd still be in high school, but we might have cheated (it's possible in some states) or I'd be much further behind than I am.
Basically, homeschooling isn't for everyone. There are certain things that those considering homeschooling should consider very carefully, and maybe even re-evaluate each year. A person's education and personal growth is extremely valuable and should not be taken lightly. I think it's entirely possible for a person to receive a very good education through homeschooling (in some ways, I think my education was much better than I would have gotten at a public school), but I also feel like I missed out on some things that people in a public school take for granted.
I like this idea better than the others that have been proposed. It gives people the freedom to choose the debates they want to respond to (and pay attention to), but at the same time, it doesn't restrict people from participating in debates that other people might consider a waste of time.
At what age would you allow someone to join? Considering a lot of people seem to consider some (many? a few?) of your debates to be a waste of time, that would likely preclude my joining, since I'm younger than you say you are. I'd like to think I'd be allowed to express my opinion on this site in spite of that fact.
I do not think that I would have joined CD if I'd had to give out my credit card number or other personal information. I didn't even like getting my credit thing online, much less giving it out for a "fun" site like this.
As a result, I'd say allowing or not allowing a person to participate on this site because of their age is not the optimal way to proceed.
I'm not sure any sane person would dare try to say no. Or if they did, they'd only be playing devil's advocate.
If you're talking about mentally handicapped, my boyfriend's brother has Down's syndrome and there's nothing "non-human" about him. He's not exactly the same as "normal" people, but then again, I'd like to see a "normal" person. David has his strengths and weaknesses, just like anyone else. That is what makes him human, just like the rest of us.
It depends on if you're asking about the long-run and what factors you are including in your question. In the 60s or so, Keynes' theories (plus unions) pretty much screwed our economy (hyper-inflation).
Demand was increased (because of gov. spending), supply increased (because of higher prices brought by higher demand). GDP was no longer growing and CPI was growing really quickly.
(Source: my economics class)
While I agree somewhat with the general sentiment of your statement, I think we should be really careful about how the death sentence is handed down. I think that we should be as sure as humanly possible before terminating someone's life, regardless of how evil their actions may have been. Basically, I think it should be available, but we should be very careful about using it.
