While I agree there are better solutions than drugs and that weed isn't harmless, I also think that many people exaggurate its side effects.
Drugs and alcohol don't make people do stupid things, it's just an excuse stupid people use to do stupid things. If used responsibly, these substance don't have to have negative consequences.
For example, sometimes I drink heavily, not a good thing, but it's what I do. However, to make sure I don't do anything stupid, I leave my keys and cellphone (to avoid drunken dialing) at home.
If used responsibly, weed and alcohol aren't any more dangerous than fast food or chocolate.
you're right, you don't need drugs to be happy. On the other hand, many people don't need drugs to be/act stupid.
By saying that weed caused this guy to do what he did, you are shifting the responsibilty from him to the pot. While it probably did lower his inhibitions, in every person there is a standard that will never be crossed. It varies per person.
In other words, there has to be a pre-disposition to an act before it will be committed, inhibitions or not. The guy was probably a pedophile, but was afraid of consequences, a fear which drugs removed.
I'm not condoning his actions by any means, but I'm saying that the drugs aren't the primary cause. They were a means to a bad end.
While I don't take drugs, I don't believe that occasional to moderate use is necessarily evil.
transporting contraband across state lines in any form is a federal offense. In this case, it's not about the USPS, but because at least two states would have jurisdiction over your case. The one you started in and the one you ended up in.
IIRC, there can't be two trials for the same crime, even if it's under separate jurisdictions. Therefore, it becomes a federal case, so that states don't argue about who gets to try the alleged perp.
The reason UPS said it had to be second day is because they would have been confused by the second day markings on the box if you had shipped it ground. I'm sure if you had used an old fedex box, FedEx would have done the same.
It's not that they are unreasonable, it's just that many modern delivery systems are in dire need of improvement.
I suppose you could take out your case fans and then overclock your processor. You could burn all your ebooks at once, and then throw in some paper-based books to stoke the bonfire.
I believe it depends on the course. I keep my programming and linux books, but I really just want to forget my managerial accounting and intro to marketing courses.
actually, my professors try to save us money by getting less expensive books. In fact, when they find out how much we get charged for the books they thought were low-priced, they get visibly pissed off.
At my school, it's not the professors' fault, the blame lies in the hands of Barnes and Noble who basically own the bookstore.
When I first signed up for sprint, they screwed me out of a few days of service. I contacted the better business bureau, and as a result I got three free months of service.
it's actually a little more than that:
"Thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge [scientiae] depends uniquely on my awareness of the true God, to such an extent that I was incapable of perfect knowledge [perfecte scire] about anything else until I became aware of him. "(Med. 5, AT 7:71)
No, that's not how all science works. Astronomy and paleontology, for example, are based on observing correlations after the fact.
Even with observing correlations, you can run experiments with the data. While in Astronomy you can't run the same physical experiments as physics, chemistry, or biology, you still have run some sort of experiment (mostly mathematical) to ensure that your findings aren't purely coincidental.
As for paleontology, I have to admit, I don't know nearly enough about it to discuss what kind of experiments they conduct, but I imagine that they do conduct them.
philosophy isn't a class about logic, that's true. However, even in the separate branches of it, you try to use logic to create and refute arguments.
Without logic, arguments will eventually lead to ad hominum attacks... or in modern terms, a flame-war.
If a school has a religous studies department, by all means, teach it there. If not, it should be explored in philosophy.
As for DesCartes, if you look at how he reached the conclusion of Cogito, you'll find the religion behind it.
while arguments should be provable, there are philosophies taught that are not. I don't have a long list in mind, but off the top of my head I'd have to say DesCartes can't really prove that "cogito ergo sum" because one of his arguments revolves around the assumption of a higher power.
I also believe ID should be taught in a philosophy classroom, with the disclaimer that it is a religious concept. Some forms of philosophy and religion are closely related subjects, so I don't see why a religious concept can't be explored in a philosophy class.
the best part of that page is the section on Social Cost, I think.
"Apart from accidents, smokers and nonsmokers alike die mostly from heartdisease, cancer and strokes. Smokers just get them sooner, on average. Byliving longer, non-smokers incur more in medical and old age expenses, notless. "
Apparently, smoking is good because it kills you sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
oh god... I can just imagine that now. When you get a positive result, it will start ringing with "Mama said knock you up."
While I agree there are better solutions than drugs and that weed isn't harmless, I also think that many people exaggurate its side effects. Drugs and alcohol don't make people do stupid things, it's just an excuse stupid people use to do stupid things. If used responsibly, these substance don't have to have negative consequences. For example, sometimes I drink heavily, not a good thing, but it's what I do. However, to make sure I don't do anything stupid, I leave my keys and cellphone (to avoid drunken dialing) at home. If used responsibly, weed and alcohol aren't any more dangerous than fast food or chocolate.
you're right, you don't need drugs to be happy. On the other hand, many people don't need drugs to be/act stupid. By saying that weed caused this guy to do what he did, you are shifting the responsibilty from him to the pot. While it probably did lower his inhibitions, in every person there is a standard that will never be crossed. It varies per person. In other words, there has to be a pre-disposition to an act before it will be committed, inhibitions or not. The guy was probably a pedophile, but was afraid of consequences, a fear which drugs removed. I'm not condoning his actions by any means, but I'm saying that the drugs aren't the primary cause. They were a means to a bad end. While I don't take drugs, I don't believe that occasional to moderate use is necessarily evil.
transporting contraband across state lines in any form is a federal offense. In this case, it's not about the USPS, but because at least two states would have jurisdiction over your case. The one you started in and the one you ended up in. IIRC, there can't be two trials for the same crime, even if it's under separate jurisdictions. Therefore, it becomes a federal case, so that states don't argue about who gets to try the alleged perp.
The reason UPS said it had to be second day is because they would have been confused by the second day markings on the box if you had shipped it ground. I'm sure if you had used an old fedex box, FedEx would have done the same. It's not that they are unreasonable, it's just that many modern delivery systems are in dire need of improvement.
In this case, it's more like: Knowledge is money, money is power, power corrupts. Therefore, knowledge corrupts.
I suppose you could take out your case fans and then overclock your processor. You could burn all your ebooks at once, and then throw in some paper-based books to stoke the bonfire.
I believe it depends on the course. I keep my programming and linux books, but I really just want to forget my managerial accounting and intro to marketing courses.
actually, my professors try to save us money by getting less expensive books. In fact, when they find out how much we get charged for the books they thought were low-priced, they get visibly pissed off. At my school, it's not the professors' fault, the blame lies in the hands of Barnes and Noble who basically own the bookstore.
When I first signed up for sprint, they screwed me out of a few days of service. I contacted the better business bureau, and as a result I got three free months of service.
it's actually a little more than that: "Thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge [scientiae] depends uniquely on my awareness of the true God, to such an extent that I was incapable of perfect knowledge [perfecte scire] about anything else until I became aware of him. "(Med. 5, AT 7:71)
No, that's not how all science works. Astronomy and paleontology, for example, are based on observing correlations after the fact. Even with observing correlations, you can run experiments with the data. While in Astronomy you can't run the same physical experiments as physics, chemistry, or biology, you still have run some sort of experiment (mostly mathematical) to ensure that your findings aren't purely coincidental. As for paleontology, I have to admit, I don't know nearly enough about it to discuss what kind of experiments they conduct, but I imagine that they do conduct them.
that's the very reason I woke up from my nap to correct the professor, I refuse to agree with something as convoluted as the assumption of god.
philosophy isn't a class about logic, that's true. However, even in the separate branches of it, you try to use logic to create and refute arguments. Without logic, arguments will eventually lead to ad hominum attacks... or in modern terms, a flame-war.
If a school has a religous studies department, by all means, teach it there. If not, it should be explored in philosophy. As for DesCartes, if you look at how he reached the conclusion of Cogito, you'll find the religion behind it.
actually, it was taught to me as a viable philosophy. I had to point out to my professor that it made no sense.
while arguments should be provable, there are philosophies taught that are not. I don't have a long list in mind, but off the top of my head I'd have to say DesCartes can't really prove that "cogito ergo sum" because one of his arguments revolves around the assumption of a higher power. I also believe ID should be taught in a philosophy classroom, with the disclaimer that it is a religious concept. Some forms of philosophy and religion are closely related subjects, so I don't see why a religious concept can't be explored in a philosophy class.
the best part of that page is the section on Social Cost, I think.
"Apart from accidents, smokers and nonsmokers alike die mostly from heartdisease, cancer and strokes. Smokers just get them sooner, on average. Byliving longer, non-smokers incur more in medical and old age expenses, notless. "
Apparently, smoking is good because it kills you sooner.
Atheism is not "no belief in a god or gods." It is a belief in no god or gods.
Having no belief in god or gods is agnosticism.
Persians are Aryan, which means they are more closely related to Germans.