benjer3

MODEST

I love them. How about these? I said take out the sliver, not take out his liver! What's this guy doing in the cadaver lab?? ...Well at least he has another one. Hey, it regenerates, right? *Pfffffff* Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have touched his lung. Let me know if you feel this scalpel. I'm not sure I numbed the right nerve.

HYMNS ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0 HARSH - 1 REAPS - 1 PRESS - 1 CRIES - 1 HUMUS - 3 HOMOS - 3 HYMNS - 5 Q-Cumber got it, but not before Plainglazed got half of the points. I was hoping that would be harder. Oh well. Score changes: plainglazed +15 Q-Cumber +15 benjer3 +9

UtF: I'm sorry for the animosity. That's the kind of thing that can't happen for any form of society to work well. Don't think my views have changed, but I don't want to keep being angry about it. I do think I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense in many ways. I think maybe that you are like me in being an idealist, which isn't necessarily bad, though we may want perfection when perfection isn't possible. I believe that the perfect society is possible, where everyone is united and no one would have to do anything they do not want to do. There would not have to be a government because everyone, or nearly everyone, would have most of the same values and goals, and would want to do what's right, and so the people would be able to govern themselves without dispute. Any obstacles would be able to be overcome. But once a significant—maybe not even large—amount of the people believe differently than the others, contention breaks loose and the society breaks down. If everyone believes differently, nothing will be able to be decided on and nothing will be accomplished. If a group of people try to take over, the division in the society will cause them to fall into their hands. That is why, I believe, we need governments. Governments provide a common law that cannot be disputed, allowing an extremely diverse people to be united and to accomplish great things. Democracies are the best option because they allow the majority (at least to some extent) of the population to decide what this common law is, so there is as little dispute as possible. It is impossible for a government to be perfect as long as the people are divided, but they create the greatest unity possible. And I think that without unity, very little is possible, as I mentioned before. Without unity of beliefs, trading goods and services, defending the society against outside forces, preventing crime, and doing many other things would be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible. The perfect society would only be possible if everybody had the same values and did their best to carry them out. As for me, I believe this is possible only through religion, but that is for another discussion. Governments must use its people’s resources in order to maintain itself and the nation’s unity. When learning about civics, we hear about a social contract—an agreement between a people and its government to support each other. The government provides protection and unity while the people provide support and loyalty. If the people do not do their part, the government falls, and vice versa. Both must be strong for a nation to prosper. Thus, the social contract must involve compromises. Some of the people’s freedom must be given up in order to maintain the rest of their freedom that might otherwise be lost. We are lucky who live in America and countries with similar governments, as we have greater freedom than we can have through any other system. Finally, with this incredible system at our disposal, it is our duty to make the best of it. No, we may not agree with everything our government does, but we need to support it as well as do our best to change it for the better, or else the whole system decays and tumbles. When we vote, pay our taxes, let our voice be heard, et cetera, we make our government and therefore our society the best it can be. (And if we completely disagree with everything our government does, then we have the right to move to another nation that we do agree with.) And then, if it is possible for our people to join into one heart and one mind, we can create the perfect society, with perfect freedom and with power and respect never before seen on the Earth. And that’s my view of it. I’d really like to hear what you have to say as well.

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0 HARSH - 1 REAPS - 1 PRESS - 1 CRIES - 1 HUMUS - 3

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0 HARSH - 1 REAPS - 1 PRESS - 1 CRIES - 1 This one is sure going slow.... Where is everybody?

I'm just following the theme of violence, and I'm thinking of the kind of society that would exist--where everybody has to raise their own food, and stealing food would threaten your life. But you would try to stop me. That dispute resolution organization would have to use violence to return whatever I took. And stopping me would be a form of violence. What if I believed that everything belongs to everybody, that you have no right to stop me? Then you would be using violence to satisfy your own sense of justice. And just as a side note, that organization would probably be unable to exist without the use of violence to prevent it from being toppled.

You started out right, though you forgot that (a-b)2 = a2 - 2ab + b2 Also remember that to solve through factoring as you did, one side must equal zero.

Maybe something clogged the leak as the water poured in....

(Whoops, missed the edit time) This means there would be more violence in a government-less world. The only reason good governments use "violence" is because they must to defend their citizens from real violence, i.e. killing. As for laws, "violence" must be used or some people will choose not to follow the laws, and then nobody will follow them, and then we're down the government-less toilet described above. And how do you deal with criminals without violence?

The trouble with anarchism is that it is impossible for people to live together unless they have a common law. What if I felt like taking some food from your garden? Who says it's wrong? You would want to shoot me because I'm stealing your food, but I think it's as much mine as anybody else's, and I'm going to shoot you because you're threatening my life. If there isn't some uniform set of laws for a people to live by, no one is right--there is no right--and everybody is justified to do whatever they want to. Furthermore, even though we give some of our freedom to the government (or the government "takes" it from us), it protects us from the captivity that would be imposed on us by a tyrannical power. If our government didn't protect us, some group could easily overpower us and turn us into slaves that work until they die. Hey, without any governments, I could get together with a good number people and decide I wanted to wipe out the human race. If I have a big enough group of people, no one can stop me. I'll just do as I please, and what everyone else wants won't matter.

Nice one, Jk. I was thinking in the biological functions area. Though it's probably more like two sperm travelling to two eggs. Most of the credit goes to you, though. EDIT: Or maybe it's twin zygotes travelling to the uterus.

Did they have a common ailment?

Are Jack and Jill human?

Did the environment cause the problem to go away?

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0 HARSH - 1 REAPS - 1 PRESS - 1

THRUST

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0 HARSH - 1 REAPS - 1

TARGET

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0 MANIC - 0 BORON - 0

Were Jack and Jill dying of thirst until they went up a hill to fetch a pail of water? (Of course, then they'd be in another perilous situation, as you know what happens next.)

Yeah, I knew that, so you should score it. Though I forget what I was going to do next.

_ _ _ _ _ ALGAE - 0

Nice poem.