itachi-san

HAHAHA! Nice one

I'd rather go down with the plane than take my chances jumping out of a quickly descending malfunctioning plane with hundreds of people who are in panic and have no idea how to skydive. There's no way everyone would even get out of the plane, let alone be able to put on their parachutes in the first place. It would just be a giant mod of insanity crashing into the ground or water as opposed to a possibly calm group sitting in the safest position for a crash possible. I can also see how life vests could possibly be very helpful. Not everyone can swim and planes can crash into the ocean.

Just to add another pro to making drugs legal: the drugs would be regulated by some agency like the FDA (I hate the FDA personally, but let's just assume that there is an agency that isn't completely corrupted for this idea). Since the drugs are regulated, there would be a much lower fatality rate, because people wouldn't be buying drugs that are cut improperly or poisoned in some way. It would be similar to buying mushrooms that you know are edible in a grocery store or taking your chances finding an edible one in the wild. If drugs were regulated like food and drinks (anything consumable) then they would be safer in this way. I also agree that people who don't do drugs wouldn't just start because it's legal. People wouldn't say: "I never did heroine because it was illegal, but now that it's legal I'm gonna throw my life away and become a junkie." If that does happen, it will be an extreme minority of people I'm sure. I also agree about the prison idea, but the thing is, I would prefer that all non-violent crimes (like tax evasion-Wesley Snipes for example) should be taken out of prison and given reasonable sentences (like severe fines and community service). This would free up a lot of space in prisons for junkies who have caused multiple public disturbances. And I think that prison would be an exceptional punishment for that kind of offense. Not only are they behind bars but they have to go through withdrawal there too? Sounds like a great life lesson to me. And I also agree that most violence surrounding drugs would dissipate as well. The cartels, all the guns, the theft and murder would mostly disappear. I really see hardly any negative to drugs being legal as long as the law enforcement keeps up with it and there isn't a high rise in non-users becoming users. Edit: typo

They tried to ban alcohol (even made it an amendment) and as you know that failed miserably for a number of reasons. The thing is that taking away individual freedoms is a slippery-slope. What next... take away individual transportation (public transportation only) because of the death rate in accidents and the effect on the environment? I think the government should do as little as possible to restrict what we do and what we can do, or else we'll soon find ourselves in a Big Brother state.

So did you, only mine make sense

What's wrong with stepping outside to smoke cigarettes really? I smoke occasionally and have never had a problem with stepping outside. Do you really feel persecuted by doing so? Picture a closed space with 1 smoker and 10 non-smokers. The smoker should just be allowed to fill the room with something that the ten other people don't like because it's fun for the smoker... No way. There are plenty of ways to have fun without infringing on the good time of others.

My 2 cents. I agree with Duh Puck for the most part. Everything should be fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others' happiness. Like how smoking cigarettes in public spaces is infringing on the happiness of non-smokers. I think that the only speech that should be restricted is hate speech. I do not believe that any particular word should be outlawed. The presence of hate can be determined by our elected officials and judicial system. Certain drugs like marijuana and hallucinogens have only really been made illegal for political purposes. They are highly regarded in a lot of past of present religions and philosophies. These drugs are not proven to have caused death or any respectable amount of personal injury, whereas the legal alcohol is proven to cause much more harm to the individual and society and can kill. Other drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroine, etc.. should be illegal because they are not only nothing but bad for the individual, but also have been proven to degrade society immensely. So, say acid is legal, and someone is caught making a scene in a bar or somewhere, what should happen then? Easy, charge them with public disturbance and intoxication just like a drunk, there is no need to come down so hard on drugs that are not lethal and pose little to no threat to society. I'm also for stem cell research. Absolutely amazing breakthroughs have and will come from them. To not use them, to make their use illegal, is a crime in and of itself to me. If there is a possibility to save a person's life or make them normal again (regrow body parts) then why shouldn't we do this? I don't see how stem cell research infringes on anyone's happiness. It should be adding to it.

Oh, lol, I meant that it was farther away, not that it was correct

There's much more to this not being put into effect than people being lazy (though people certainly are lazy). My main issue is that we are now talking about no parties and some one becoming president of the US based solely on a personal ideal, which varies among almost citizen. Just imagine all the possibilities for each candidate. Sure there would someone who mirrors you're beliefs pretty closely, as opposed to now, but there would also be 1,000 other candidates, so what are the odds of your favorite being picked - very slim chances. The thing is, it will all boil down to money again. Only the rich candidates will get a national spotlight, just like they do now. Every candidate is loaded because their supporters are only allowed to give them a small amount of money, so they must rely on their personal wealth to run on a national forum. This is a law that must be changed for anything to get set straight. There is a reason for parties though, and that is so that there is a representative from a very large number of people of the country. I too, don't agree with this for many reasons. So what's the solution? Make everything possible be handled at a State level. So, I would propose that the Federal Govt. only worry about our national defense (intelligence agencies, armed forces, etc...), and inter-state and international travel. And then everything else would be run on a state level. Then there would be a state that would closely mirror what you want this country to be an you could move there. If the Governor of CA legalizes pot and that's a big issue for you, you can then move to CA. Same goes for most every highly questioned law or lack there of. The US is huge, even some states are enormous. Things would be much more efficient if the States were more individual in their laws and societal idiosyncrasies. And each Governor would be like a mini-president, each with most likely very different values (at least much more of a choice than we have now)

In the beginning there were 4 of 'em... or so the Sphinx would say

This is clearly the answer. I think the real riddle is why you're sending them emails

I don't think so: I took "keep it basic" to mean more than just a question about amateurs/professionals in light of the previous questions about sports. But yeah, I like the 4 year interval for both. I think the Winter should still be Olympics, but not the "real" Olympics and more of an X-Games thing only with more worldly value (though X-Games are sweet). Sports should just have their own international competition like the World Cup for soccer and they should stay out of the Olympics. The summer Olympics should go back to the oldschool competitions of Track of Field and Swimming, maybe a couple others. It would mean so much more to watch the 400m relay and then NOT see a softball game or something so very un-Olympic.

Cool topic, I'll take a stab at it assuming that God exists. I would think that he sees the past, present and future of our universe, but most likely not have that power concerning where he is. Since time is basically not necessary and there are many theories that the universe can be seen without time, that is most likely what God sees. Though, I would venture to say that this omniscience is only applicable to our universe and not in God's space and time. I would therefore believe that he sees our futures (but only the parts that our known to us). He does not see the part of our futures (which we do not comprehend) that are relevant to where he exists and where our souls are resurrected. I would say God has free will. He used free will to make our universe and to have omniscience over it. I'd say that he did everything at once and now it's all playing out from where he began it without his interference. Meaning he is God, so there are obviously no flaws that he would have to iron out as they come up.

I agree with Duh Puck. The moderators do a great job here and I think that the undermining of their authority, guidelines and decision-making should come to an end now. Seriously. They are all very respectful and answer PMs readily and thoughtfully. This is about the fifth thread I've seen in the last week that has attempted to take control out of their hands and this really needs to come to an end. These matters should also not be taken publicly into the forum.

I was trying to correlate the answer with the last 2 lines. Are there any relations or are they just extraneous? Mostly the skull part - I was thinking that deep within our skulls (minds) there are traces of prehistoric elements like instincts. Or am I just reaching for the unattainable?

You got it Spaceman Spliff (nice name btw). E-kudos to you!

And you sting like a bee

First question Would you define boxing as sport? I say It's just a fight! I say it's a sport. There are plenty of rules (though they're all similar of course). A real fight (to me) is more like kick boxing or UFC fights where there are not many rules and you can do almost anything you would in a street fight. Having said that, I've never been too keen on calling 1 on 1 competitions sports. Boxing, tennis, pool, Track and Field, swimming, etc... I recognize that they are sports, but if it were up to me I would call them competitions or events. I feel like sports should be a team effort. Second question Which sports should not be considered as sports? Gymnastics is a competition sure, but sport? I basically just answered this. I think anything that does not involve a team should not be a sport. It gets a little hazy with relays in track and so forth, but I still think that's not a sport. I ran track (800 m) so I have nothing against it; it's just nothing like football, soccer, basketball, etc... which I think are pure sports. Third question Should professionals be excluded from the Olympic games or all competition for that matter? Keep it basic/amateur! I have a big problem with the Olympics now. They seem to allow anything. Why not a pie eating contest or a competition to see who can spit ants the farthest? I think it's gotten a bit silly. There should absolutely be no professionals first of all. Second, there should be no sports (as I define sports above). So, no baseball, softball, basketball, hockey, etc... I think the Olympics should be pure 1 on 1 (with relay exceptions) competition and they should stop adding silly events and professional sports. I feel like the Olympics have lost a lot of integrity due to the amount of competitions they now embrace.

I'm the exact same. I pop in and out of New Puzzles, but my lengthy and more thoughtful posts are always in Others. It took me a few weeks to even try out the Others section though. It's like starting to drink Bud and then discovering Guinness

I'm stuck in the same boat. Even once the Democrat is decided I'm not going to be happy. Between McCain, Obama and Clinton all three are very flawed, not to mention that they're ALL senators! For those of you who don't know much about US senators, here's the skinny: they do little, if not nothing and have no management experience whatsoever. I think that only governors or mayors should become presidents. So now what? I don't like any of the 3, and one of them is sure to win. Do I vote for Nader, or someone in a different party hoping they can reach their 5% of votes in order to become a recognized party or do I look at the here and now and vote for the lesser of 2 evils? It's really an awful choice to have to make. I'm all for getting a 3rd party involved because it's clear Reps and Dems are both corrupt and neither practices what they do or should preach. But the 3rd party thing has never taken flight. A huge effort was made to get Nader 5% in 2000 and that didn't work at all and now most of supporters at that time oppose him. So how is it going to work this year? It's not. Basically, we're gonna be screwed for a couple more decades at least. Something tremendous will have to happen to shake up the 2 party system and that isn't coming any time soon unfortunately. In order to solve the problem in a fast effective matter I would propose that States get much more power and the Federal Govt. diminishes to basically only National defense. No IRS, no Social Security, no big budget Fed. Govt. plans at all. We would use the Fair Tax or something similar and have each state make most of its own laws. This of course, is not going to happen any time soon either...

heh, yeah

How many pandas do you see?