unreality

I have been reading this discussion from the sidelines without commenting and it has been very interesting, but I feel it is time to step in. UtF: I would like to live in a world where everything is by consent and where you choose to join a govt instead of being born into "taxation-based slavery" as you say; however, as others have pointed out, this can never be reality due to human nature. It simply comes down to this: you are far too optimistic about your fellow human beings. Maybe you have just not seen enough of the world or experienced the cruelty and selfishness of the average person. We'd all like to believe everyone is inherently good but ultimately we are just animals, and our foremost care is ourselves. Sure we may give to charity but usually it's to feel better about ourselves Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of charity, a lot of good people in the world, that sincerely want to help, but it's not enough to overcome the constant tide of self-interest that persists through every animal on the planet including us. It's how we became so prolific in the first place and it's not stopping now. Your society may work if each member was selected after a careful cross-examination and only "good people" were in it, but corruption happens fast. People WILL take advantage of the freedom and make life hell for everyone else. So really, it comes down to values. You value freedom/choice/(consent) as the utmost highest pinnacle of morality; others on the board value basic life necessities/conveniences/(ease/quality of life).... that's what it comes down to. I'm not trying to pick sides, I will let the debate continue as it has, but I just wanted to point out this fundamental difference that's making a large barrier between you all.

I don't care if she removes her tonsils, because they won't develop into a living human being Aha, the old catch. I'll show you why this is an invalid argument (and by extension the rest of your argument falls into speculation) : say you have a set date (you seem to think it's 6 months but a lot of people have their own little opinions about "when" it's a person, lol), and at that point in the development, you consider the fetus to now be a human. You're no longer okay with aborting it at that point or later. So what about a day before? What about literally 10 seconds before this "line"? Is that perfectly fine to kill the fetus, despite that if you wait 10 seconds longer it'll now be murder by your standards? It's a paradox of infinitesimals. You cannot draw an absolute line. it's very fuzzy. There is no distinction, being a continual, gradual process, that, if not interrupted, will most likely (in most reasonably healthy countries) be born into a living person if left to develop as it naturally does. Once again, my skin cells, tongue cells, etc, will not keep multiplying into a new person. A zygote may not seem like a person yet but it will be. A sleeping person cannot suffer until later, if, say, you fill the room with a poisonous gas that kills them in their sleep peacefully. Would you do that to a sleeping person? I hope not... and yes octopuppy, a comatose person did have a personality, and will have a personality if they wake up. A fetus did not have a personality but they will develop one if they are born. The future is more important than the past.

Right but who are you (or anyone, or the mother) to judge someone's quality of life? Even if they have a bad childhood in an orphanage, they might go out and conquer the world one day. I don't think it's morally permissible to say someone should not be born if they'll be unwanted. and remember - its not a WILL, its a LIKELY. theres never a 100% change that the baby will survive. things happen. they do. if they're likely to wake up, most people will keep them on life support. but someone has to pay. if you nor your family can pay for you to be on life support, then who pays? the government? do you think that THEY'LL keep you on life support for as long as necessary? I dont know. Agreed, though my point is, let's say someone is knocked unconscious or deep asleep or something and they'll wake up in 8 hours. They're not conscious, they're not "thinking", but they WILL, in another 8 hours. Sure you could kill them right now, but you agree that would be murder yes? Because they'll wake up in 8 hours and be fine. Likewise, the fetus may not be thinking yet but it'll wake up in 8 hours, 9 months, whatever, and be fine. It's "sleeping" and it will indeed most likely wake up (normal dangers of childbirth aside as it's been said) and then be alive

That's pretty cruel and closeminded. I'm not trying to be rude here but just because someone has less money than you doesn't mean they're unhappy or deserve to never have been born... What about someone who's asleep? in a coma? unconscious? they're not thinking. But they WILL when they wake up (or get born, in the fetus's case). agreed. That's why it's a sticky situation.... one view is that when the sperm and egg come together, then it's life. But even that presumption stands on thin ice...

I agree with you LJ, your logic is pretty sound. If not aborted, the fetus will most likely become a human. The issue however is where you draw the line. Is every non-pregnating sperm, every egg passed unfertilized, a waste of potential human life? It's hard to say...

I wouldn't be so pessimistic if I were you. There's nothing magical in a human's ability to play a board game. Any strategy we can do, whether conscious or subconscious, a computer can [in theory!] imitate (and probably do better) either by learning or its own devise. There may be no written-in-stone ideal strategy as related to the OP, but there's definitely the potential for a computer to become extremely good (better than you or i) at the game with the right kind of adaptive, flexible programming. It just hasn't happened yet as far as I know (but I haven't followed up on that for a while)

I think AI researchers have been cracking at Go for a while now, still to no avail

Have you stopped to think that you're just scapegoating the grades on drug use when (a) the classes are getting harder as you get older, and (b) typical end-of-the-year apathy? But as I recommended weeks ago, you should've staved off the hedonism until the summer :excl: But don't give up so easily. You have more time to reclaim your academic record

bed looks like a bed! also,

Don't get me wrong, cannabis is a great plant. We use hemp for everything (and used to use much more before prohibition) and THC is a pretty rad chemical. But if everyone was high all the time I doubt the world would function very well We'd probably eat up all the food supplies within the first week Well, don't sell them haha, but otherwise listen to Izzy. Don't take the pills regularly, even if your doctor has convinced your parents it's best for you. Regular amphetamine use can cause you all kinds of problems later. Yeah a very small dose is generally helpful. But these things are pretty hard to establish and research, especially with the current legal status. As far as I know, knowledge hasn't been outlawed by the government (yet...lol), but whereas ignorance is bliss, knowledge is power, and we should do more and more research so that we're not guessing anymore. That's another reason the legal system is completely f*cked when it comes to this. edit: another issue being that in a society where alcohol is the drug of choice, all other substances are as assumed to be as intoxicating as alcohol is (far from the truth, alcohol is one of the most severely impairing) which is another reason for the kind of paranoia and religious conservatism over the situation. But I digress... peace*out already won her debate

I agree with all of the above except for "marijuana actually INCREASES the brain’s ability to learn and function"

VALIANT

It's 1930, great scott you've overshot! Luckily you're just in time to stop Hitler

The first was a typo (I meant ideal not idea) but the second wasn't a typo, I did mean to say 'illegal', but it was meant as sort of tongue-in-cheek, i.e., a ludicrous possibility. I didn't mean a government should make them illegal (you know how against governments meddling in personal health I am. Despite my dislike of McDonald's and the health risk it poses I would still elect to keep it legal. The fine line, and only reason, for drug illegalization is not that it hurts you but could have the potential to hurt others.), I just meant in an ideal world nobody would have the curiosity or desire to use drugs but that was what I meant as tongue-in-cheek since such a world is ludicrous. Escapism is built into our nature, whether it be by video games, books, movies, substances, love, virtual reality, or more likely a hodgepodge of all of the above. As UtF said, nobody should be threatened by a vast group of individuals with force or incarceration for that desire, even if it may be psychologically or even physically unhealthy. Moreover, chemicals abound constantly. Our brain is a cocktail of drugs, hormones and self-produced psychoactive substances constantly causing neurotransmitter releases & mood changes. We rotate through a complex series of primal states of varying "sobriety" every single day. Anyone that likes to "stay sober" has never gotten mad, had a dream, drank coffee, fell in love, or smelled a strong smell of chocolate cookies that reminded them of their childhood in a sudden rushing of warm memories. At a certain point you have to stop fighting the unknown and realize that for all of human (and many animal's) history, altering our own minds has been an important catalyst for discoveries, but yes, also tragedies. There is good and bad to everything, some substances more than others. It's all a matter of detail, care, health, and using one's best judgment after thorough research and thought.

Don't take amphetamines on a regular basis, even if your doctor prescribes them. As has been said before, they are good (and even, very helpful) on occasion but they definitely make you into a different person. It all comes down to the definition of mental disorder. Is ADHD really a mental disorder that needs "fixing" even if fixing it makes you a completely different person? I guess if the person with it wants to change and be "less zany", it should be up to them, but keep in mind it could be things like zaniness that make you who you are. There's no need to conform to what society classifies as normal intelligence unless you truly believe your ability to concentrate and operate and live is severely affected without the medication...

PM me, I'll unload some arguments & sources on you. There are a lot of substances I would legalize _before_ marijuana (i.e. LSD i think can be _very_ helpful to society), but nevertheless marijuana is still less of a societal danger than alcohol or cigarettes. In an idea world we would make them all illegal but people are too curious for that to be a feasible reality so we have to accept the actual reality and take steps in harm reduction (like Switzerland et al).

Yes the "extra" piece of info here is that they have to be integers. This doesn't always guarantee a unique solution, in fact these types of problems are generally very difficult (see Diophantine equations or Fermat's last theorem) but in your case, that was the extra info needed to make up for the lack of a 3rd equation. The problem with curr3nt's assertion however is that he assumes they are positive integers when integer doesn't specify sign.