16,951 Forum Posts by "RedSkunk"
At 11/16/06 11:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Will others look back on history with regret that the entire Iranian peoples weren't eradicated in the same manner of that which they wish upon their enemies?
Does the same hold true for the Germans? Fifty years ago, perhaps. Today? The "entire Iranian peoples" cannot be held accountable for their government. A "proper punishment" if Iran **theoretically** aided in a nuclear attack on Israel would be an invasion and toppling of the Iranian government. I should think. Not a "retaliatory genocide."
At 11/15/06 11:21 PM, TheMason wrote: This is not Afghanistan...
No, what you're advocating is a situation identical to Rwanda. But with AK-47s instead of machetes..
At 11/16/06 12:15 AM, Altarus wrote: Those types of stem cells are not the ones that are the subject of this controversy though. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells, yeah? I think it is immortal to kill an embryo for scientific research.
No. It's not necessary to kill the embryo to harvest embryonic stem cells. A single cell can be taken from an early embryo and then cultured in a petri dish. The reason this isn't done right now is because it's time consuming. It's much easier to create a four- or five-day-old group of cells in a petri dish to collect stem cells from.
Also, from what I understand, embryonic stem cells are difference than the ones you mentioned.
You're wrong. The stem cells in menstrual blood and placenta / umbilical cords are pretty much the same, in terms of quality and potential. I'll link to this article since for some odd reason it has a picture of a moderately attractive female attached to it.
At 11/16/06 12:21 AM, pt9-9 wrote: His initial topic should've been titled Embryonic Stem Cell research. He talked nothing but of embryos. And his question really meant 'why are people opposed to embyonic stem cell research with all its potential?'.
my answer: adult stem cells
So i'm lazy, big deal.
Read this post.
At 11/16/06 04:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't think he's Republican...
You're not around here enough..
What sort of nukes?
No, fuck it. I don't think it's ever justified. The effects of radiation do irreparable harm to the environment and people not involved in the given conflict. Even to "The Enemy," radiation poisoning and increased cancer rates for generations is a shitty thing to do.
Anyone deposit for me Fri-Mon?
The thing is, compromise is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. Stem cell research is being painted as some sort of "pro-life v. pro-choice" us versus them debate, but it's not. Nobody to my knowledge is saying that it's immoral to extract cells from used placentas / umbilical cords or menstrual blood. The whole issue is politicized and the science behind it is getting shitted on.
There's no issue here. Besides the fact that politics is interfering with science.
At 11/15/06 10:30 PM, MindControlFun wrote: As for the rest of the topic, that can be debated when the amount of stem cells we have now are gone.
If we never harvested a single stem cell again, we'd never "run out" because we can culture the existing lines. But therein lies the problem. Bush limited the amount of research in the US to a dozen or so lines. These lines that we currently have aren't the most promising in terms of breakthroughs. So it's handicapping research.
At 11/13/06 06:05 PM, TheMason wrote: Also look at Afghanistan in the 1980s, primative warriors were able to defeat a superpower.
And that was the example I was going to point to also. Not the greatest results here, eh?
The best solution in Darfur is for the US, NATO, EU, UN, whatever other acronym you want, to adequately fund another acronym – the African Union (AU). They have peacekeepers in Darfur now, and the government and nearly everyone involved is willing. But the AU is hampered by being a small, young organization. They don't have the $$$ or manpower to be effective at the moment.
Creating a working AU would also prove to be a stabilizing force in the future for Africa. It's sustainable. Arming rebel groups.. Just.. doesn't seem too bright. Seems like we've tried that, and that's how this all happens.
At 11/15/06 09:45 PM, pt9-9 wrote: because of adult stem cells
That's not a real response... To anything.
There isn't a reason to be against stem cell research. Viable, young stem cells can be had from the placenta after birth, as well as menstruation blood. These two sources seem plentiful.
At 11/15/06 06:23 PM, Imperator wrote: That would assume we are a society based on war and fear.
You challenge my assumption? War and fear aren't necessarily "changes." The US has been at war in one form or another since adopting the position of super power & loving it sixty-odd years ago. Additionally, these wars and their foreign policy have been angled to provoke fear, to gain support. Cite the Cold War.
And yet this may all have started with something as simple as someone being nice to a person of a different ethnicity (specifically avoiding the term "race" here.....hint hint.....)
The idea that slavery's end – or any change at all – was precipitated by an individual is a pretty big leap. Willing to make the case for such looney individualism?
At 11/15/06 08:10 PM, Empanado wrote: So I was thinking about making a topic about South American politics, but I doubt anybody would give much of a damn. What's with the utter lack of international threads?
Do the annual school of americas topic. I think I've made one or two..
At 11/15/06 05:44 PM, NoNameProphet wrote: 7 = Great change will come within this century on global outlook.
The time span you gave (50-100 years) is pretty long, and considering the situation we're in, change is going to be required.
Zeke/m/22/"what are you wearing?"
Recent op/ed I wrote. Jonathan Anomaly's article simply went into why voting was often pointless. I'm wondering if anyone here can spin a conversation from what I've written.
---
Jonathan Anomaly’s recent commentary could have gone one step further. Not only do single votes not matter, but the elections themselves often result in little progress.
The belief that the latest midterm elections will result in significant change is rooted in hope, not in any sort of reality. Faces might change, policy might be re-examined in the short-term, but the fundamental structures still exist and will continue.
For an example of this one need only look to Iraq. The connection is rarely made between the million dead due to sanctions (due to our 42nd president – the black jazz musician) and the hundreds of thousands because of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation (due to our 43rd, or “Satan”). The current debacle in Iraq didn’t spontaneously occur. It’s the physical manifestation of a continued Middle East policy.
Still, to emphasize this and leave it at that is counterproductive. Pointing this out only serves to further disenfranchise. The way toward change is not abandoning the current political system, but working within it, with a wink and a nod, acknowledging that it’s ineffective. The best quality of a democratic system is that it (ideally) limits the power and length of reign of those who seek power. So voting is important if for no other reason than to bring different intolerable and backward leaders to power.
But what is effective in advancing a given ideology or cause? To put it tritely, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” This requires a certain amount of qualification. The assumed advice here is that environmentalists reduce their ecological footprints, feminists fight against patriarchal norms, and peaceniks actively oppose war and imperialistic foreign policy. But again, the impact of a single individual is insignificant. One typical response to this goes along the lines of, “If everyone did it …” But they don’t.
Nonetheless, being a “part of the solution” is important because it works to change the fundamental structures of the system. The millions who took to the streets in protest on the eve of the most recent invasion of Iraq didn’t change the outcome of the war, but they did renew interest in and discourse on issues of peace.
If nobody had taken to the streets to protest because they felt it was futile, then that dialogue would have remained largely internal. To change a society based on war and fear, these characteristics need to be questioned in the public sphere.
Voting is only the first, simplest and most limited means of civic participation. What is much more important than voting is action — and not for an expected outcome, but for the sake of the action itself.
Don’t protest war thinking it will change anything. It probably won’t. Protest because it’s the right thing to do and not doing anything is contributing to the problem.
College is a peculiar time when we’re presented with overwhelming opportunities for taking action, and we largely don’t. Some of us voted last week; most of us probably didn’t. And for the purpose of affecting change, it doesn’t matter. What is more important is that we remain active in our student organizations, educate and inform ourselves and each other, and participate in open discourse with one another. The first step toward any change is becoming a full, well-rounded individual – something it'd be nice to think college is all about.
At 11/15/06 03:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Your driving all the way down from Canada, just for that.
Damm, you have time on you hands.
Because I live in Canada. Riiight.
Hi. I'm redskunk. I live in NY and have been posting here for three years. Who are you again?
Does anyone live in the North Carolina / Virginia area? I'm going down to the SOA protest, and have everything taken care of Fri-Sun nights. But it'd be nice to not sleep in my car Monday night..
Jonas is a prick.
On the other hand, I can't pretend to be above the rabble. ;-)
Is this thread serious? Is it April 1st already? WTF?
.
Dear Wade-pookums,
I would like to be a forum moderator. I've been a steady poster for three years now. My internet time is limited but I still spend a fair amount of time on the forums. This browsing is mostly done in between classes, and in the evening (EST).
After three years on the site, I'm fairly even-tempered. Even if / when I get P.O.'d at a poster, however, I would not abuse the mod privileges (as many can attest to since I've admin / modded a variety of other forums over the years). As you probably know, I regularly visit the politics forum. I also visit the new art forum daily. I could always expand my browsing also (I used to be a bit more active in General, C&C, and Wi/Ht for instance).
I can write properly. I do really wish that I could help out on the forums. It's a PITA to contact a mod via AIM or e-mail whenever I see something worthy of being deleted.
This topic is really odd.
At 10/17/06 12:53 PM, Grammer wrote: http://www.newground../topic.php?id=589667
uhhhh..... April Fools?
Hahaha, lookin' good fli. I think yr husband summed it up perfectly. =]
Hispanic mohawks FTW.
At 10/16/06 09:03 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The players are the ones in the shorts, not the man thongs.
...? What sort of volleyball have I been watching?
>.>
At 10/16/06 08:30 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Male Volleyball is on the TV right now…I mean, wtf? Do people actually watch that for the sporting part of the activity?
I like to watch their packages flailing about. hubba hubba.
At 10/13/06 02:46 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: I pee quietly.
LOL
.
The Departed.
It was worth the price of admission. Only complaint I had was how fucking similar DiCaprio and Damon look. For the first half-hour I couldn't distinguish the two. Wahlberg's character was funny, Nicholson reached new heights in sleaziness. Best Scorsese in years, hands down.
... and the chick was hot.
I find it hard to believe that South Park is still on. New shows and everything?
So what's going on with snooble.com? Do you really have plans for it? Cause it'd make a great name for an online magaaaziiiiinnnneeeee..... ;-)
feels like starting another project just to abandon it later down the road.
At 10/11/06 12:24 PM, Zach wrote:At 10/11/06 11:04 AM, fuzz wrote: Zach in the next photo you post can you include the non-photoshopped version?Or I could just upload one I already have :)
so we can see how much is photoshoped, if i ever photoshop a picture it looks too fake
This is Paranoia, it's been heavily photoshopped compared to other photos, usually its just a change in levels or some minor cloning. I changed this one so much because I hate the yellow and green wall!
That's the unphotoshopped one? I like it also. Totally different atmosphere – more surreal, visually-stimulating maybe, while the earlier one was darker (atmosphere-wise).
When I chanted "shrike" three times acouple pages ago, I was thinking "snooble."
So it does still work.
Don't question the magical lounge reincarnation chants. Just don't.
