Jump to content

Menu

st_claire

Members
  • Posts

    599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by st_claire

  1. No, I think you misunderstood me. People rise up against oppression with violence. Nations oppress (also violence). But national defense is defense against other nations (so that no one can oppress the people of the nation or overthrow the people's government, etc...). Violence caused by individual people attacking a nation is caused by them being oppressed by that nation. (and violence by individuals against other individuals is for the police, not national defense) Does that clear up what I'm trying to say a little better?
  2. Wait, but wasn't that China oppressing the Tibetan's? And Europeans oppressing natives. And well ww2 is even more complicated (or maybe I just know more about that war) but first the rest of Europe oppressed Germany after ww1, and then of course Germany oppressed tons of people. So don't these examples show my point? That all violence is based on oppression.
  3. I think no, they should do it to help. Parents don't get paid to watch the kids. And the older one gets more privlages because they are older and take on more responsibility.
  4. No, not really. I can't think of any war that wasn't started by oppression. If you can, please give examples.
  5. What about getting a treadmill for her to use? (seriously, i've heard of many people doing this during the winter)
  6. Actually, if the US didn't invade other countries, there would be almost no one who wanted to attack the US. People fight against oppression, when the oppression stops, so does the violence.
  7. THe gov should handle only: justice system, police, national defense. That's it. It's only goals should be to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who reside within its borders.
  8. I think citizenship shouldn't exist, yes. I think the gov should protect people, any people who live within it's boundaries. If someone is a dangerous criminal, they should be in jail. If someone has paid their debt to society, they should be able to live anywhere. No problem, I like giving my opinions :lol:
  9. Yes, I think it is unjust. Read my previous post. I believe that people belong to themselves, not the gov. And I believe in private property. If someone wants to live here and someone rents or sells them a place to live, what business is it of the gov? Does the gov own the private home they live in? I don't think so. Does the gov own the people? I don't think so. So the gov should have no say in it.
  10. Right, and I think education should not be payed for by the gov in any way shape or form. As I said, it would render this whole debate moot. Unfortunately, I do think that the poster was right about the shift in the political climate in the US right now. Fierce devotion to gov where people who disagree are labelled traitors. Fear of safety being grossly inflated by the media. Personal freedoms given up due to these things. I mean people can now be held indefinatly without a trial. "The land of the free" is about as accurate as "work will set you free". It is very sad, but very true. I hope people open their eyes before things progress further in a facist direction. But with talk of conscription and civilian disarmerment, I worry a great deal.
  11. Why should they turn themselves in? Breaking an unjust law is not wrong. I agree with the previous poster about how nationalistic the US is right now. Should Anne Frank have turned herself in? She was breaking the law. People certainly wanted Jews to be "rounded up". Be aware of whose political company you share.
  12. Rounded up? They are people, not cattle. And the US is their home, the OP said she was talking about teens who have lived here for years. I'm sure this is the only home some of them even remember.
  13. I assume you mean either marble is black and either is not gray, or do you mean something else? The first marble has a p of 6/10 for black and 7/10 for not gray. If A and B are dependent events, then the probability of A happening AND the probability of B happening, given A, is P(A) × P(B after A). So there are 3 options for the first marble, black, white, or gray. P(black|(!black)) = 6/9 (i.e. p of black on second if first was either white or gray (if it was black the condition is already met)) P((!gray)|gray) = 7/9 So P(!black) * P(black|!black) = 4/10 * 6/9 P(gray) * P(!gray|gray) = 3/10 * 7/9 Now we just add the p's together so: P(at least 1 black) = P(black, x) + P(x,black) = 6/10 + (4/10 * 6/9) P( at least 1 not gray) = 7/10 + (3/10 * 7/9) I think that is right. I hope that helps. Here is a site I googled for you: http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/math-probability.html
  14. I haven't read any of the other replies, but here is my stance. Firstly, what sort of financial aid are we talking about? Private money, well they can make whatever rules they want. Public money shouldn't be used for any educational financial aid for anyone IMO. So in this case their legal status in irrelevant for me. But since a large part of this discussion is about legal status, I will give me thoughts on that also. I think private property rights should be respected. If someone wants to buy land, and someone who owns it wants to sell it to them, then they should be allowed to buy it and have the same rights as any landowner. The government ought to not have the ability to dictate who can live where. Regarding the issue of breaking the law, no court would find these teens responsible for breaking any law, since they were too young at the time they moved. Additionally, breaking the law is not necisary nor sufficient to deserve punishment if that law is morally wrong. A law is not rightious simply because it is a law. I think the goverment establishing laws that basically render all persons and property to be property of the state is morally wrong. Thoughts? Also feel free to PM me as any replies may get lost in the super long thread.
  15. MY brother in law lives in the country and has this issue. He uses a tractor with a blade attachment and it seems to work well. But it does take time. I would probably hire someone and not have to worry about it.
  16. Thank you for all the replies. I will ask my doctor about my blood pressure and find out if that might be a problem. I don't smoke, so that can't fix it. I will try some of the other ideas. Thanks so much :)
  17. Most hotels have a nice sign that says "for your convinience take things like towels or robes as a souvenir and we will be happy to bill your credit card for them" and list their high prices. It isn't stealing as they charge you for them. But such high prices, and why would I want a towel that says a hotel name anyway?
  18. My fingers and toes are always cold in the winter. Doesn't matter if I have gloves or boots or whatever on. Inside by the fire even. Cold! It's driving me nuts. Anyone else every get this? (my nose gets cold often also) Any advice????
  19. I considered an IB school when I was picking my highschool (way back when lol). And I had several friends who did the program. IMO, it was not much harder than any university oriented high school program. I think a homeschooled classical education would be much supperior. Why only a second language for example, when you can do at least 1 classical and 1 modern. Why one extended essay when you can do a junior and senior research paper? Why let sciences and/or math be done at "standard" level when they can be done at advanced? etc... YMMV, but I would have much preferred to be classically homeschooled instead of either an IB school or the university oriented school I went to, or any school I have heard of for that matter.
  20. Your right that there may be long term unforseen side-effects. However it does reduce the chances of cervical cacer by a very large percentage. The side-effects of cervical cancer are known and are quite devestating. I would rather risk some unknowns then some very bad knowns. But to each their own. I think the OP really needs to think about how their family feels about things like vaccines. Ask your dr for more resources maybe. You can even read the published studies if you want, or the medical associations stand on it. Inform yourself and decide for your family whats best for your family. You won't find a concensus here, while I know that would be easiest, alas it is to personal an issue for that,. Best of luck with your decision.
  21. Here it is recommended before they become sexually active, at around age 12 I think, or if they already are sexually active, then as soon as possible.
  22. This is my fav 911 call :) Makes perfect sense to the kid.
×
×
  • Create New...