You draw the line when it starts to affect other people. The government (and society in general) ration resources when they become scarce - this isn't new. Similarly, the concept of speed limits and driver alcohol testing came about for safety, because enough people weren't able to handle themselves responsibly that measures were put into place for the good of everyone. On the topic of guns, I can say that I do not care for them and do not own or intend to own any. However, I also don't care if my neighbors want to have five guns for every room in their house, and if they want to go to the shooting range every day - they can do what they want.

The problem arises when we have people using guns to kill large numbers of people. Statistically speaking, our country is the most violent of any developed nation (see point #5), and we also have the most guns. Further, you'll find that the most violent region of the United States (the South - see point #6) correlates with the greatest number of guns, according to self-reported gun ownership. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there's a trend that I'm sure you're noticing.

Additional regulations and restrictions is a raw deal for responsible gun owners, but we have a problem that unfortunately is affecting many people. I respect the rights of gun owners, but their rights end where mine begin. Sadly, the focus of their hobby is a factor that puts me, my family, and my community at risk. Hopefully we can come to an agreement such that the gun owners can still enjoy their hobby, and the threats that guns pose are greatly reduced.

What note-taking apps have you tried? I use Notability, which allows you to split the screen into the normal view and a "zoomed up" view when using the writing mode. This allows you to write characters and figures with large strokes, which gets around the inaccuracy of the fat-tipped iPad styluses, but because you're writing in a magnified box, what you're writing doesn't appear large when you're viewing the document in the normal view. You can scale the magnification box so as to alter the "font size" of what you're writing, as well. You can also set a region in the magnified box such that when one of your written strokes touches it, the magnification box shifts to the right, allowing you to continue writing on the same line. Using this program, I'm able to take written notes about as quickly as if I were writing on paper. It may take some getting used to and I don't imagine that it could work for everyone, but I've been very pleasantly surprised with how well it works. (And if you use a Bluetooth keyboard, Notability does have a typist mode as well, and you can easily switch between the writing and typing modes.)

Do you understand why Israel does what it does? If Israel doesn't respond, or if they give a very weak response, Hamas will seize the opportunity to loudly proclaim that what they are doing is working. It would be a rallying cry to increase their attacks and recruit even more, with the idea that Israel was close to being beaten. Sometimes Hamas makes announcements like this even when Israel is viciously fighting back, but I'd imagine that most residents of Gaza have a harder time believing it when destruction is all around them.

And "constant oppression" in Gaza? We both know very well that Hamas is actively smuggling in weapons. The number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza makes that pretty clear. Those weapons aren't being brought into Gaza because Israel is locking down the borders, either. Hamas wants to remove Israel entirely, and they are up front about this goal of theirs. Open the borders, and what will happen? It will be even easier for weapons to be brought into the region.

I am not going to say that the Palestinians have nothing to complain about, historically. I don't think that they were treated in a completely fair manner by their Arab neighbors nor by the international community. But the reality is that Israel has a population of close to eight million people, and they're not going anywhere. The Palestinians need to completely reject this notion that Israel and its inhabitants can somehow be removed, and stop regularly attacking Israel. Israel has no interest in armed conflict, and if they are not threatened, there will be no need for them to keep Gaza locked down.

I don't think this has anything to do with behaving like a business. Most hospitals that I'm familiar with aren't exactly awash with money. Plenty struggle to maintain their daily operations. I agree that they should be prepared for disasters, but it makes little sense for them to put money into staving off a potential future disaster when they're battling against one major disaster every day: their bankruptcy and shutdown.

I don't think that makes you an anti-Semite, I think that makes you someone who is rightfully upset about suffering that was experienced and that seemingly could have been avoided. However:

You're not assigning blame properly. You ask what gives me the right to cut off a part of your body, but I wasn't the one who cut it off (nor, for that matter, would I have a right or desire to). Additionally, I (and other Jews) do not go around dictating that people must undergo circumcision. While I don't know the circumstances of your birth (when I presume you were circumcised), in most cases it is the parents' decision to have their child undergo circumcision. Mind you, that decision isn't always religiously motivated, and there is even some debate about whether it started with Judaism or elsewhere. Regardless of its origins, at this point in time circumcision is viewed and presented as a hygienic procedure, it is considered to be a low-risk procedure (which doesn't mean no risk, as your case may show), and is entirely optional (except for the infants who are circumcised, whose guardians make the decision for them).

Who should get the blame for your misfortune? Assuming it was done when you were an infant, we could blame your parents for putting you through it; we could blame the rabbi or who ever performed the circumcision for botching it; we could blame any medical professionals who saw you and didn't properly deduce what was going on; we could blame the man who thought up circumcision thousands of years ago. We could put blame on any number of people, ideas, or institutions. Even if I think it's misguided, I certainly don't hold anything against you for blaming Judaism, though - if that's what you need to do to make peace with your suffering, so be it.

Christianity seems to center around the idea of who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, but that's not the case with Judaism. (I can't speak for Islam.) It's true that "the wrath of God" is detailed in the Jewish texts, but I've never heard it mentioned as a means to frighten people. If you're Jewish, the interpretation is one of history; that God made a contract with the Jewish people, then did these things to save them from enslavement. Sure, the Jewish people screw up and incur some of God's wrath, but it's nothing like suffering in hell for all eternity. The interpretation I learned was that God's feats represented God fulfilling His part of the contract, and now it's our turn to fulfill our part. There's no threat implied in any of that, it's just stated to show that something was done for you (through your ancestors), and now you have a responsibility to uphold.

Another big difference between Judaism and Christianity is in personal responsibility, and the purpose of life. Christianity seems to dictate that we're all powerless vessels floating on a sea dominated by currents of good and evil. Satan lures you one way, but you need to believe to be saved and reach heaven. The purpose of life is simply to find that belief and stick with it, avoiding the temptations of Satan. By comparison, Judaism focuses on more "practical" things. According to some texts, God left Earth to Man; that is, we're tasked with turning Earth into a paradise. Satan exists in Judaism, but he isn't a source of evil. Rather, the belief is that when you die, your soul goes before a "spiritual court," where Satan is the prosecutor who points out all of the evils that you committed. Basically, while Christianity views evil as some external force, Judaism recognizes that evil can come from within, and claims that everyone should take responsibility for it themselves.

Honestly, it all sounds pretty silly if interpreted in a literal manner. Being Jewish (although "spiritual but not religious") I am obviously biased, but one of the things that I really appreciate about Judaism is that it seems designed to be a guideline to living and finding meaning in life. The focus is on being a better person, improving the world around you, appreciating and enjoying your life. If you can do all of that without reading the Bible or praying to God, wonderful! Formal religion may not recognize you for it, but there's a line in the Bible which claims that you would be considered Jewish simply for that. This is one reason (among others) why you don't see Jews going around trying to convert people. Not pushing the beliefs on people, I might add, is another appealing factor to the Jewish belief set.

TL;DR: What you say accurately describes most forms of Christianity, but there's at least one religion (Judaism) that doesn't quite fit it. I don't think anyone needs religion, but please keep an open mind and don't condemn all religious beliefs just because Christianity can get a bit nuts.

Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort. Perhaps a psychiatric condition, or perhaps a brain tumor that is altering his personality and beliefs. Granted, being a physician doesn't automatically make someone well-versed in science... but consider that he's 66 years old. That's not exactly "old" by today's standards, but not so young that those concerns would be invalid. I suppose we could figure it out by looking at his track record and history of statements.

How did this get modded informative? Ron Paul has stated many times that he is anti-abortion, BUT he believes that it should be up to the individual states to decide whether they want to allow it or not for themselves. That's about as close to "let the people decide" as you can get. I'm sure many of us here wish that he said "abortion should be legal all over the country" but 'here's my personal view, I don't believe I've been granted a mandate to force it on everyone' is pretty damn good for a politician (or a person in any leadership position) to have.

In addition to having more elaborate experiments, the burden of proof has become greater. It's fascinating to read scientific papers from even 20-30 years ago. The methodology seems so basic, and claims are made freely. Few, if any, papers from that time period would make it to publication today. Today, claims must be made very carefully, the number of methods used in each paper has increased, and often times many figures are dedicated to proving the exact same thing, just from different methods and approaches. It's necessary, but it most certainly slows things down.

It's not always a simple matter of "the child is stupid" or "the child is unwilling to learn." Perhaps that subject is particularly difficult for that child, or perhaps there are problems occurring within the child's life that is preventing him/her from performing well. Depending on the community that we're talking about, it's not always a case of the kid being spoiled.

I agree with what someone mentioned above, that many people simply go through the system in an uninspired manner and then come out feeling entitled. Having tougher teachers might help with that. However, these children are also developing as people (not just as learners). Negative reinforcement has its place, but positive reinforcement is far better. Based on my experiences both in and out of the education system, people tend to over-use the negative (even inappropriately) and rarely utilize the positive. I would value a teacher's honest opinion, but I would not want a judgmental teacher taking their shit out on my child.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think it's a matter of the company feeling that it's "beneath them." It likely has to do with marketing. They want you to associate the service with them, specifically, so that you'll stay with them and buy more things from them. Unlike electric and water companies, these companies do face competition (at least, in certain regions). Competing on price alone can not only be difficult, but it becomes fickle - if these companies are just dumb gateways to the internet, what's to prevent customers from switching over to another service that becomes cheaper? More importantly, the company that remains silent and stays out of their customer's way also stays out of their customer's mind. You and I may appreciate that (and wouldn't forget the company), but it seems like many people need something loud, flashy, obnoxious, and in-their-face to register it at all.

That's advice for the work force, as well...

I'd mod you up if I had points. You're absolutely correct. You may not be able to disprove that all ghosts exist, but you can examine claims. If people hear noises, record it to verify that they exist, and then look for possible causes. If people see eerie glows, record it (even if only by using a light meter - not even a camera). Temperature shifts - verify with a thermometer. And so on...

I see some parallels between this "ghost verification" and my biology research. We're working with things that we can't touch or see with the naked eye. You examine key, detectable parameters, and make your conclusions from that. We already have defined parameters for many cell types - the parameters for ghosts are those that cause people to believe that the ghost exists. Some people have written fears that this experiment would be used as proof that ghosts exist, no matter the outcome, and have recommended against even trying - the same thing happens in the field of science. I have yet to hear someone request that an experiment not be performed for that reason (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has encountered that).

I've read a number of your comments in this story, and I understand your thoughts and frustrations. I'm curious, though: why are you jumping to violence? Why not try to affect change through the system? I would preemptively guess your response to be something along the lines of, "the system is broken beyond repair," or "the system is rigged to prevent those who aren't part of the elite from getting in and making change." But is it true? I hear a lot of people complaining about politicians and corruption in the system, yet very few seem willing to challenge them by taking up the job themselves.

Yes, I'm very well aware that politics these days seems to favor the wealthy, or those with preexisting ties to the political world. It's probably why we have career politicians and political families. Despite that, nobody seems to even try.

Why not try it? Start a new political party, or even a loosely-organized politically-motivated organization. Start by taking on government at the local levels, and then move upward. Sure, it'll be difficult - difficult to outlast the established political organizations; difficult to keep your party united; difficult to bear the various expectations of the population you serve; and difficult to accomplish your goals with the limited power of what ever office you and your colleagues hold. Those are the limitations of the system.

However, you're saying that you would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, yet you would not be willing to try and work through the system? How can you and others like you declare the system to be broken, when you have not tried to work through it yourself?

While that may be true, why did Wikileaks put them out there? I've always thought of Wikileaks as a way for internal sources to provide information that would reveal corruption or otherwise disturbing activities within organizations. Releasing this list just seems like pointless antagonism, or a sort of bragging to show what information they have.

I like Wikileaks, but this makes me question whether they've dropped their original ideal (or if it was never theirs, then the ideal that they could have been). Looking back, what purpose did leaking the diplomatic cables serve? We were given a glimpse into the inner thoughts of diplomats, but no hard evidence of corruption or misbehavior was revealed. Was the point really just embarrassment?

The reason why many cancers return after their initial removal has to do with cancer cell types. Previously it was believed that cancer was cancer and all cells were the same, but it is now believed that there are "cancer stem cells." These are cells that bud off into the fast-growing cells that make up tumors, but by comparison the stem cells are slow-dividing and may not fully resemble the tumor cells.

The reason why this is important is because many therapies are designed to target fast-dividing cells. Cells are most vulnerable to treatments (whether chemical or radiation) when they're actively replicating. Chemotherapy does a number on your entire body, but it hits the cancer cells a bit harder because they're dividing even faster. However, even if you clear out a tumor, remission may still occur if the cancer stem cells weren't taken out, as well. And due to their slow-dividing nature, many therapies that we're currently utilizing are likely missing them.

I've never heard of the theory that you mentioned. It seems very unlikely that cancers are intentionally brought about by the body, given that we have essentially no examples of cancers being beneficial, and from what we know of cellular biology there are many, many factors designed to guard against cells becoming cancerous.