| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
I still find it hard to believe that in the US it's OK to own a fully functioning assault rifle, but that you can get investigated or even
incarcerated for owning a three-necked flask.
|
Yes this is stupid and hypocritical. But the US does not have exclusive domain of that.
What I was trying to say is that it is stupid of the home chemist to not be careful in disclosing his chemistry hobby to the public. This is not
paranoia - it is reality. If you need examples of how much trouble you can innocently get into just search this forum for a while.
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by Magpie]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
"I still find it hard to believe that in the US it's OK to own a fully functioning assault rifle"
Technically, one must give the ATF one's fingerprints and photo, fill out a bunch of paperwork, wait 6 months and jump through many hoops to get a
real full-auto (or 3 shot burst, select fire) assault rifle. Also, you can only buy it from someone that already has it and it must have been
registered before 1986. The media has brainwashed you into thinking that any weapon that looks scary (or is the evil color black or, god forbid, has
a curved magazine!) like an AK-47/74, M16, Galil, MAC 10 etc... is an "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a SELECT FIRE, intermediate range long gun
designed for military and/or security purposes.
Also technically, it is not hypocritical as the right to own such weapons is specifically garunteed by the Bill of Rights. Glassware is not.
But let's not turn this into a discussion on guns because we all know that for a society to call itself free it's people must be armed with the
firearms available at the time for without them, they can TAKE our glassware and other freedoms by force.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
benzylchloride1
Hazard to Others
Posts: 299
Registered: 16-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pushing the envelope of synthetic chemistry in one's basement
|
|
I managed to take a look around my universities' stock room several times. It was increadible what they had: red phosphorus, thionyl chloride, red
fuming nitric acid, organics of all kinds. None of these chemicals are even used though. The most dangerous chemical I have ever worked with at the
university has been sulfuric acid. This is a far cry from what we worked with at the high school. I took general chemistry at the local high school
and we routinely worked with mercury compounds. The university is extremely parionoid about any chemical. Since it is spring break, I had to do a
classic synthesis of organic chemistry. I synthesized bromobenzene from benzene and bromine that I prepared myself from NaBr. It is sad that we do not
do these labs at the college. Most of the organic chemistry labs we do are simpley mixing two chemicals in a flask, precipitating a product. The
university is so parionoid about safety that we cannot even work with benzene. I love aromatic compounds of all sorts.
Safety; the new religion of communism!
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Yes that was the mantra of my employers also : "Safety, safety, safety!" It's all about their bottom line, of course. Nothing to do with
humanitarianism, contrary to their claims: "We want you to go home to your family in one piece, blah, blah, blah."
My refresher college lab experience wasn't as bad as yours benzylchloride1, thankfully. They had eliminated the oxymercuration of an alkene as it
produced a drop of mercury as byproduct. This I can understand on an economic basis as they probably had to pay outrageous fees for Hg disposal.
But we did get to use Na for qualitative analysis, chlorosulfonic acid, hydrazine, and (gasp) even thionyl chloride. No red P or PCl3, however. I
haven't seen PCl3 since my undergraduate days 45 years ago.
We did mostly meaningful organic syntheses, including Diels-Alder, carbenes, ect. Rarely did we do just extractions from natural products. I think
that I was lucky to have an old school professor of at least 40 years experience. He was probably not easily buffaloed by sqeamish administrators.
[Edited on 19-3-2008 by Magpie]
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
For me in introductory courses I used such 'dangerous' things as: Br2, Benzene, conc. sulfuric&nitric, As2O3 (this is being removed currently I believe), a litre of Hg at once, in apparatus for
measuring some gas constants, SOCl2, acetyl chloride, sodium, dinitrophenylhydrazine, semicarbazide. And likely a few others I am forgetting.
I had the opportunity to extract trimyristin, an ester from nutmeg cloves. That was the only extraction done in university organic lab.
Also, the uni lab I do research in, had to report certain lab stock recently to the feds. Chemical weapon precursors exclusively, including thionyl
chloride, PCl3 and other usefull reagents.
|
|
|
bob000555
Harmless
Posts: 7
Registered: 18-4-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My assorted ranting thoughts on the mater:
I think most of the “prejudice” against our hobby is people who fear what they do not know…which is a lot. There’s also the fact that
they’ve been brainwashed into believing that “chemicals” are bad not realizing that literally EVERYTHING they touch eat and breath is a
chemical. I submit evidence the town that almost banned “dihydrogen monoxide” aka H2O because the where told it’s a chemical in their water
supply that “its present in every tumor, in every school shooting , it kills you if you inhale it, and it eats through metal(rust).”
I wonder what would happen if you informed the DEA that dihydrogen monoxide can be used in drug manufacture…probably the same as when they learned a
that a Erlenmeyer flask can be used in drug synthesis. It’s quit obvious to me that we have left important scientific decisions to bureaucrats who
couldn’t tell a meth lab from a nuclear chemistry lab, or a necessary trace nutrient from a toxin! Another thing that pisses me off is when
politicians wine about our nations slipping scientific superiority in one breath and in the next talk about banning all chemicals that could interest
children in science, or making it nearly imposable to get simple fu**ing glassware!!!!!! I’ll list some of their stupidest decisions here feel free
to add on.
-Banning glassware not realizing that tuberware or a disposable cup will do just as good in most cases
-Banning any chemical that could possibly be abused, I realize potassium permanganate can be used for explosive but its also one of the most useful
chemicals I can think of.
-Not realizing that the price of a generation with no knowledge of chemistry is far greater then reward forcing the local meth lab to go with out a
three necked flask.
-putting people with absolutely no scientific knowledge in charge of deciding what people with scientific knowledge can touch.
-Thinking that preventing people from buying chems prevents them from just MAKING them. If you can find some one who’s to stupid to think of at
least ten ways to make chlorine with common chemicals then is seriously think that person is capable of harming anyone but themselves with a cylinder
of yellow gas !!!
-One a slightly less chemistry topic, putting a guy who thinks there is actually controversy in the scientific community about global warming in
charge of the EPA, and just as bad a person who thinks theirs controversy about evolution in charge of the science curriculum!!!!
Well my original post about our hobby degenerated in to raving rant about governmental douchebaggery oh well…
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
"governmental douchebaggery"
HAHAHA!
IMO, tupperware cannot be used in place of glassware most of the time. Sometimes, maybe.
Keep on with the truth my friend.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
But glass, of course, can be used as glass. Whether you choose
to call a particular item beaker vs. measuring cup or. flask
vs. bottle primarily depends on whether it happens to be located
in the kitchen or the lab.
As Sean Carlson once quipped, every Texas legislator and
policeman who has a coffeemaker on the desk is in violation
of the law they made --- an unregistered flask, filter, and heating
pad being used to perform solvent extraction of a stimulant.
[Edited on 27-3-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
| Quote: |
But glass, of course, can be used as glass. Whether you choose to call a particular item beaker vs. measuring cup or. flask vs. bottle primarily
depends on whether it happens to be located in the kitchen or the lab. |
I disagree! The obvious solution is to ban all forms of glass. Now everyone must use styrofoam cups instead! This will clearly cut down on the
plotting of drug lords and terrorists.
Next week lets talk about the nefarious uses of metal cookware...
On a more serious note: I seem to be very lucky to live in an area where people don't seem to mind chemistry much. Usually people say a few things
about drugs and bombs in jest (Though I don't like those jokes one bit) and then start to ask me about if I have hurt myself (Or if I am buying
something, start lecturing me about such and such being dangerous).
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
But let's not turn this into a discussion on guns because we all know that for a society to call itself free it's people must be armed with the
firearms available at the time for without them, they can TAKE our glassware and other freedoms by force. |
Now this is what I call delusional. So you're going to use a firearm to stop the US government from outlawing glassware? Or revert any other action
they've taken to limit your rights? This is an argument that's been popping up for over more than 20 years, yet I can't remember the US having any
armed revolution in that timespan. I can however remember severe restrictions being imposed on your civil rights in that timespan.
Sure you can own guns. Trouble is that using them against the government would get you charged with conspiracy and terrorism. What? You think you're
going to walk because you're using the argument from the bill of rights?
I also would like to point out that I haven't been brainwashed into thinking every firearm is an assault rifle. I'm well aware that the trigger
mechanism/layout says more about the function and purpose than the shape of the magazine.
Anyway, all the above is not what I was trying to point out. Why would someone go through the trouble of synthesizing explosive compounds when they
can buy a gun to commit an act of terrorism?
Allow me to clarify with a very silly example:
Means, motive, opportunity.
Say someone is in my house and I get into a bad fight with them. So I have the motive to kill that person. Now I can either:
A) Grab my gun if I have one, which provides me with the means. This can be done quickly, so opportunity is also OK. BANG, person dead.
B) Go into my lab and start synthesizing some explosive. I will have the means, but by the time I get back the other person will be gone, so bye bye
opportunity. It's also very likely that I'll calm down and rethink it while producing my explosive.
[Edited on 28-3-2008 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Heh... No. I was only using the glassware thing as an example. The people don't even have to use the guns. Yes, the US is getting bad but they can
only do so much before everyone gets pissed (IMO if we weren't semi-armed, it would be MUCH worse). An armed populace can be an effective deterrent
against a government taking things too far. No one can argue that having to use them is a good thing but if the people HAVE to then at least they
have that option.
Submission to oppression is never the way to go.
The argument you used has ALSO been used millions of times by the anti-gun crowd. In practice, it just doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you
would shoot someone if you had a gun? The kind of people that are going to get hot headed and kill someone are going to do so whether they have a gun
or not.
Regardless of how quickly chemistry can be used to kill someone your argument AGAINST gun ownership is contradictary to your pro-chemistry lifestyle.
You think people shouldn't be able to own something they can kill somebody with? Hand over your chemicals. Certain kinds of firearms should be
banned? Hand over your "more dangerous" chemicals, then. You can't deny some people from having "dangerous" things and then say it's OKAY for you to
have them. That's what the US government does!
Please, let us not get this thread locked.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
bob000555
Harmless
Posts: 7
Registered: 18-4-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The seconded amendment is perhaps the most misunderstand amendment it allows you to own guns, and the founders original intent was so they cold be
used to prevent the government from truing tyrannical . The seconded amendment however should your little rebellion fail.
Any way back to the topic I think the destruction of chemistry is the latest wave in the anti-intellectual movement.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
The argument you used has ALSO been used millions of times by the anti-gun crowd. In practice, it just doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you
would shoot someone if you had a gun? The kind of people that are going to get hot headed and kill someone are going to do so whether they have a gun
or not. |
No, you misunderstood me. I'm not against the ownership of firearms. Like cars, there are people that can handle them responsibly and there are people
that can't. My problem is with the very selective judgment. You have to admit that the chance of people getting hurt when they get into a fight is
higher when they're armed. Regardless if they're armed with knives, guns or a spray bottle of NaOH. So why are the guns and the knives allowed, but
not the bottle of NaOH?
It's the same question as why people are allowed to pour 50L or more of petrol into their car, which contains atleast a liter of benzene. But if you
use the same benzene in the lab with proper protection equipment, you have to file a report and dispose of it seperately.
Same goes for HCN & CO. Safety supervisors will freak out when you request to handle it, but millions of people inhale noxious quantities of those
voluntarily every day.
| Quote: |
The seconded amendment is perhaps the most misunderstand amendment it allows you to own guns, and the founders original intent was so they cold be
used to prevent the government from truing tyrannical . |
Does secretive detainment of people without access to legal representation and deportation to concentration camps sound tyrannical to you? If so,
please consult your legislative literature. Next to your bill of rights is a piece of paper called the patriot act. Wake up and smell the coffee.
[Edited on 29-3-2008 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I'm sorry, I misunderstood, vulture.
"Does secretive detainment of people without access to legal representation and deportation to concentration camps sound tyrannical to you? If so,
please consult your legislative literature. Next to your bill of rights is a piece of paper called the patriot act. Wake up and smell the coffee."
Like I said, this bis bad but it's gonna have to take something that DIRECTLY and negatively affects the "sheeple's" daily lives. Hopefully then they
will wake up. Besides, it's not the "sheep" the govt. has to worry about anyhow.
Also, for example, England is much worse IMO and virtually all firearms are outlawed there.
Anyway, I/We could go on and on but let's get back on topic, shall we?
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
Ultimately, the Bill of Rights is just and old piece of paper in
a museum. What really matters is whether there are people
sticking up for their rights, as is clearly illustrated by this
example of guns versus chemicals.
In the case of guns, there is a powerful, well-organized lobby
headed up by groups such as the NRA. These people are
quite active in promoting their cause, lobbying politicians, and
making legal challenges with the result that the right to arms
has been respected. Politicians think twice before tinkering
with the second amendment because they know that the
NRA could make their life miserable and mess up their
chances of being re-elected.
Similarly, there are powerful automotive lobbies and
pharmaceutical lobbies looking out for their interests, but
there is no interest group sticking up for home chemists.
Given these facts and the general principle that politicians
will take the course of action which makes for the most
government jobs with the least resistance, one can pretty
much understand the lopsided state of affairs in much the
same way that one can, say, predict solar eclipses and
chemical bonding from variational principles..
Politicians love the war on drugs and the war on terror
because such things can be used the justify the role of a
big government (and hence their importance as the people
running this government which plays a crucial role in
protecting the public from all sorts of nasty bogeymen),
warrant the existence of such agencies as the DEA and the
DHS, and can serve to draw attention away from embarrassments
such as a slow economy. To keep this going, they need to at least
look tough on drugs and terror by passing suitable laws. So
what to ban? Going after OTC ephedrine could put a dent
in the sales of pharmaceutical companies whilst items like
phosphorous and toluene which could be banned without having
to worry about stepping on any lobbyist's toes. By contrast, a
favor like carving out an exception for Vicks inhalers to contain a
stereoisomer of methamphetamine (charmingly enough giving
Proctor and Gamble a monopoly) can translate into a donation
to the campaign fund. Likewise, why ruffle the feathers of the gun lobby
by suggesting tighter controls on weapons or alienate the automotive
lobby and oil industry by pointing out the uses suicide bombers could
make of cars and their fuel when one can some across as equally
tough on terrorists by campaigning against chlorine.? The guns and
the knives are allowed but the bottle of NaOH is not because there are
no special interests group championing the right of ordinary citizens
to own chemicals.
As for this Patriot Act, this is the latest variation on the Sedition Acts of
the 1798. Every so often, some event will shock Americans (Whiskey
Rebellion, Haymarket riot, 9/11) leading to a scare ("anarchist scare",
"red scare", "yellow scare", "meth scare") during which the courts will
turn a blind eye towards rights and due process in the name of protecting
national security.
So, turning back to the main topic, it looks like home chemists in the
U.S. (and other countries) will keep getting the short end of the stick and
having their rights trampled unless they can figure out a way of uniting
and making their influence felt. Since amateur scientists are a numerically
small group not especially endowed with political influence, this would
require forming alliances with other groups, of which I can immediately
think of three candidates:
* Professionals Unfortunately, all too many professionals view
amateurs as crackpots and are suspicious of any lab which is not
located in an institution such as a school or company. As I know from
our efforts at PlanetMath in getting professional societies to take us
seriously, it is not at all easy to confront such prejudices but, with
perseverance, one can make headway.
* Homeschoolers Parents trying to teach their children at home
face the same problem of obtaining chemicals and setting up home labs.
Given that the homeschooling movement is already well established and
has influence, we would do well to collaborate with them.
* DIY/Hacker There is a loose community of kindred spirits who like to
fiddle around with technology more of whom would likely up take chemistry
if they knew about it and look favorably on what we do. For instance,
consider the favorable article which Wired ran about the plight of home
chemists including an interview with Polverone. It would be nice if, say,
Make and Instructables would regularly have more material introducing
DIY types to home chemistry like the magazines of yesteryear.
* Intellectual Following what Bob said above, if there are any groups
out there opposing the wave of anti-intellectualism, we should make sure
that they talk about our plight as part of this wave.
Alright, time to get back to setting up HCS.
[Edited on 30-3-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
Argh! Microcosmicus, you spell out the situation very well. I now feel like going out and giving the first anti-chemistry person I come across a good
few smacks in the face! Why can't we have lobbyists!?
I think the shot that weakened us the most was rising concerns over liability. The modern world is becoming more and more concerned over protecting
people from anything and everything. Here in the US it is especially bad: Here people sue for things like serving hot coffee (Damages from emotional
harm from having hot coffee spilled on the lap). This concern... no: moral panic, over liability has made things like chemistry sets dissapear
completely which has opened the door to things like the war on drugs/war on terror tightening the noose. Just think, if chemistry sets were sold today
the text required to list all of the warnings would be far larger than the text of listed chemistry experiments!
I feel like there should be something more I could do... I have heard that sending a letter to my representative might help in certain things, but I
don't really know if this will help if we have no lobbying power. Does anyone have any insights into this process?
I guess I can just work on helping the HCS for now...
[Edited on 30-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]
|
|
|
Splinky
Harmless
Posts: 19
Registered: 9-2-2008
Location: Elsewhere
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
People, most irritatingly family members, often make quips about me blowing things up. I just seethe in silence, but eventually I'm going to snap.
The worst thing of all is some of the idiots I deal with at school. One kid who particularly irritates me is this antisocial dumbass who managed to
get into honors english, giving him an opportunity to beg me for the "recipe for gunpowder" as he calls it.
I think that one of the routes to getting rid of the stereotypes of amateur scientists is to get kids better educated at school about science in
general. Kids don't realize how much all branches of science affect their lives. One idiotic football player in response to my asking how he thinks
that sports matter said "why do you think science matters, theres no point to it". I am disappointed in how stupid youth are in general.
Pretty soon, I will be going to a scientific supply store in my town to get some glass ware with my dad. I can't wait to see the expression on
whoever helps us when a high schooler asks for a list of lab supplies.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I think being prejudice against "jocks" is just as bad as being the same way towards "intellectuals" and scientists.
Sports have their place and IMO they are somewhat beneficial to society. They promote health for one thing. A little competition is sometimes
helpful as well. I played sports quite often and I used to be one of the "health nut" go every day to the gym types. Does that mean I'm not worthy?
I don't think so. I think having interest in health and sports along with knowledge and science is a good thing and should be encouraged. I mean,
who doesn't want to be healthy and physically active (no, I didn't mean sex, but it is healthy, sort of)?
[Edited on 31-3-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
| Quote: |
Sports have their place and IMO they are somewhat beneficial to society. They promote health for one thing. |
I disagree. Some sports maybe promote health. At least the sports that are watched by large numbers of people seem fraught with injury and early
retirement. I would think football for example would be as dangerous to someone who doesn't know how take a fall or tackle as chemistry would be to
somone who doesn't know basic lab safety. Isn't the arthritis alone very high in people that played sports alot in their early years?
Not that I usually like perpetuating steriotypes but in this case... When I used to work at a pool supply store I met two of the most
anti-intellectual people I had ever come across. They were going to college only for the football. They flat out refused when their boss told them to
wear safety goggles when they were running a pump that filled jugs with 10% hypochlorite solution! Their reason: "We don't want to look like
scientists." I don't think they were anti-intellectual because they were football players though, rather I think maybe they were football players
because they were anti-intillectual.
Now, I wouldn't think any less of somone just because they were a football player, but it seems to me that the steriotype has at least some basis.
[Edited on 31-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: |
They flat out refused when their boss told them to wear safety goggles when they were running a pump that filled jugs with 10% hypochlorite solution!
Their reason: "We don't want to look like scientists.
|
I wonder what they said when their coach told them to wear helmets and shoulder pads.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
It's true that some sports cause injury. But some the risk outweighs the potential life long health benifits. Track (yeah, it's supposedly bad for
the knees but c'mon, they're telling me I can't run now?), basketball and tennis, just to name a few.
I know there are jocks that are dumb and unintellectual. I was just saying that prejudging someone just because they are physically active is wrong.
IMO, health is just as important in life as knowledge because without health you can't have knowledge.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
benzylchloride1
Hazard to Others
Posts: 299
Registered: 16-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pushing the envelope of synthetic chemistry in one's basement
|
|
I went to pay for my molybdeum metal and they said that it was not a good idea to sell it to me! One redeaming thing; my dad bought me a liter of
Benzene today! It is ridiculous what these bean counters think. The university was perfectly willing to sell me the molybdeum, but the department head
shot it down. At least there is Ebay still. A Ebay store; Chemsavers, sells lots of good organics. I just synthesized some 3,5- dinitrobenzoic acid
yesterday.
|
|
|
Splinky
Harmless
Posts: 19
Registered: 9-2-2008
Location: Elsewhere
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I think that sports have a place and can be quite fun. The person I was talking to however thought that basketball and football
were the only things that mattered on earth. I'm pretty active, I run and ride my bike very often. I agree that it is important to break both a
mental and physical sweat.
|
|
|
bob000555
Harmless
Posts: 7
Registered: 18-4-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sorry my last post about gun control got mess up it should read “but he second amendment provides no protection should your miny-rebellion fail “
Anyway on the subject of comparing anti=athleticism to anti-intellectualism….THAT IS SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS. Anti-intellectualism has on more then one
occasion lead to atrocities against the human race! From Nazi book burnings to the people of Oxford turning on the university staff to claiming that
intellectuals exist to scam the “salt of the earth” (all to often defined as a football playing Notre Dame student). IF you are under the delusion
that any prejudice against athletes exists look at athletic “scholarships” (a butchery of the root word “scholar”), or even collages
offering favorable admissions to athletes, then try to find a single athletic organization that allows people in on the basis of intellectual
standing. Athletes are allowed to infiltrate places of academia, often wreaking havoc on the institution( instructors feel pressure to give athletes
passing grades to keep them playing throwing off the bell curve for real students) while athletic institutions reciprocate no welcome. I would love
to see a philosopher in the NFL…
A quick look at my school will thrash any delusions of anti-athleticism from your head. Upon entering my school one is assaulted by a rather large
trophy case, if one wishes to see the academic awards they must scour the school in search of them. Walking from the lobby to the main class room one
is agene assaulted by pictures of athletes from years past and present staring down at the, smug expressions on their faces(pictures of nonathletes
are no ware to be found). When issues come up you would think the purpose of the school is to play sports, when people proposed starting and ending
school one hour later then the current time to help student perform better in first period class the proposal was imidetly shot down because is would
interfere in sports schedules! Finally while our books are falling apart, while some teachers are paying for equipment out of there own pockets our
school sees fit to spend more then $1.5 million on a new stadium. The student body currently has no plans to do anything about it.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Your school pays for your books? That's fantastic.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
