Human Trials

    Many may think of human experimentation was stabbing needles into hearts to see what happens or dropping a dumbbell on someones foot to see how much it swells, but that isn't what I'm here about. Many drugs and life-changing drugs just require some human trials to get the go and help people as soon as possible. But because of all of the unethical tests that have been done, human trials are a tricky topic.

    Usually, when a drug that would seem to cure a disease is presented, it has to go through many different tests before it even gets to one human trial, if it even does. The only legal way to do this is to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for clinical trials by patient consent. This is also only possible after years of studying and developing of the drug to make sure it's almost 100 percent safe. The problem is this isn't efficient. You have made a new pill that regrows hair only on the head? Wait 20 years and then you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get it on the market. If you could just have a set group of people evaluate these drugs instead of having lots of certification to happen, it could cut waiting time in half.

    The only way to get around this is to be government sponsored or curing an epidemic. I would not doubt that some government tests have been not consensual unethical tests, but we really do need these to further research. While I do believe it is horrible, everything has a counter-argument. When curing an epidemic, the government may break it's own rules (realistically there is probably a loophole somewhere) to get the product on several human trials early. This is only for the better good, but if this kind of treatment can be given for anything, why not do it to a different drug? As long as a patient consents it and has a reasonable background check they could risk their lives for science. That but only another topic for another time.

Abortion

    It can happen. You may not think it can, but it does. Shows such as "Teen Mom" exist because teens don't really understand what love is. They think they have it, but it isn't really there. And when something like this happens, many conservative thinkers feel as such that any time you get pregnant, you have to have the baby. But it's totally fine to just go ahead and give it off to an orphanage or leave it at someone's doorstep to have a marginally worse life than before. Abortion is just not an option. But why put such a burden on someone when they don't even want a child?

    A big reason for the no on abortion is, well, the abortion part. It's "killing" a fetus. Yes, it's alive, but nobody feels bad for eating plants or even animals. But if you kill a fetus that is basically not even a human yet, it's crimes against humanity in some people's views. I personally don't see whats wrong. Removing a child from a what would tend to be a bad life as the parent does not want the child seems like a good deed.

    A second reason is that studies have been shown to produce facts that fetus' can remember things in the womb. They get memories. Tell me, do you remember what the womb was like? Neither has anyone else despite what they say. We may learn some rudimentary things and remember facts that are at the back of the head, but nothing we can pull up. Sure, if she listens to a lot of a certain music and pushes it close to her stomach so you can hear, you may come across the music while alive and tend to like it, but you won't have an epiphany and go,"Wow, I remember second trimester this was my jam!" So really, take a look at it and wonder to yourself why removing the fetus from a bad life is such a bad thing.

Organics

    I was at the grocery one day when I came across a woman who was checking out her items. Organics beans, organic pizza, organic milk, organic this, organic that. I was confused. I didn't think people actually fell for that. Organics are as useless as erasable pens. Sure, they may be more expensive but that doesn't mean it's better for you.

    The thing that bugged me the most is that she bought "Smart Water". It's just H20 with buzz words. "Negative Ions", "Electrolytes", "Gigabytes"; who cares. Water is water, and there isn't anything you can do to change that. Same thing with chicken. Chicken is chicken. "Oh no, that chicken ate corn that has a modified gene so that it grows faster! It causes cancer!" Give me a break.

    You may ask for proof. Here it is. Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more.

    What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact. So go ahead and buy your "Smart Water". You are just filling up the piggy-banks of a bunch of money grubbers; it helps the economy.

NSA

 
 Topping the charts at one of the most controversial topics to start a conversation about, the NSA isn't anyone to be kidding with. Simply googling the wrong words can get you a nice cozy spot on their watch list. Now, what is the "NSA"? Some super-secret G.I Joe Cobra agency, some Fourth-Echelon Splinter Cell double agent action? Nope.

    More simply, it's the National Security Agency. Now you may be thinking, "Oh, it's just national for the U.S, I live in Estonia so i'm fine." Buddy, they have cameras and wires everywhere. You aren't safe from their reach. What I don't seem to understand is why people are even scared of that reach.

    It's the government. Who cares if they know what you do? If you aren't doing anything illegal, what's the problem? Now if they start GPS chipping you, that's crossing the line, but what's them snooping on your texts to your grandma gonna do? I'm sure the bulk of the American population has nothing juicy that would even interest the government.

School

   

    "I never said I hated learning, I hate school," Is usually the direct response after some teen is asked his/her opinion on school. It is true, almost all humans love learning. We've come here today because we asked question, we adventured, we explored. It's the best way to learn. So why don't we just have field trips everyday and no homework? Then kids will love school and there would be no problem!

    It isn't viable. Field trips every day? Please. Much more work would have to go into lesson plans and it just wouldn't always work. How do you teach integral calculus in a fun way? It doesn't work like that unless you find math fun. And let's be honest, if stuff wasn't taught to us the way it is, it would never get taught. I assure you I would never learn English, Chemistry, or advanced Maths without school. Sure, I would learn cool facts about them, but never how to really apply or understand them.

    Second is money. Making all science lessons experiments and all English lessons in video-game format is expensive. And would that really stick either? Straight teaching actually works, because with tests you have to study, and the general ideas will stick when you leave the class. With this kind of teaching, life lessons are taught. So stop whining. We know when you say you don't like school but you like learning, you are just being lazy.

Vigilantism

a vigilante from the video game Watch Dogs.

     Private citizens assisting the law? Doesn't that seem redundant? If someone was good enough to even be known as a "vigilante" why isn't the government picking these guys up like hotcakes? A similar problem with the F.B.I explains why. Hackers are a dime a dozen. The average ones follow the law and abide within legal jurisdiction. Prodigy hackers are informal, pirating movies, stealing cash electronically, and even smoking marijuana.

     The F.B.I has had to come down to it and end up hiring them anyways and voiding the laws so they could get hackers. Unfortunately, this isn't the case with the police departments; at least as it seems. Vigilantes choose harsher forms of work to accomplish the same job, but quicker and cheaper. The one problem is safety.

     These vigilantes risk their life much more than the average undercover cop does, using homemade gear not fully tested and having rigorous actions not used by the cops. These edgier tactics break the line from hiring these men. An adding factor also includes the vigilantes thinking of the force as incompetent. Joining the police force would just stunt their work down to what the police officers are already doing unless he had some real negotiation with the Chief of Police.

     Well, at least we know they are doing their jobs well. A good vigilante is never spotted or revealed. Have you seen that vigilante from the news? Of course not.