Basics...
Name: Mary Anne Effler
Age (be honest): 17
Sexual Orientation:Straight
Location: Texas
5+ Favorite movies: Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
5+ Favorite tv shows: Many animes and Simpsons
5+ Favorite books: We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, 1984 by George Orwell, and Brave New World by Alduous Huxley
5+ Favorite bands: Morning Musume and 12 Girls Band (both are Jpop groups)
Is English your first language?: Yep.
School
GPA?: 3.8 when weighted
Honors or regular?: G/T and AP
Favorite class?: German and English, but Algebra is good too.
Do/did the teachers like you?: All except my World History teacher. But then again, she had my older sister long ago, so she was kind of bias to begin with.
Are/were you popular?: Depends on how you define popular. Yes, people know who I am. No, I don't really care too much if I'm noticed or not.
Religion
What is your religion and why?: I'm essentially agnostic. I was Christian until a year ago, when I started realizing there were way too many falacies in it.
Are your parents the same religion? If not what are they?: They're both United Methodists, although they grew up Southern Baptist and Church of Christ (bleh).
Who/what do you think influenced your religious beliefs?: A lot of it came from my own observations. Recently though, my boyfriend (a Unitarian Universalist) and his family have been talking with me about religion, and that's helped me get a more solid thought pattern down. Also, I've started posting on the IIDB forums, so I can hopefully start debating about religion and learn more.
What do you think of atheism?: I don't see anything wrong with atheism, and I think it is an often misunderstood label. Many simply assume it has a negative connotation, but atheists themselves are often very good people.
What do you think of fundamentalists?: I can understand why people are fundamentalists, but I find them extremely irritating when they try to tell me that what I believe is totally wrong. They can believe whatever they want to, but they don't have the right to enforce their thoughts on others.
Politics
What political party are you affiliated with and why?: As I'm still a minor, I don't really have a set affiliation. I'm probably closest to Democrat, and would vote either Democrat or Independent.
What party are your parents affiliated with?: The rest of my family is Republican, and highly conservative.
Do you vote (or will you when you're old enough?): I obviously can't right now, but yes, as soon as I'm able, I will take advantage of that right.
What are your opinions on the following issues and their current state? Please write at least a paragraph for each one. If you live outside of the United States, modify it as you see fit. Also, please provide facts and/or evidence to support your argument:
George W. Bush - While I do agree that he has quite a bit of stress to deal with on a daily basis, you'd think the president of a nation could make a few less blunders. He seems to be fairly ignorant to other cultures, as demonstrated by the various mispronounciations in his speeches. He also makes several quirky statements, such as "Most of America's imports come from outside the US", which makes one wonder how he became president. Although I don't agree with much of what he does, I do admire his dedication to the job.
Iraq War - I love this country and its ideals; however, i just do not support this war. It was acceptable up until the point when he completely switched aims. This was originally a war to find the WMDs and neutralize terrorist leaders. Now it's become a massive waste of time, effort, and lives all for the sake of "freeing" various Middle Eastern countries, which we only seem to care about now that they are a threat to us. I don't see a reason to believe that Bush is going for "their best interests" in light of that fact.
War on Drugs - We can never completely eliminate drugs from society. Rather than the extremeists who call for a ban on all drugs, there should simply be restrictions on their distribution, and those restrictions should be enforced. It's said that we should keep drugs in the realm of public access, because they are an unfortunate addiction. They are not an unfortunate addiction; they are an escape. Rather than encourage people to use this excuse, people should be encouraged to improve their lives through more permanent methods.
Health-care - While I do understand the cost implications it would have, health care should be universal. Health should not be a priveledge for the top 5% of society; it should be a basic societal right. Even if the people who need it most are not always able to contribute in an incredibly significant way to society, it doesn't do any good to simply ignore them. That could be constituted as murder, or at least professional negligance.
Environment - America is extremely lucky to have such diverse examples of ecosystems within it, and all Americans should come to recognize that fact. People over in Japan would kill to have 20 sq. miles of the land we dump waste on. More scientific emphasis needs to be placed on developing new ways to reduce emmisions and keep non-renewable resources in tact.
Animal Welfare - Animals are akin to babies: you can't understand them, but they are still a valuable life. I am in favor of putting an animal out of its misery when need be or for cultivating food, but killing an animal for sport is plain wrong. One shouldn't take an animal in unless they are prepared to take care of it for the duration of its life, or unless they are able to find it a decent home, and are completely positive that they are able to do so.
Worker's Rights and Unions - Considering the history America has when it comes to mistreating laborers, unions are especially important. It should never be permittable to abuse and take advantage of labor under any circumstance. No union is perfect, of course, but the fault of one should not cause the downfall of all.
Abortion - I am against abortions unless there is a decent reason behind it. Monetary issues are not a decent reason. If the family is financially unable to take care of the baby, they should let someone adopt it. If the birth would endanger the mother's life or if the baby would not live long if born due to a disorder, then it might become a consideration.
The Death Penalty - I am not in favor of the death penalty, but neither should excedingly dangerous criminals be released back into society. If you kill someone, they don't have to care about their problems for much longer; they're dead. However, if someone were, say, locked in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives with all their food given to them through a tube in the wall, they might start to consider the ramifications of their actions a little bit more.
Gay Relationships - I don't really see what the big issue is. They're not asking for you to become gay, they merely want to have the same rights as anyone else. Frankly, so long as two people love each other, it shouldn't matter if they're the same gender or not. The Bible says nothing forbidding gay relationships...it simply says God made Eve for Adam. It doesn't say Adam couldn't date a Steve. The only instance in which I could see homosexuality being a problem is in the old roman empire, where the amount of gays were actually causing the birth rate to drop alarmingly.
Choose the issue above you feel most strongly about and argue in favor of the opposing point of view:
I guess I'll argue the other side of the Death penalty.
It's said that there are various kinds of criminals that cannot be rehabilitated under any circumstances, such as sex offenders. If they were locked up permanently, no amount of rehabilitation could fix their tendencies, so there is no point in wasting that much of the government's money to keep them alive. Also, to keep someone locked up permanently with no human contact could be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
General Knowledge:
Correct the following paragraph: (leave the original so people can see it)
Once upon a time there were five monkeys sitting in a tree, they ate a lot of bananas. Eventually, bananas became scarce and they decided that one of them is going to have to leave the tree to find more. When the monkeys pulls straws, the one on the left had the shortest. Their were no bananas near-bye, so he had to venture deep into the forest. He had several of trouble; getting through the dense underbrush. Although, he eventually made it. He found his Dad in a clearing, whom gave him a huge pile of bananas. Then the monkeys lived happily-ever-after.
Once upon a time, there were five monkies sitting in a tree, and they all loved to eat bananas. However, eventually bananas became scare, and the monkies decided that one of them would have to leave and find more bananas. The monkies all pulled straws, and the monkey on the left pulled the shortest straw. There were no bananas nearby, so he had to venture deeper into the forest. He had several troubles, such as getting through the dense underbrush. However, he eventually made it through the underbrush and reached a clearing. A clearing which happened to have the monkey's father in it. The monkey's dad gave him a huge pile of bananas, which kept all the monkies in the tree happily fed and satisfied ever after.
Solve the following problem:
A / 6 + 5=13
What is A? 48
Writing like an eight-year-old, briefly explain the process the sun uses to emit heat and light:
The sun is a really really big star. Like all the other stars up there, it is always emitting heat and light and energy like the light bulb in my room. It helps keep things comfy all year round and changes things so I can do all sorts of fun stuff!
Write a haiku: (http://www.ehow.com/how_3336_write-hai
I don't write very well
but for this application
I will try my best
Question of the Month - A question scientifically designed by our brilliant, sexy member of the month:
In your opinion, what will be the future of United States foreign policy as applicable to imperialism masked under the front of righteous crusade and the extent of power of the United Nations?
Unless something happens that will convince the current administration that their tactics are too imperialistic, there will be nothing to stop the US from abusing its abilities as the world's superpower. I do not wish for another tragedy to occur that costs human lives, but something needs to occur that can prove to the US that its current foreign policy of "shoot first, then ask questions" could stand to undergo revision; possibly the appearance of another world superpower or alliance of countries that can outmatch the US.
Other
What makes you stand out from other people, intelligence wise?: I tend to be more humble about any sort of intellegence I might have. I know it's impossible to know everything, so I don't see the point in being overbearing or bombastic.
Where did you hear about this community?: On one of the official LJ promoting communities.
Promote this community in two places and show us the link: On my User Info and in this communitry:
Make us laugh:
Three women die together in an accident and go to heaven. When they get there, St. Peter says, "We only have one rule here in heaven: don't step on the ducks!" So they enter heaven, and sure enough, there are ducks all over the place. It is almost impossible not to step on a duck, and although they try their best to avoid them, the first woman accidentally steps on one. Along comes St. Peter with the ugliest man she ever saw. St. Peter chains them together and says, "Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to spend eternity chained to this ugly man!" The next day, the second woman steps accidentally on a duck and along comes St. Peter, who doesn't miss a thing. With him is another extremely ugly man. He chains them together with the same admonishment as for the first woman. The third woman has observed all this and, not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly man, is very, VERY careful where she steps. She manages to go months without stepping on any ducks, but one day St. Peter comes up to her with the most handsome man she has ever laid eyes on very tall, long eyelashes, muscular, and thin. St. Peter chains them together without saying a word. The happy woman says, "I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all of eternity?" The guy says, "I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck!"
Optional: Picture would be nice for the member list if you're accepted, but this is optional and won't count for or against you. Or you can submit it after voting is complete.
I think I'll hold off on submitting a picture. No need for you to convulse in horror at the sight of me; I'm not very photogenic.
July 16 2005, 19:21:57 UTC 6 years ago
yes
on top of everything else, i really enjoyed the joke.July 16 2005, 20:07:42 UTC 6 years ago
yes
yes... watch your spellingJuly 16 2005, 22:11:08 UTC 6 years ago
My vote isn't really riding on this, but I would like an answer.
July 17 2005, 03:19:52 UTC 6 years ago
because you asked...
It is true that he may be a poor public speaker; I myself don't like speaking in front of lots of people. However, after the first one or two, you'd think he'd have been warned by his PR people and concentrated a little more on it.July 17 2005, 04:49:47 UTC 6 years ago
Re: because you asked...
after the first one or two, you'd think he'd have been warned by his PR people and concentrated a little more on it.I'm sorry, but don't you think that a president, any president, has more important things to worry about than that?
July 17 2005, 00:15:09 UTC 6 years ago
What are your opinions on individual rights? Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one or vice versa?
July 17 2005, 03:29:34 UTC 6 years ago
because you asked, mark two
There are many falacies with Christianity. I would have to say my main problem with it is that it can only keep followers by scaring them senseless, or by indoctrinating little kids, who aren't old enough to know any better, much less make a decision regarding eternity. Also, the Bible itself contradicts itself many times; there's no way for me to list all those here, but if you go to google and run a search, there are several sites that list them.As for the matter of individual rights: in my opinion, all should be done to protect the rights of all. However, if the situation calls for it, rights can be taken away in order to protect the group as a whole.
July 17 2005, 16:45:21 UTC 6 years ago
No.
Thank you. By the way, it's fallacies.If you're going to reject any religion as a whole, you should have better justification than "oh there are irregularities." Every religion has irregularities, but that doesn't make them invalid.
July 17 2005, 03:27:49 UTC 6 years ago
No
Throughout your application I got the impression that you don't really think for yourself. I don't want to offend you if that's not the case, but that's just the way you came across to me.Also, your religious beliefs don't really make a lot of sense to me. First you stated that you are not a Christian anymore, but then your argument for gay relationships mentioned the bible.
Your statement "Animals are akin to babies: you can't understand them, but they are still a valuable life" is a bit out there as well I think. Haven't you ever seen a cat scratch at the door wanting to get out or meow in it's 'give me food meow'? Babies cry when they are hungry or sick or need chaning, and you can usually tell which. I think many people do understand animals and babies.
Sorry, but no
July 17 2005, 03:38:09 UTC 6 years ago
Re: No
I will elaborate on the Chrisitian comment. It is true that I am not Christian, but for the gay relationship issue, I was just citing a common argument used against them.As to the other comment on the animals: I just meant that you can't understand their exact words. Body language does convey a lot though.
July 17 2005, 04:58:11 UTC 6 years ago
No
I was going to vote yes, but your response to coercedbynutmeg's question swayed me. Your obvious ignorance about Christianity (and seeming unwillingness to change that) is a huge turn-off for me. Just because you aren't a Christian doesn't change the fact that the majority of the US is, and that you will encounter Christians and their theology on a near-daily basis. You seem to have a lot of contempt for the religion and those who believe it, which really bugs me.I would have to say my main problem with it is that it can only keep followers by scaring them senseless, or by indoctrinating little kids, who aren't old enough to know any better, much less make a decision regarding eternity.
Do you really think that everyone who considers him or herself to be Christian only does so for one of those two reasons? Religion is supposed to help free you from worry, not cause more of it.
Also, the Bible itself contradicts itself many times; there's no way for me to list all those here, but if you go to google and run a search, there are several sites that list them.
Any basic theology class would help you understand why this is the case. The Bible can be taken non-literally, as many theologians suggest, or the contradictions are there to make you look for a deeper meaning, as other suggest. There are countless explanations for why those contradictions are there, and to dismiss the entire book based on that without looking any deeper is, IMO, ignorant.
July 17 2005, 06:54:29 UTC 6 years ago
Weak Yes
You know, it seems a little like you're giving us the answers that you think we want to hear, but as I will never really know for sure, I'll vote yes.July 17 2005, 07:33:09 UTC 6 years ago
NO.
I've always wondered why seemingly intelligent people immediately bring up George W. Bush's "blunders" when forming an opinion on his role as President. You said, Although I don't agree with much of what he does, I do admire his dedication to the job, but that was one part of an overall concern of his grasp of the English language. Wait, let me get this right: you disagree with much of what he does as President, but his mispronunciations and "quirky statements" are a more significant issue. I see.Your opinions follow this same vague outline throughout the entirety of your application. You offer solutions to problems, but you don't offer examples; you offer your personal belief, but you don't offer evidence to support it; and you seem rather pretentious. Your ignorance, and obvious unwillingness to learn more, is especially evident in those opinions based on religion:
In your opinion of gay relationships, you say, The Bible says nothing forbidding gay relationships...it simply says God made Eve for Adam. It doesn't say Adam couldn't date a Steve. Personally, I have nothing against gay relationships; however, I do want to point out that you are wrong. The Bible states very clearly that homosexual relationships are forbidden. Take, for instance, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:1-29), the event being the root of the word "sodomy": God destroyed the two cities by fire because the men were having sexual relations with men. Yeah, or take the punishment of idolaters (Rom 1:24-27): because of man's worship of idols, rather than the creator, He "handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies." See it also in plain English (1 Cor 6:9-10): "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites [...]" It's also stated in the warnings against false doctrine (1 Tim 1:8-11). I'm Catholic, and I'm not pushing my religion on anyone (I remind you that, personally, I'm not opposed to gay relationships), but you need to be mindful of your errors. Do not bring the Bible into an argument unless you have knowledge of its content.
Also, your response to coercedbynutmeg's question is appalling. Christianity doesn't "keep followers by scaring them senseless." Know that fear can root a person in any religion, not just those you find fallacies in. Christianity is able to "keep followers" because people choose to believe in God. Religion is a freedom; people who're uncomfortable in their religion will, more than likely, pursue another, not remain in one because they are "scared senseless."
Sorry, but I don't like you. You're vague, you have little understanding of others' beliefs, you seem to believe you are unnaturally perfect, your ignorance currently outweighs your intelligence, and your closed-mindedness is blinding. In all honesty, I found your response to "what makes you stand out from other people, intelligence wise," funnier than your joke. If you're being humble, not overbearing or bombastic, I must be Jesus. Amen. And, yes, this would be a NO.
July 17 2005, 10:16:35 UTC 6 years ago
Yes
You seem intelligent, and you had clearly thought through the answers.July 17 2005, 15:22:10 UTC 6 years ago
No
SeeAn example of an issue of which need a great deal more support for your opinion is the war on drugs. We do have restrictions on drugs and we do try to enforce them. However, the enforcement of these laws extremely dangerous and costly. How can we overcome the danger and the cost? Also, do you really think that drugs aren't addicting? Or is it just that you are so callous towards those who have made a few mistakes that you feel they deserve absolutely no sympathy?
July 17 2005, 16:10:23 UTC 6 years ago
after reading...
Well...by looking at all the comments so far, I can kindof see a "no" result coming overall. I do thank you all for all of your comments, though I never meant to come across as pompous or anything. I don't know how I came across as that; I guess when stating your own opinions, it could be seen that way. I don't necessarilly agree with all of your views on me, but they are duly noted. If I try to apply to this community again, I will try to make the application sound a little less conceited. That's really not who I am, and I'm sorry that I might've come across that way.July 17 2005, 16:30:30 UTC 6 years ago
July 17 2005, 18:00:11 UTC 6 years ago
thank you
Yes...I think I will try applying again...I did try to be myself, I probably just tried to hard to use correct diction and that sort of thing. Thank you for all your responses!July 18 2005, 14:50:38 UTC 6 years ago
No
It seems it may be a moot point now.July 18 2005, 17:25:25 UTC 6 years ago
Yes
Your joke was funny.I love Aldous Huxley.
You seem smart.
July 19 2005, 22:53:43 UTC 6 years ago
no
For the record, I never got the feeling that you are pompous or anything. I did however get the feeling that you were trying to give the "right" answers. I'm not that comfortable voting on younger people, it's been a long time since I was your age. So, my vote is mainly based on little things, like the fact that it asks for "5+" for the favorites, and you didn't list that many, and the fact that you think the correct plural spelling of monkey is "monkies". These are things I feel any teenager should be able to grasp, unlike writing a concise statement on a particular issue, which can be difficult if you haven't even fully figured yourself out. I did however love your joke.July 26 2005, 20:09:38 UTC 6 years ago
mod // rejected
Sorry, you can re-apply if you wish.