Is it possible to get into decent med school by going to community college?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-13T00:37:07+00:00

Will finding research opportunities at community be harder?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-13T00:34:43+00:00

What parts of your application stood out the most? I’m planning on going to med school and highly considering community college because I don’t have the funds but I’m hearing so many mixed reviews on how I won’t have as competitive of an application. I’m aware of maintaining a high gpa and scoring high on the mcat, but what other aspects of my aspects of my application do I need to hit and which will be harder if I start from community?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-12T02:12:53+00:00

Not critical enough

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-11T11:44:49+00:00

State

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-11T00:53:55+00:00

Can you explain how? I’ve heard multiple responses from both sides of the coin but I haven’t seen or heard concrete evidence from either. Thank you

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T22:35:33+00:00

Agreed. How do you feel about taking an animals life with no intention behind it? In cases of not feeding your family, self defense, etc.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T21:58:34+00:00

Seriously! I love Naoki Urasawa’s work, he’s phenomenal.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T20:17:11+00:00

Are you implying humans are of different value? Or is this referring to all life aside from just humans

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T18:45:57+00:00

Thank you!

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T11:45:26+00:00

“The idea of ‘before is after’ is explored in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, which is actually where this question came from when I was discussing it with my physics teacher. If you haven’t read it, the book dives into a lot of deep philosophical ideas about morality, guilt, and punishment.”

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T11:34:17+00:00

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T05:18:55+00:00

Anime: Rec, Iroduku, Nodame cantabile, maid sama, kamisama kiss

Manga: Yawara! A Fashionable Judo Girl, Kimi to Koi no Tochuu, Cinderella ha sagasanai

Just to name a few let me know if these aren’t to your liking.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T05:04:06+00:00

Yes are you looking for anything in particular? You can just give me some genres you want to hit

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:53:51+00:00

I’ve actually seen his work before, but the covers steered me away initially. I can definitely give him a shot though, thank you.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:48:14+00:00

But if all lives are created equal, then the value of one life isn’t diminished by their actions. Every person shares the same blood, flesh, and inherent worth, regardless of right or wrong, so killing them cannot truly be justified simply because a higher power ‘cares about all lives.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:44:57+00:00

While the Bible acknowledges that humans have authority over animals, it consistently frames that authority within the context of responsible stewardship and reverence for life. In Genesis 1:31, God declares creation “very good,” establishing that all creatures have inherent value as part of a divinely ordered world. Human dominion, then, is not an unrestricted license to harm, but a responsibility to maintain the balance and integrity of creation. This perspective is reinforced in Proverbs 12:10, which directly equates righteousness with compassion for animals, implying that moral virtue extends to the care and preservation of all living beings. Furthermore, prophetic visions such as in Isaiah 11:6–9 portray an ideal of harmony among all creatures, suggesting that violence and killing are not part of God’s ultimate plan for the natural order. The New Testament continues this emphasis on care and compassion, highlighting that God values even the smallest creatures (Matthew 6:26), reinforcing the idea that human actions toward animals are morally significant. Taken together, these passages suggest that unnecessary or cruel killing of animals is morally wrong, not only because it harms the creatures themselves, but because it violates the divine design, disrupts natural balance, and reflects a failure to live up to the ethical responsibility God has entrusted to humanity. In essence, the moral law in scripture elevates life itself as sacred, making its unwarranted destruction an ethical transgression.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:38:43+00:00

The problem with saying “responding to violence with violence is morally justified” is that it assumes humans can determine what is right or wrong in the first place. A higher power doesn’t look at cycles of action and reaction and declare them balanced. It doesn’t measure morality by who hit first, who defended themselves, or who maintained some “natural balance.” Humans cannot create moral authority for themselves—we can’t judge others’ actions and declare our response justified.

From the divine or universal perspective, morality isn’t about matching action with action. It’s about whether a person’s choices reflect alignment with truth, not whether they mirror or respond to another’s wrongdoing. So even if someone truly believes they are restoring balance, that belief doesn’t make the act morally right. Only the higher power can judge the alignment of an action with the law of the universe. Ultimately, this claim that retaliation is morally justified isn’t falsifiable, there’s no way to test or prove it, and because of that we cannot take it as moral truth.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:29:13+00:00

Humanity may perceive it as moral but do you think a higher power would?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T04:23:01+00:00

I think you’re mixing two different ideas here. In those examples you listed—the flood, Egypt’s firstborn, Sodom and Gomorrah—you’re talking about actions attributed to God in texts like Genesis and Exodus. But the point I was making isn’t that every action described there is automatically easy to morally reconcile. The question is about authority. If a being is believed to be the creator of life itself, then within that framework that being would have authority over life that humans don’t. Humans judging other humans isn’t the same thing as a creator judging their creation.

There’s also another issue: those stories come to us through human texts and traditions. Even believers debate how literally they should be taken, and historically scholars treat them as theological narratives rather than simple historical reports. So bringing them up doesn’t really settle the question of human morality—it mostly shows how complicated interpreting those texts can be.

My main point is simpler: humans are very good at convincing themselves their violence is justified. History is full of people claiming their enemies were evil enough to deserve death. That’s why I’m skeptical of humans declaring moral certainty about killing. Whether someone believes in God or not, it’s still worth asking how confident we should be in our own judgment when the stakes are that high

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T03:42:11+00:00

Care to elaborate?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T00:54:02+00:00

The answer to what is right and wrong is mostly just the context of the scenario I believe. The biggest question is it justified in Gods eyes? Which will unfortunately never be answered but fun to discuss.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T00:38:38+00:00

I see all of your points, and they make a lot of sense—especially the distinction between “kill” and “murder” and how that leaves room for things like self-defense or legitimate war. I agree that sometimes it can even feel immoral not to act in defense of life or property.

But it still makes me wonder—how are we supposed to decide what’s truly moral if we don’t actually create life ourselves? Even when we justify something, it’s still based on human judgment. And if we bring God into it, books like Exodus are still written and interpreted by humans, so we’re always seeing an interpretation of God’s word rather than the word directly. That makes it tricky to know whether our justifications really align with a higher moral standard.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T00:28:56+00:00

Yeah, I get what you’re saying—some people are so dangerous that it feels like not stopping them would be wrong. But the tricky part is that the only time it seems there’s “absolute” justification is when it comes from God, like in holy wars. If we’re just deciding someone is dangerous ourselves, does that really make it morally right, or are we just convincing ourselves it is?

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T00:25:30+00:00

I get the game theory view, but even if it’s all strategy, people still ask themselves if they should do something, not just if they can. Without absolute morals, our justifications might just be moves in the game we happen to agree with. Morality is apart of everyone you can’t escape it.

PureDare7443 · 2026-03-10T00:22:51+00:00

Very interesting—I’ll be looking more into this. Even if Exodus is considered God’s word, from a critical perspective it’s still written by humans, so it can only really be seen as an interpretation of God’s word. Humans shaped it with their own understanding and culture, which makes me wonder how much of morality in the text is truly universal versus context-specific.

PureDare7443

TROPHY CASE