Leaderboard

By comparison this sort of implies Africa as a whole is the worst place on earth. That is debatable and unnecessarily dismissive of Africa as a whole which has nothing to do with this conversation. Opressive regimes, famine, and atrocities exist all over the world; to say that Assad, Kim Jung-un, ISIS, or etc are evil and use them as specific examples for comparison is more appropriate than just casually throwing the whole of Africa and "Islam countries" under the bus generalizing to an insulting degree.

Many employers provide healthcare as part of their compensation to employees. The US government does not, for the general population. We don't have national healthcare. Providing birth control means less expense for pregnancies, and birth control drugs are used for other health-related issues. The smokescreen is in casting this in terms of "religious ideas". Employers do not get to tell their employees how to spend their paycheck, and the first amendment defends the right to have beliefs — not act on them. You can't sacrifice a virgin to the volcano and mark it off as allowed, just because it's a religious belief. A boss might have the belief that drinking is a sin, but s/he can't forbid you to spend your paycheck on alcohol. This is just punishing women because some don't like the idea that they have sex. Another hypocrisy here is that healthcare covers boner pills. It's OK for men to have sex, but not women.

Well for me you are famous for putting people on your ignore list. I made a short compendium with different ignore list comments from you below:

I was asking you. You are making a bad assumption. Yes, that you've answered. But the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech with regard to government interference. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" Unless you are asserting that the BLM is actually an arm of the government, then this is not a first amendment issue. The government was not involved in shutting down anyone's speech here. As far as rights go, the students have a right to assemble and to free speech, too. Players have not been protesting the anthem, they have been protesting during the anthem (and occasionally before it). Kaepernick's decision to take a knee was the result of feedback from a veteran ("Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect.") He originally sat during the anthem. Kneeling was not "designed to be offensive", it was the opposite of that. http://www.snopes.com/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/

I also am disappointed about how often students at university are shouting down and protesting any speakers that they don’t agree with 100%. It’s as if there are purity tests being imposed, and not just at this school, either. It’s happening at schools across the nation and beyond, and I see the same thing happening on social media where people are being blocked and unfriended and even outright harassed or threatened for thinking differently or not falling in line. It’s a very real problem. This is a huge mistake. Very shortsighted. Very immature. Detrimental to our wellbeing in a liberal democracy. Fascistic, even There are a few problems with your approach, though... First, it was a small group of students who shutdown the talk, not the university. You may as well blame Starbucks as a company for vandalism when two of their customers knock down a trash can or blame the site manager for littering when those same customers leave a cup on the table. It’s a failure of logic, a breakdown in mental engineering. Second, you blame BLM as a whole for the comments of a handful of individuals. Third, you generalize about all liberals and liberalism. The fallacies you use to make your points are almost too numerous to count. There’s merit in the underlying point you’re making, but it’s so often drowned out by this ridiculous desire to poke people and agitate others and laugh, as if you need to feel superior to compensate for feelings of inferiority. You’re not a chimp throwing feces and should stop acting like one. Fourth, free speech is not the guaranteed right to speak anywhere about anything you please. Instead, it’s about whether or not the government can punish or prevent you from speaking. However, if you start acting and speaking foolishly in my home, I can kick you out. In my restaurant, I can have you removed. At my university, I can block you from entering, etc. That said, you’re right about this blocking of speakers being a bigger problem, this desire to silence others instead of addressing their horrible ideas openly. I say this as someone you’d likely dismiss as being liberal (as you have in the past), and I say this as someone who could be an ally to you... someone who wants to partner with you in standing up for important principles like these. But you make it really hard with your pubescent attitude, persistent trolling, incessant need to split discussions into us/them, right/left, conservative/liberal, good/evil, and also your fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment and what free speech actually are. Because it’s not this. Their first amendment rights were in no way infringed since it wasn’t government doing the infringing.

Don't worry about it scherado. Just ignore him.

@zapatos, I think your distinction is quite arbitrary. Based on surveys by the NFSG especially among teens the pill is used for non-pregnancy related functions. But even if we ignore it, health policy should not be about nitpicking definitions, but about health outcomes. To me it is limiting one important aspect of women's health but imposing no similar restrictions on male's health (and neither restriction should exist). Vaccines are preventative, and there is no discussion regarding whether they should be covered. More to the point, the reason why it is excluded is not because it is preventative, but for religious motives. Which in turn basically means that control of specifically the female body should be subject religious restrictions, whereas the male body is apparently not.

My argument is that a) health plans have to cover preventive care (such as diagnostic tests and vaccines for example) and for good reason b) the pill is used for many non sex-related reasons including control of menstrual cramps, endometriosis, primary ovarian insufficiency and polycystic ovary syndrome to name a few c) pregnancy is a high health burden . Considering the medical relevance of one vs the other I maintain it is hypocritical to selectively limit access to one of them

Considering your tendency to ignore dissenting views, which are crucial to critical analyses, I will carefully raise my doubts here. I assume you misspelled the first name wrong (twice) and mean Michael Mann?. And even so there are quite a few Michael Manns to sift through. Regarding the topic I assume you mean Michael E Mann who became the focal point of attacks that ultimately proved to be baseless? If so I will double down on my doubts.

Birth control is covered as part of healthcare. Primary way to receive healthcare is through employers. Better question is why are employers involved in providing healthcare (hint: it was implemented during WWII to attract workers to factories). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOmp3Nz2ZbA

Actually here Nietzsche is not referring to cognitive function. This is one of the many stabs at Kant's morality. With the latter being the key point Nietzsche is trying to make. Kant discusses moral worth using the example of a grocer. I.e. the good-willed grocer who measures accurately out of duty is praiseworthy, whereas the one who is doing it out of self-interest (i.e. not wanting to lose customers) is not. In Kant's morality right and wrong are defined by the fulfillment of duty or obligation. Hence, when caught, it is expected that the grocer would blush, as they are caught in violating their duty. Now Nietzsche changes and extends this imagery and now uses the scales as a metaphor for assessing moral weight of action (i.e. scales of morality). Those with crude scales thus won't even blush when called out. Here, he is criticizing the universal morality offered by Kant. Of course, the whole passage is not about that alone. Rather he builds an argument for the need of a more rational approach to morality. Due to his prose and the fact that he often utilizes various characters to build an argument as a whole rather than have a character speak his specific thoughts, he is one of the philosophers that are almost impossible to interpret on excerpts and quotes alone. In a in interesting way, but for other reasons, the same could be said for Kant.

hey guys thanks for the help and I think that I can do this but i don't have materials ( that will work ) so it might be a while before you see it in a news article. p.s roger my idea is based off of a lot of things together and I think that that is why it has never been made before most of the time its one or two things but mine is a lot of things

The importance of this question in Spain shouldn't be underestimated I can cite the example of Monaco, whose team plays in the French league. So calm relations would make it possible - presently they aren't. It would be extremely interesting, but how to know that? We may equally well suppose that the registered voters meaning "no" (the unionists) did not want to participate to a vote declared unconstitutional and dismissed by Madrid. So while some "yes" people didn't dare to vote, I find impossible to estimate any proportion. I put the figures here above because even if we suppose that all non-voters favoured "no", just adding the cast ballots stolen by Madrid's forces, with an assumption (=same proportion of "yes" as in the counted ballots) that I find reasonable, already gives a clear answer. ---------- The present mess results from the vote on 1st of October being very far from perfect. But the ones that use this as an argument caused it themselves. Independence itself is contrary to the Spanish constitution. But how important should it be as compared with the popular will? The French revolution was illegal too, and in France itself, the constitution was amended to make the independence of New-Caledonia possible. Which doesn't prevent the newspapers of France, where Northern Catalunya lies, to put these days "this would be impossible in France"... Many governments in Europe have their eyes on Catalunya.

Humans, like all animals, have a chemical brain which processes existence through feelings. The feeling of hunger, fear, warmth, fatigue, and etc govern much of the living experience. As feeling creatures humans are emotional. Love, hate, regret, anxiety, greed, boredom, etc are part of our experience. It is very difficult for people to distinguish between what is good and what is true. As emotional beings by default we tend to think all good and useful things are true. It seems to me like beecee is arguing that philosophy is not equal to physics and others are arguing that philosophy absolutely is. I think both positions are true but just from different perspectives. Philosophy is good but we can't conflate being good with being right. I have seen many times on this forum were a poster will qoute philosophers in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed science. Good ideas being mistaken for accurate/proven ideas; it happens a lot. So beecee does have a point. Where science is capable of calculating for something the often speculative process of philosophy isn't terribly useful. How many threads do we see where posters who can't explain what E = mc2 means are challanging a finite vs infinite universe, time travel, theory of relativity, or etc? Clearly in those are discussions where more physics and less amature philosophy is perferred. That said philosophy is the foundation of critical thinking. Without philosophy humans would cease to progress scientifically. So philosophy is still vital and important as ever. We simply must distinguish between what is good and what is true. Not settle for philosophical platitudes which provide emotional comfort without an executable or testable measure.

Scherado, you have offered nothing except your opinions. Certainly not anything that even indicates the basis for that opinion. No references, no links, no reasons or reasoning. Not any qualifications that would show you are capable of doing a genuine critique of climate science. The US National Academy of Sciences, UK's Royal Society have had people with relevant expertise and deserved reputations for competence and probity look closely at climate science - you don't get to be Fellows in these institutions without. Lacking that competence myself I have no hesitation in taking their carefully considered conclusions ahead of your opinions. Yet even without that level of competence I have not found it that hard to gain a broad understanding. And develop the capability to differentiate unfounded opinion from that of people with genuine expertise.

Listen sci-man... I know you're just a kid, and you think anything is possible; I was the same at your age, and I wish I still had that attitude. You've had some good people tell you what the laws of science restrict you from doing, and Roger telling you differently and just confusing everyone. Did any of his answers/suggestions even make any sense ? What exactly is 'will of motion' and 'transfer of force from another dimension' ? I'm sure if you do a google search for these terms , you'll get nothing relevant. You seem pretty bright, take the information you've been given here, and do your own research on various sites ( such as Wiki ). I' sure you'll find plenty relating thermodynamic laws to perpetual motion machines and their impossibility. You'll soon find out what the rest of us already know about Roger.

Regarding Nietzsche: Nietzsche is one of the perpetually misunderstood philosophers who has, fascinatingly enough, been co-opted (or claimed to be co-opted) by polar opposite political factions. It is interesting that Bloom was mentioned, as he saw and attacked a rise of moral relativism of the left and he saw Nietzsche's philosophy right at the front of it. In that context one should add that it was a time when the left were abandoning the determinism of Marxism and Bloom saw it replaced with Nietzsche's anti-bourgeois stance. However, as many will know, Nietzsche (or a contorted version of his philosophies) had been claimed by the fascist in the 30s, emphasizing the hierarchicial aspects of his philosophy. And certainly enough, the modern far-right are now co-opting this element of his philosophy (if one bothers to read the stuff Spencer and his ilk are saying). This is somewhat hilarious (in a sad way) as Nietzsche famously nurtured hatred against anti-Semites (which caused him to break with Wagner) as well as German nationalism. Also his view on authority is multi-layered (where he e.g. criticizes uncritically practiced morality) So in many ways Nietzsche was both, deeply entrenched in the thinking of his time, yet deeply skeptical of their forms and ramifications. In some ways the tendency of Nietzsche to mock and criticize certain structures and contrast it with certain thoughts while packing it into elaborate prose made him vulnerable to divergent interpretations. That being said, as OP offers no insights into the thoughts behind the post, I am not sure what is to discuss here. What I would say is that it is very difficult to gain insights into Nietzsche without actually reading at least most of his work (minus the crap distorted by his sister). And even then, one is likely to misinterpret things rather frequently, which makes reading about his philosophy after reading his philosophy almost mandatory.

It looks like we were getting bursts of traffic faster than we could start PHP processes, and didn't have enough spare processes. I bumped the maximum number of spare processes up to 25 (from 10) and the overall cap up to 50. I'm not sure if that will solve the entire problem, but it should prevent some of the Bad Gateway errors. Let me know what you experience over the next day or so.

Nonsense. You were just condemning me for my opinions of liberals. Yet when BLM equates liberalism, the core of political liberal ideology, with white supremacy you equivocate. Do you support the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech or not? If you do, don't you think you should condemn this chant of BLM? Don't you wonder why the BLM movement has go so far astray?

Since clear majority been positive in past on "whether a referendum should be held", it would be interesting to see how many of those who did not show up to vote were intimidated and how many respect and accept position of Spanish government.

It depends on the department and/or company. More generally, it depends on the composition of a given group as well as the organizational structure. The question cannot be answered with yes/no but for the most part it is one of degrees. Certain stereotypes are more widespread in certain areas than others. In some cases measures against them have been effective, in others they may actually lead to persistence or spread of stereotypes. Also, often times stereotypes (belief about a group of people) can be more widespread and ingrained into a given organizational structure (say, in a work environment where there have been traditional gender roles) than actual prejudice, though the former certainly can foster the latter. Stereotyping is a very human form of categorization, so in a way it is a natural way to deal with a complex environment. As such , it is not something that is specific to science or tech, it is just in a number of areas there are severe gender imbalances. Unfortunately, an aspect of stereotyping is that we use positive correlation as a way to strengthen stereotypes. Thus, if we assume that women are less willing or able to get into tech, we take the observation of imbalance as a validation of the given stereotype.

I agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts, but it's not without errors. Hence ought to be cross-referenced for accuracy rather than outright dismissed by mere virtue of it's presence. The suggestion it's entirely wrong across the board is just another example of denial. The same goes for conspiracy theorists and climate deniers that science itself is a conspiracy of compliance and nefarious indoctrination. Deniers endlessly suggest data is fudged to further agendas and students are fed talking points by their handlers. Bare with me for a few moments and I'll get to where this is critical to climate change toward the end, because if I can figure it out... anyone should be able to understand. My entire career is based upon challenging the status quo. I'm a pearl farmer. For more than a hundred years, there's been a myriad of myths, supposedly irrefutable science and secrecy surrounding the industry. When I was just a child of eight (early 1960s), while at a family reunion at a resort lake in central Canada, I discovered freshwater mussels and was mesmerized by the rainbow iridescence of their shells . My mom wore pearls, her mom wore pearls and her mom wore pearls, but all of them and my father told that pearls only came from Japan and was a closely guarded secret. To that end I said hah! and promised myself I would endeavor to unlock those secrets. Historically, most natural pearl beds were long diminished, if not decimated. Nobody left to interview, next to no publications available. Just biology text books explaining basic shell structures. By the late 1970s, black and south-sea pearls were being cultivated in Australia and Pacific Islands. Most of my inquiries were ignored. The few I had gotten were met with "too cold up there" or "no pearl bearing species" exist in my area. I didn't accept that. I was certain, if it can grow a shell, it can grow a pearl, even though I'd yet to understand why, or how. Soon after I graduated, I moved to the Pacific side to get a job as a deep sea diver, harvesting geoducks. Being a seasonal thing, I branched into collection of other species for labs. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (red tides) and fecal coli-form counts. Acorn barnacles for spinal cord research, mussels for underwater adhesive glue, octopus growth rates and the list goes on and on. I found my first pearl eating a plate of fried mussels. While cooking destroyed it's surface quality, I gained a clue to where they formed in the animal. Doing random surveys on reefs, I discovered other pearls. Over the years, I discovered thousands of pearls. From those discoveries, patterns emerged. Using this data, I could now begin target areas of high incidence. It soon became apparent that a simple grain of sand causing a pearl was not as simple we were led to believe. I started pushing grains of sand into every and any part of the mussel, but almost always failed. By almost, I discovered, that getting an object between the mantle and shell resulted in a pearl like formation, but were stuck to the shell. Mollusks seem like simple creatures, but in reality are quite complex. While a clam is a clam is a clam in how they grow, they have markedly different traits in their behavior, habitat and appearance. However, the function of the mantle is pretty much the same across the board without expanding on the difference between pterioda and pteriomorphia (namely pearl oysters and mussels). One fine day, I got a tiny bit of leaked information from Japan. My source ended up being charged and convicted (even shunned) for divulging it, because the then standing Diamond Standard prohibited any Japanese citizen to reveal any aspect of pearl culture technology to non-nationals, without strict conditions and permission. It was a patent by a supposed author of the Mise-Nishigawa procedure of a tool called a cell needle. I asked myself, why would pearl culture use a cell needle? By going back to the drawing board, I would strive to find the cells in question. The mantle was where pearls and shells formed, hence deduced epithelial cells might be implicated, after all, the natural pearls I had found were surrounded by them. A pearl sac, if you will, but still at a loss as to onset. I became more proficient with microscopy and instruments over time, then began placing grains of sand and shell into the epithelium, but no longer at random. Instead in recorded positions for later reference. Low and behold, I got a few pearls to grow, but no great numbers. Examining the scruffy successes, I concluded that pearls grow in the epithelium if it's perforated in a manner similar of preventing scarring in human skin when getting stitches. The cells needed to multiply and divide, bridging the gaps created by the incision. It happens in nature when shells get damaged and break. New shell material bridges the gaps. I solved one problem, but had another greater problem. My pearls were tiny, misshapen and had no value as gems. I knew I was still missing something important. Then another fine day a few years later, I caught an octopus for dinner. It was missing one and a half tentacles from what seemed like a predator attack. While I was cutting it in the sink, my knife contacted a hard object and out popped a near perfectly round 7mm pearl. Now I'm really confused. How does an animal that does not have a shell create a pearl? Microscopy reveal the pearl was nearly identical in structure to a Butter Clam (Saxidomus gigantea). It was then, I had my eureka moment. An octopus is a mollusk. All mollusks have green blood (copper based as opposed to iron in most animals), hence most mollusks have compatible tissue types. Octopus eat clams. The pearl was found less than a centimeter from the beak. During his meal, a tiny piece of the clam's mantle tissue lodged itself in the healing scar of the octopus and formed a pearl. The cat was out of the bag and the secret of pearl culture was revealed. Today's cultured pearls are the result of an epithelial trans-graft from a donor to a recipient. Color and structure is determined by the donor, not the recipient. The recipient is merely a surrogate. Almost the entire premise that a pearl is formed by an "irritant" is nonsense. Irritation causes inflammation. Inflammation causes disease and other stresses. Disease and stress causes mortality. The only example where it may be the case, I have already described as my first result. A grain of sand in the extrapallial space. But that's not a pearl as we know them. Most pearls are cause by parasites, physical damage or auto-immune disease. Only a tiny fraction of one percent are the result of grains of sand. Today's cultured pearls are grown by placing a small piece of mantle tissue from the donor over top of a shell bead nucleus them placed within connective tissues and the bloodstream of the host mollusk's gonads. This allowed the cells to keep living, multiplying and dividing to form a pearl sac and subsequently higher success in productivity. Now, what does this have to do with climate change you ask? Well, it's very simple really. In my area, I do free range pearling for both natural and cultural pearls. I have had tenure for twenty four designated marine stations since 1983. Over the years, I've noticed changes in the mussels, especially at the perimeter of the beds. What were once thick, vibrant shells are now thin egg-like shells. Most I can crush by hand, opposed to the top of the reefs where doing so is not possible, unless with excessive force which can cause lacerations... even amputations. All living things need calcium. Mollusks uptake calcium and carbonate ions from water. In times of quiescence, low salinity, freezing temperatures mollusks do not eat and if they do, only ingest small cell organisms. As their soft tissues need calcium, they are able to "revert" from building shells to dissolving them with naturally formed acids then re-metabolizing the solution. It leaves distinctive signatures on the inner lining of the shells. and can be measured for thickness, rate and duration. Like the rings of a tree, a mollusk has growth periods. In my area, they grow actively for ten months then go into a two month semi hibernation-like period. This gives the distinct signature of nine visible layers per year. 10 -1=9 After all, the last layer is reabsorbed. But that's not what's happening on the lower fringes of the biomass of the intertidal zone. The lower in levels, the longer the submersion. The longer the submersion in a gradually lowering ph is measurable against those on the top of the reef. The evidence is clear, because the reefs are dying, slowly. The radius is shrinking, even though the greater number of animals present do not appear affected. They are, but to a lesser degree. California mussels have no commercial or recreational value in my area. Some by sewage some by natural toxins. They are full of sand, tiny pearls etc. and break teeth. Other than a few sea stars, they have no predators. Even in the past few years, sea stars had mass mortality by a densovirus, but are slowly recovering. Yet reef decline is still accelerating. I have one marine station that adds valuable data to my research. An island of shells, created by winds and tides from the reef below. Archaeological surveys present data of shell size and thickness. The deeper I go, the shells get thicker, even though they've degraded slightly. I don't need a lab, I don't need elaborate measuring tools other than a caliper to observe and record the evidence. Even a layperson I take there for the first time can clearly see the difference with their own eyes and no tools. It's that obvious. So in closing, Japan has experienced a catastrophic decline in their biwas (lakes) because of this problem. Rising temperatures, lower ph and every consequence that results such as disease, parasites and lack of oxygen. Pollution is also a factor, but not singularly underlying. Not one Japanese pearl farmer denies climate change and human involvement in their destruction. Only one lake remains in production out of dozens in the past. After nearly a century of protectionism and productivity, does anyone in their right mind think that Japan would needlessly end one of it's greatest industries to tout a liberal conspiracy? Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter how it's created. Man made carbon dioxide is not inert, no matter how many times or how loudly a person denies it's effect on the marine environment. The more you create, the the greater it's dissolved in water creating carbonic acid, hence the lower the ph our oceans become, preventing carbonate from be utilized in animal recruitment. It's that simple. A child can figure that out. The assholes that claim that climate change is a hoax to deprive working people of their jobs, are the very people who are depriving people of their jobs by their ignorance and ideology. Period.

Your ignorance is impressive, but fails to impress

Personally though this is strictly a personal opinion. I feel out of the theories I have studied for DM the most likely contender is right handed neutrinos via Higgs instability. However there is no confirmational evidence, save one possible xray study that I am aware of.

No, that is only for particles with rest mass E=γmc2 Yes, that is correct swansont, I just got done bitching about university websites with false information now google, it is the end I say! The more common way of writing that is E=hf

Photon energy is given by E = pc = hv (p is momentum, v is frequency) The more general equation is E2 = p2c2 +m2c4 but the mass of the photon, as you note, is zero

! Moderator Note First, if swansont (or any mod/admin) is participating in a discussion, he doesn't actively moderate it (with some exceptions in Speculations, where the rules don't require as much judgement). He's not wielding any unfair authority to support his positions. I suspect instead he's using his knowledge of science as a working atomic physicist to support the explanations he uses. ! Moderator Note Second, it's abundantly clear you don't understand much of what you're defending, since you can't support it with evidence or make a testable prediction that anyone studying science could use to verify the accuracy of your claims. Science isn't about finding proof, it's about finding the best natural explanations, which are always the ones that have a preponderance of evidence to support them. Third, you've failed to support your arguments according to the rules of this section. You're also trying to drag our standards down rather than using more rigor to meet them, and that's not what you agreed to when you joined and said you'd follow the rules. If you wanted to test your ideas in a moderated science discussion forum, you shouldn't be pushing back so hard against the constructive criticism. Thread closed.

Maybe he read too many of your posts here at SFN and just snapped.

I will look at the ones below the wiki-pee-D-uh as I reject out of hand those from the first link: I have been boycotting that site for more, probably, 10 years and won't reverse that decision.

Area54, You are suggesting that people are animals and most of "them" never get over it, and you are saying that the OP should perhaps try and get over being an animal and derive his ethics like you and Nietzsche. You did not say us, you said them, like you were somehow on another plane of existence. This thought, that you can derive your own morality, is not correct. I take exception to you thinking it is possible and Nietzsche thinking it is possible, and iNow thinking it is possible. Anti-religious arguments on this board always suggest that the way to certainty is through the scientific method and the abandonment of belief and faith. This might be useful, pertinent advise when taking a scientific measurement, or curing a disease, but its efficacy is somewhat in question in the realm of morality. In the realm of morality, we talk to unseen others about the situation. We tend to want to please others we consider on our side, on our team, and demonize those losers who are not like us. We like to have other people's OK about things. We need to know we are doing it right. It is a human need. An emotion. A matter of evolution and brain chemistry. We CANNOT rise above this need. Atheists have a hard time explaining who it is they are trying to please. It is not a literal God. It is a figurative god. Humanity. Science. Truth. But I think, it is objective reality, that people are trying to please. Where a conscience comes from. One knows the right thing to do, even if no one is watching, because we know what others expect of us. The "right" thing to do, comes from a derivation of all judgements we have watched others make throughout our life. We need the verification that we are doing it right, that we are good and not bad. So Area54, please expound upon the morality that you have derived from the recesses of your own rational mind, that has nothing to do with animal desires and religion and law and what other people believe is right. You won't. Not because I am on ignore, but because you cannot. I think the "intellectual conscience" is a flight of fancy occurring in one's own mind, that is as baseless and ungrounded as Mohammed listening to the Angel Gabriel in a dark cave. You cannot find "certainty" within. Well you can think you have it, but you are only pleasing yourself and not checking with objective reality for verification. TAR

Excellent post iNow. But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them. For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed. All waitforufo is asking, is whether this is consistent with RangerX's Liberal stance. And he has proceeded to dance around the subject while calling waitforufo a few of the typical names hurled at anyone who disagrees with him ( bigot ). The fact that RangerX can't bring himself to denounce some of the militant actions of BLM, while agreeing that no one should be intimidated, or shouted down, for speaking their mind, is the problem of overzealous political correctness. What to do when the oppressed people you're trying to protect, start acting like their oppressors ?

As Max Tegmark expressed in a youtube video here, physicists have long neglected to define the observer in much of the equations. (The observer being the intelligent agent) Perhaps consciousness may be defined in terms of very complex equations, from disciplines, like Physics; as an example, degrees of general structures such as manifolds central to physics and mathematics, are now quite prevalent in the study of Deep Learning.

Birth control is not preventive because it prevents no health defect. Fertility is the natural healthy state for human beings. If you lack natural fertility then you have a medical defect which should be covered by your health care. This would not include in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm banks, or egg donation since these are not natural ways of reproducing. hypocrisy in birth control coverage would be to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, etc, for women but not pay for condoms for men. By the way I have no problem with birth control. Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me.

I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?