Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/10/19 in all areas

  1. Can you elaborate of your distinction between the Parties center and moderate positions? Also there are currently only 3 candidates running who legitimately might win the nomination:Harris, Booker, and Warren. You think 3 candidates are too many? There is a 99.9% chance a 3rd party candidate will not win the 2020 general election. I think everyone involved in this conversation, including yourself, knows that. In theory I guess. I can attach an "if" to anything and dare you to disprove it. Where are the real world examples? We know and have already discussed that the majority of voters vote Democrat. That Democrats have a significantly more diverse voting base. More diversity in religion, gender, race, education, income, and age. Yet you label that as fringe. Definition of fringe is "a group with marginal or extremist views" link. It is simply inaccurate the party with the broadest appeal and supported by the majority of voters fringe. If you like Schultz's policies that is fine. We can discuss Schultz policies. I how no problem with Schultz running and feel he has every right to do so if that's his choice. However I don't think the way you are attempting to characterize Democrats as a fringe as a mean of propping up Schultz as moderate. Fringe is an inaccurate label to place on the majority and which positions are moderate are relative to ones own preference.
    2 points
  2. Let's use a concrete example: In Pisces, there are are a pair of stars, one 106 ly from Earth and the Other 492 ly distant. Thus these stars can be no closer than 386 ly apart. In Virgo, ~180 degrees away in the sky, We have another pair of stars, one 38 ly from the Earth and the othr 250 ly away. These stars can not be any closer than 212 ly apart. The star in Pisces that is 106 ly away, and the star in Virgo that is 38 ly away can be no more than 144 ly apart. Thus these two stars, on opposite sides the sky, are closer to each other than either of the same constellation star pairs are.
    2 points
  3. 1 point
  4. This is an opinion piece written by a Conservative. No polling data, stats, historical context, or etc. Just Elaina Plott's opinion about Democrats. Elaina Plott's other works include "I was a Teenage Ann Coulter Fangirl!" If you are getting your opinions about centrist U.S. policies from Conservative columnist who grew up idolizing to Hannity, O'Reilly, and etc it is no surprise you don't believe there are moderates in the Democratic Party. Have I once insulted your intelligence or wasted your time by linking an op-ed written by a partisan staff writer? I have linked data with sourced research not B.S. written by partisan idiots. I assume you are smart enough to know the difference between opinion pieces and population data. I would appreciate it if you paid me the same respect and not link fluff conservative propaganda. Based on what? Trump currently enjoys an 88% approval among those who identify as Republican. That is a better approval among Republicans than Reagan or H.W Bush had 2yrs in. It is also a better approval than Obama or Clinton had among Democrats, Gallup Poll . I don't see a single sign that Trump base will collapse. Trump was at 89% among Republicans when inaugurated and now 2yrs later he is still right there.
    1 point
  5. It’s even worse than this when we focus more broadly away from the individuals and instead to the parties. It’s intellectually lazy in the extreme when people suggest equivalence on both sides. Specifically... Since 1965: Democrats (25 years in power): 3 indictments 1 conviction 1 prison sentence Republicans (28 years in power): 120 indictments 89 convictions 34 prison sentences ...and Trump’s not even done yet, nor is Mueller. Both sides my ass.
    1 point
  6. @studiot No, I don't think I have fallen into any old trap of "assuming binary choices (either ...or...), if it is not 'this' it must be 'that'". If you use some qualifier, then there must be something else, that is outside of its scope, and is not pointless at the same time. I gave two options that I could think of, which both don't have much sense to me, so I concluded that the qualifier is redundant. And "self selection" never occurred to me, as the whole point is that environment selects you, if self selection would be the case, everyone would choose to survive. Right? I mean, it is not like everyone doesn't try to impact the environment in order to make it let them survive, but eventually, the environment is the one that selects you. Unless you don't talk about suicide here? @Sensei First of all, you are responding as if I didn't mention artificial selection at all, and then if you think that for some reason this should be separated from "natural selection", then you don't believe homo sapiens is a part of nature, ie as natural agent as, well, everything else that exists in the nature. The only answer given here, that I would tentatively and partially accept, was by John Cuthber, when he said that for historical reasons, one should continue to use that syntagm, as in the start it was used to denote the difference from "unnatural", or "supernatural" causes, ie not that part about Green party activists. And what about philosophy community? Apparently you can speak in its name too.
    1 point
  7. My dad's named Norman. He was born in Kenya. Clearly there's no way to "edit" that fact. In the same way, you can't change your ancestors.
    1 point
  8. I also need need the ratio H/H0 to find OmegaLambda and OmegaM
    1 point
  9. It's okay with: T H0 : 14,497 T H infinite : 17.51 Omega tot : 0.9989 there's just one tiny little mistake on OmegaM
    1 point
  10. I'm going to quote a section from an article entitled "The Standard Model of particle physics" by Uwe-Jens Weise. I always liked his writing style and have studied numerous of his papers. However that aside he has an excellent section on this on pages 16 and 17 Here is the article. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/standard.pdf lol I just came across it looking for a decent reference. So now I am going to study this document myself (its always a good practice to keep studying regardless of how well one already knows a given subject ) much as my wife hates it lol. As an aside benefit it helps me find better ways to assist in explaining physics to others (one of the talents the Author has in his writing style)
    1 point
  11. You do realize that a constellation only looks like a group of stars because of where we are viewing them from, don't you? Some stars in a constellation can be close to us while others very far away, they just look close to each other by line of sight. There are stars in totally different constellations of the Zodiac that are physically closer to each other than they are to some stars in their own constellation.
    1 point
  12. But it behaves just like one if something tries to change its axis of rotation.
    1 point
  13. ! Moderator Note argo, it's clear you've made up some distinctions to help you understand the flow of time better, but even you aren't able to clarify why the distinctions are necessary. Your whole argument seems to be one from incredulity (you think the mainstream definitions of time are too confusing to be described without your distinctions). You've been asked for references but haven't provided them. You keep repeating your argument rather than refining it, which is soapboxing and against our rules. You've had five pages to persuade the membership your idea has merit, so I'm closing this to avoid more repetition. Please don't post guesswork you can't support. There are other forums where they like that sort of thing, but we aren't one of them.
    1 point
  14. A couple weeks ago I learned the giant trevally fish can eat/hunt birds.
    1 point
  15. Did you or did you not put “in science” in the title? I am not sufficiently familiar with the philosophy community to know what their position is. OTOH, I don’t care all that much, as AFAICT it has little impact. You might as well poll the sheetmetal workers’ union while you are at it. Interesting that you claim not to have fallen into that trap, and then proceed to explain how you fell into it.
    0 points
  16. I completely agree. It's one of the hallmarks of an unreasonable argument. It's lazy, dishonest, confusing, misleading, and unscientific.
    -1 points
  17. Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Definition I don't redefine words. You (and many other people on this forum) assume your ideas/definitions concerning semantics count for the rest of the world...
    -1 points
  18. Of course that I didn't. I have better things to do in my life, like, for example, discussing it, commenting on it, sharing with you my opinion about it, things like that. And writing my own most readable scientific treatises of all time. Have you read them? They are already reckoned as such by some people, notably my girlfriend...and her sister.
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.