Marshalscienceguy

Well if you look at the structure of a bird and flying insects they have a much lighter frame. So I think it would be hard for a person to fly. Also your video is not working for me. So I did not get to watch it.

Upon the reading of another thread that is discussing aliens attacking our civilization, I recalled some recent threads I have posted in. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77946-snakes/

 

 

I have formed an idea that possibly this phenomena of aliens in all of their manifestations within our world culture are linked to this primordial development in our brains, and for lack of a better analogy a "snake radar" like subconscious reaction by this above defined evolutionary holdover. Could it be driving these experiences that people have about abductions and sighting of these green aliens, an over compensation by the brain to stress and other psychological and physiological pressures.

 

I don't know if this has already been considered by anyone. I did a search on SFN and Google but found nothing. I may have simply seen this somewhere else though.

Well I am not sure you can say that is the only reason. Fear based on trauma is not the only reason to fear snakes. Snakes just like a lot of spiders and insects are dangerous. A snake bite can kill you, a snakes jaw can stretch so they could put things much larger than itself into its stomach, and some snakes are constrictors. So they basically squeeze the prey too death. So if you think about it being afraid of snakes and spiders is a very reasonable fear. Also if you do not know how to identify spiders, insects, or snakes correctly you do not know how dangerous it is. So simply destroying or avoiding them all seems like a solution when you just do not have enough knowledge to pick which ones are safe. So you get the over all fear that "They are all bad and dangerous and we need to stay away". Fear stops you from doing things which might cause yourself harm. Irrational fear stops you from causing yourself perceived harm but it might not be as dangerous as you perceive it to be.

Whenever you compare a person to any other species on the planet someone always seem to get offended. Now I do not mean when purposely using this as a an insult such as "I think you're a pig since you eat so much" but a genuine comparison. I do not see anything wrong in objectively pointing out similarities between certain creatures and if humans are not animals what are they? I have seen this comparison in two situations.

Its either applying pets to children and apes/chimps to people. Now if you compare a person to a chimp those against it might say "Are you saying I throw my own poop"? since they throw poop."

Another comparison I hear a lot is taking care of a pet is like taking care of a child. A child is your responsibility, whatever happens to them is considered your responsibility, you have to clean them, clean up after them, take care of them, feed them and give them somewhere to sleep. A dog(pet) is your responsibility, whatever they do or happens to them is your responsibility, you have to feed them, clean them(Until/unless they clean themselves but cats can clean themselves too), clean up after them, give them somewhere to sleep. Now people against this will say "Well you believe in child abuse and putting a child in a cage". I bet you would force me to feed my child from a dog bowl too wouldn't you"?

Are these comparisons themselves bad or is the idea its a bad comparison based on over-sensitivity?

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the use of animals in scientific research - as it has a rather explicit utilitarian purpose. When using animals for research, you generally have to justify explicitly and precisely why you are using animals and why you can't use an alternative to your ethics committee.

Yes, and I am saying if there is no alternative to animals than we have to test on something. I believe though if there is another reasonable alternative which will still get desired results that we should use the alternative. However the original post also mentioned animal rights so I was stating where I stood on that.

There is a theory saying that we are all just brains in a vat. That we are hooked up to a machine and everything we experience is all in our mind. That there is a giant computer that we are all plugged into. Which is the idea behind the movie "The Matrix".

"I also do not regard one life as more valuable for simply being a different species."

So, you don't kill plants for food then?

 

"To say this is very foolish and its the same as saying "My life is worth more than yours because you are black or my life is worth more than yours since you are disabled""

Nope,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

 

"Life is a precious thing and we should not waste it so carelessly."

Nature wastes a lot more of it than we do.

 

"I believe if there is an alternative to testing on animals outside the human species that we should do it."

And that alternative is?

Well I would not beat a dog because I think a dog is beneath me just for the fun of it. Which is the idea a person might use to abuse animals, as well as child abuse. I have heard similar justifications for both. "Its ok to kick the dog since it is only a dog. It is beneath me so I can abuse it". Why should being a dog mean one is given the right to abuse it for no reason? An adult might have more power or authority than a child does that mean they have the right to abuse them? I really do not agree with having the right to abuse something since you believe its beneath you. You might be able to beat and steal candy from a 14 year old as an adult. Just because its possible does not mean you should.

The point of the killing was to only kill out of necessity not just for pleasure or sport. A person can kill the person living next door. Even if the reasoning was "I found them irritating" it does not mean it was absolutely necessary to kill them. Murder is not legal unless it is considered absolutely necessary and I see no reason in killing something or someone just for the joy of it. If you are going to argue we should be able to kill needlessly what about murder? Murder is not legal but you can sometimes get off on self defense. In nature a lions can kill other lions and take over the pride. However we cant do that in everyday society. If a son kills his father to take over the company it does not mean he did not commit a crime.

Hi,

 

l have previously been very pro animal experimentation based on a utilitarian argument. Recently I have however come across the animal rights argument of Gary Francione that as animals are sentient and have interests, these interests deserve to be protected to the same degree as we protect the interests of humans of comparative sentience, ie. babies or the mentally disabled.

 

To conduct animal research therefore seems to disregard the interest of animals to not be treated as property (that is have their interests to continue to live be subservient to our own interests).

 

Do you have any argument to refute this? Do you think animal research is justifiable, and why?

From my own personal belief I do not think we should test on animals. I however believe that harm should only come to the guilty and to harm the innocent is a crime. I also do not regard one life as more valuable for simply being a different species. To say this is very foolish and its the same as saying "My life is worth more than yours because you are black or my life is worth more than yours since you are disabled" and I really do not think that type of mindset is very progressive. All creatures are useful to each others and nature in different ways. Some things like parasites don't seem to serve any good and do nothing but destroy a host. Though ultimately a parasite did not choose to be a parasite it just came out that way. I believe that if we bring harm to an to someone it should only be if its absolutely necessary. Example if someone is going to have a factory killing cows, there is no reason to go hunt wild animals just for the fun of slaughtering something. It seems pretty pointless. Life is a precious thing and we should not waste it so carelessly. Some crimes are absolutely unforgivable since there is just no logical reasoning behind them at all. If you kill in self defense it should be the last possible thing you do to survive. If you know there is a way to get away without killing them do it. If a man goes around with a knife randomly stabbing children in the eye and his reasoning was "I believed it was funny" this act is not forgivable. It had no legitimate reason as to why he needed to do it. I believe if there is an alternative to testing on animals outside the human species that we should do it. Since simply not being born a human does not mean you earned this type of life.

Why you don't want to sleep when you exercise in the evening? When you exercise, body temperature rises, so the melatonin decreases and you don't want to sleep, yeah? I think that rise in body temperature wakes you up, but, on the other hand, rise in the body temperature denature proteins..

 

I know that Dopamine can directly inhibit production and release of a molecule, melatonin, that induces drowsiness and prepares the body for sleep, but does endorphin?

 

Does exercise increase dopamine or endorphin?

 

The general question would be:

What does make you want to sleep? And what does make you not want to sleep? Exactly.

 

Thanks.

Its said that sleeping gets your blood rushing and your heart going so you are more awake. So its said to not be a very good thing when you are about to go to bed. Some suggest taking a warm shower and that often seems to put people to sleep. Its also needed if you just had an intense work out. Though from my personal experience I usually was so exhausted after a work out I was ready to go home and just pass out. Though I would often work out to a point I could no longer move and just could not go anymore.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/sleep/basics/how-to-fall-asleep1.htm

There has been reported instances of this happening. However people always seem skeptical on how this occurs. If a baby suddenly catches on fire and is rushed to the hospital people might blame it on the parents and believe it was child abuse. I have found some articles and reports of such cases. As well as something called the "Wick effect" which supposedly gives a logical explanation for this mysterious phenomenon.

When I say fool I mean a person who is willing to pull out every dirty, under handed trick in the book to win an argument. Be it demeaning your character, ignoring your argument all together or using band wagon tactics against you. In debating there is a lot of dirty tricks that can be pulled. The reason these type of people do this is because they do not have any faith in what they are trying to feed you or their own ability to argue the point. Some people use intimidation to talk you down regardless of there being any actual substance in the argument they have or not. Thanks to these "Dirty tactics" you often lose your reputation if you are an intelligent debater or not. Despite how factual and well thought out your argument is you will always lose to someone who plays dirty. So how do you defeat a fool while being honest? Even an argument based on faulty information is not as pathetic as someone who is willing to be dishonest to win a debate.

Children are generally prohibited from watching horror flicks.

Is this prudent in the light of current scientific analysis?

 

Please refer :

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/23/headquarters-delight-fright

 

As an illustrative excerpt from this article :

 

The frontal lobes of the brain that deal with the rationalization of scary situations are also less developed in very young children. This means they may struggle to make sense of their automatic fear responses. Cortisol released during flight-or-fight responses reinforces memories of the event and, without appropriate frontal lobe controls, this can result in the feeling of fear recurring long afterwards. This might explain why children will often have recurring nightmares after watching a scary movie.

 

Please advise.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

I think horror films are often educational and we should not be trying to hide our children from violence or the fact it exists. They are going to experience fear, and might possibly be stuck in situations that are stressful/scary/dangerous in their life. We are not helping them by telling them to ignore it.

The reason I enjoy horror movies is I enjoyed watching how people react and think in stressful situations. If a person acted abnormally I had to know why. If something did not have an obvious reason I had to figure out why they did it. Children are naturally very curious so they could learn something from it. I use to love horror movies as a child.

When I was in school from the age of 10 I would get bullied very badly. I had anger issues but I knew I must control my stress and not hit anyone. Pretending violence does not exist does not make it not mean its gone. Telling a child to not feel angry does not make it better. Telling them that anger is an abnormal emotion will not make it go away. Hostility will always exist. People will always argue, always fight and always have disagreements. Its not like everyone is always going to be on the same page as you. Violence will always be here so why lie and say it doesn't?

I wasn't asking you to confirm that CVS sells vitamin water. I was asking you to provide evidence in support of your claim that they ONLY or MOSTLY sell "health drinks" and "diabetic safe snacks." Remember, here's your comment that I quoted when posting:

 

 

If you cannot support that assertion, I completely understand because it's plainly false and a bit ridiculous, but then we must ask... Why did you say it in the first place?

I would have to take an personal photo than.

I'd like to see some evidence of this claim. I'm very confident it's false, but I am open to correction. Perhaps your definition of "many" and "mostly" are different from mine, though.

You want me to get a picture of CVS stores? Well I found one this picture online. I guess I can get some real life photos by walking into the shop too next time I go. This health drink seems to be popular.

Smart move, why don't the other "drug stores" do this? How about remove alcoholic drinks, junk foods and sugar drinks? Because that is mostly what drug stores have to offer people to eat and drink, in the food deserts, and everywhere else. Then folks can also buy the medicines they need to take AFTER and WHILE they screw up their health by a life-time of poor eating habits.

 

For most of human history, food has been a scarcity, until now. It is still scare in many poor nations, but here in the good old USA we have plenty of processed foods with a long shelf life, junk food and drinks available for most people. So eat a lot and enjoy your FREEDOM to frequent culinary orgasm from salt, sugar, and trans-fats. People eat for entertainment now, not for sustenance. That is why they need to go to the convenient drug stores to get their fix of processed foods, salt, sugar, fats, alcohol, but no longer tobacco at CVS.

 

The cost of health care will certainly go sky high in the future, thanks to human willingness to eat too much junk food, just for FUN, because when it comes to eating, all that matters is it is a lot of FUN. Then they can buy their pharmaceuticals and see their doctors frequently. But don't worry, they can afford it because their health care will be paid for by our taxes.

Many CVS stores will only or mostly sell diabetic safe snacks and health drinks that each have different nutrients in it. Which are like health/sport drinks like vita-waters and those sort of things. So yes this apply to most other-things. However sometimes they will still sell soda but when you get soda from CVS its always 5 bucks more than it would be in a regular market.

As a lawyer I have to stand up for the humanity of my profession (I understand this may be contested) - please could we rephrase as

 

 

 

And frankly that is gonna be ruinously expensive. First off I would chat to others who run websites that cater to a similar sort of fan-run website intended for other fans. Secondly speak to those who own the copyright of the images etc that you wish to reproduce; if they are happy for you to go ahead then the need for costly advice can be avoided, and if they are unhappy then it is highly unlikely that the sort of legal-team a fan would want to pay for would be able even to contest the copy-right holder's lawyer's first sally forth. Thirdly, maybe have a word with the guys at wikia - there is a lot of copy-righted content on the individual wikis hosted there. I am pretty sure not all will be there with the explicit consent of the copy-right holder - so worth exploring what a facilitator like wikia could tell you.

That was point of asking it here. I figured there might be some programmers/web designers here who maybe possibly had a website.

That was grounds to go and see your doctor.

I agree with this statement here. I have one idea that might serve an Explanation. If you had a black out for a short period you might be suffering from multiple personality also know as ( Dissociative identity disorder). When one personality comes forward the present one leaves and sometimes when one personality comes back its unaware what happened during the period it was not in control. I would recommend you see a doctor about this issue.

Narcissistic personality disorder is someone who is self centered, lacks remorse for others, has a delusion they are more than they are or are not what they are, might believe they are without flaw and will sometimes take on personas since they have no real sense of Identity. However how can you tell when someone is suffering from the disorder or the people around them are just intolerant?

If someone happens to dress odd or act odd but is not really breaking rules or bothering someone and told they are a bother should they stop? If someone is quiet, to themselves do not have a lot of friends and loves the color red should they have to stop wearing red since a group of people say "I despise the color red"! Does saying "No I like red" make this person self centered? If these people do not present a logical reason to stop?

They are bothering people and they do not care. No I am not saying being obnoxious is a good thing but at what point does it become selfish behavior? Really anything you do can bother someone so wouldn't that mean we are all suffering from this disorder? For not wanting to be follow exactly what everyone else is following? You can try to please everyone but it does not always work. I mean none of us are that perfect. Those of us who are might just be lying to please others. So what is the difference between enjoying your independence and narcissistic personality disorder? Both might seem selfish but is it really selfish to want to have your own interests and just be you? Are we suppose to mold our personalities to please the world? and if we cant does that make you a narcissist?

At what point does something become selfish? Can one really expect a person to change absolutely everything just to please them?

Does pouring salt on a wound actually kill bacteria? say, a cracked tooth.

 

If you have a cracked tooth I would think you be better off going to the dentist. Since regardless of you cleaning an open wound you still risk creating damage if the root is exposed. Yes salt is a common home remedy people use to clean these type of infections. Gargle some salt water. Get a cup of warm water and put a small amount of salt. Mix it and gargle it and spit it out but see a dentist as soon as possible if this is the case.

You need to consult lawyers for each jurisdiction in which you will operate.

Good luck.

Wouldn't internet cover all of them? Since its international.

Simply saying a religion is peaceful does not indicate if it is or not. The answer is what the scriptures ACTUALLY says and how these scriptures are interpreted by its followers. Though really if a religion is good or not is subjective. If you find something severe others might find it necessary for some reason. If its under my logic I believe everyone should be treated equally and that we should respect each other and that while one person might have certain limitations in some instances they should be allowed to try and if proven incapable should pursue something which better suits there abilities. I also believe people should take personal responsibility for there actions and take preventive actions apposed to panicking and destroying whatever end result they get. I believe if there is not a logical reason for your action than your action is wrong.

Initially, I called this paradox a "catch-22," but I don't that entirely fits.

 

It's a logical paradox where a person, or a group of people, believe a general rule, but do not believe any one specific instance of the rule occuring.

 

A classic example of this paradox is government corruption. Most people believe that the government is corrupt...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-survey-majority-feel-corruption-has-worsened-think-governments-cant-fix-it/

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/10/majority-of-americans-say-corruption-has-increased

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-most-americans-believe-obama-government-is-corrupt

 

... and yet, when most people are faced with specific allegations of government corruption and/or conspiracy theories (classic example: the JFK assassination), they tend to be in denial; the few who believe the conspiracy theories are generally seen as paranoid by the general public.

 

What is this logical paradox called? Where you accept a general truth but deny any specific allegations that stem directly from this general truth?

simply believing the government is corrupt does not mean you are going to follow every conspiracy theory that is put out. One could say that the government is ran by aliens. It does not mean everyone who believes in possible corruption are going to agree the "Aliens" did it. They might agree in a "Embezzlement scheme" but find the idea of aliens less likely. A lot of conspiracy theories are downright stupid. I have had people attempt to convince me aliens rule the government, that we are all aliens without realizing it, and that aliens control us like puppets and our thoughts are not our own. This is all nice and all but when I asked them for evidence for this they simply said "because its true". As well as this a lot of these theories have flaws in them. The 911 theories end up falling apart. So saying "This looks fishy" is ok but no one has any real explanation which explains another scenario. They will fall apart since they say "Oh they evacuated the people before the plane went off" but than ask "Well than what happened to the people on that plane?"

talking from a long tome 6-7 month !

Maybe they are just curious as to what you look like than.

no no reason just face pics

Have you known them awhile? Have you been talking long? If you never have spoken and they are randomly just messaging you out of no where and asking for pictures I would say block them. Since generally when someone automatically goes to a random person and asks for pics/age/location immediately after messaging is not a good sign.