Intoscience

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are ignorant to what is REALLY happening. If you can demonstrate to me that you are actually in a town like mine and living it then what you say is based on the narrative you are given not on real life experience. The point people seem to be missing is there are different types of asylum seekers - Those who are genuinely seeking refuge, escaping war or oppression Those who want to start a new life in a new country, integrate and contribute to the system they benefit from (some of the above) Those who are looking for an easy life, where they can leach off a generous system with no intention of integrating or contributing (legally) Those who don't want to integrate, but change the country to suit their beliefs and culture Numbers 1&2 - I, along with most people have no issue with, numbers 3&4 - we do take issue, they exist and are growing rapidly in numbers, pose a real problem in real towns and cities across the UK The Pakistani Asian community in my town have gangs which run drugs, child grooming... They are now in positions of power the local council is now run by them. No money is spent on looking after the town, plenty of money spent on building mosques. Many shops are now drug and money laundering outlets disguised as "barber" shops and "take aways". Our children are often approached by grown Pakistani men, propositioned or threatened. This isn't fantasy tv, its real and its happening and its getting worse. The police do nothing of any note, why? Guess what, the local police are headed up by? yep. Exactly my point, its a systematic slow take over that people are ignoring. I hope my children choose to seek asylum from this country to another where they can integrate, contribute and start a new life. You don't live it, but you criticise my concern as though I'm deluded. Interesting, however one could argue that the American constitution forms the basis of the heritage of many Americans today. Yes America was built on immigration, great this is healthy and welcoming. But a society was soon formed and a culture born. Many Americans are patriots and like to defend their culture and constitution, Is that ok? Yet I'm criticised for doing the same of my society and culture?? All nations (well the vast majority) are born from historic immigration, but they eventually settle into a cultural system that has moulded their society. People born of that society want to protect their "heritage" what is personal to themselves or to their long standing community and society. this doesn't mean that change is unacceptable, it means that change needs to be slow, consistent and for the better of a society as a whole, not just for one group who happen to believe their culture is superior.

My prejudices are based on my own personal experience, on the spectrum yes definitely! We all have prejudices, whether we like to admit them or share them depends. I'm proud of my heritage and want to protect it, what's wrong with that? it seems that only certain groups are allowed to do so, others branded racist or "prejudice". The irony of all this though is that there is a possibility that all cultures will fall, to AGI. I don't think I personally said that "all" people of a certain culture are doing it, perhaps implied such. But I stand corrected if so. I think for people who aren't living the experience its easy to sit back and stand on a soap box and tell us that we are wrong, or racist or what whether narrative is in vogue. Politicians live in their posh suburbs, with an healthy incomes, living outside of reality for the majority, how can they prescribe for something they have no real life experience of? But what you described is not what is happening, I along with most welcome immigration. Its healthy for the economy and culture. But the vast majority of immigrants coming into the UK are illegal young men who are in majority looking for an easy life and free ride. They have no intention of integrating and working and paying towards the system they reek the benefit of. Unfortunately the utopian society of multiculturism, diversity and equality is not a reality. Currently immigration is just breeding unrest, division and more unlawful activity. Native British working class people are in general struggling to pay bills, yet they see their tax money being spent on housing illegal immigrants in big hotels, not for a few weeks but for years. There are 2 hotels in our town which have housed illegal immigrants for nearly 8 years, at the tax payers expense. All while the town's basic maintenance is ignored. The town is a ghetto now. This is not integration, its an invite for more illegals to come and live for free off other people. For those of you who don't live this, have experienced this, it may come across as though people, like myself, who are starting to stand up against it are prejudice. We can't stop change, I agree entirely. It should be welcomed if its in the best interests of society as a whole. True diversity with integration can achieve this. But in reality that is not what is happening. Society as a whole is not benefiting from the change. So should we sit back and ignore this? People tend to choose to ignore what is not in vogue even when the real issues are staring them in their face. Are you brave enough to face a reality that is uncomfortable, which if you stand against might make you appear to be something you don't like? Good or bad, the real you is in your heart and you and only you know it. What other people think of you is irrelevant. Of course there are people (tend to be classed as far right) who are selfish and dead against any change, any integration, any diversity or equality. those people are just as, and possibly the worst type for a society as a whole. I think people in general are happy for diversity and integration. The problem arises when this is not achieved in a way that is best for the society as a whole. Religion often is the driving force behind the difference in the morals and culture. I'm not religious in any sense of the word. The little I have read I find faults, but also good points in all religions. Any culture that impose fanatical beliefs is not good for a diverse and peaceful society. But this is happening within our cities.

You seem fine that the culture that you and possibly your parents grew up in is slowly being eroded away allowing a new culture to take over that does not align with historic UK values and morals? If this change was proven to be a step forward then I think most would be happy to support an integration. But its not, its a slow take over. The UK was built on immigration, and up until recently most immigrants would respect and accept the UK's culture and values. But now they just want to impose theirs on ours and ultimately change the UK to an Islamic state. The town where I live is dominated by Pakistani Muslims, and to be frank its become a shit hole to live in. Unkept, dirty, rife with un lawful activity that is often ignored by the authorities. And before anyone comments that this is a far right view its not, and neither is it racist or anything similar. I am stating facts that the far left and those unaffected choose to ignore or point blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity! Migration is a good thing and its welcomed when immigrants are respectful, happy to integrate and also contribute to the system. 35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do. Yet people who fear this and speak up are branded "far right" or "racist". It seems ok for any other culture to defend itself but offensive when the British want to defend their own? Just the typical hypocrisy that infects modern views. Lets just live together, share resources and respect each other, both as individuals and as cultures! This is all that most normal respectful and caring people really want.

Yes, especially so in modern western culture, money doesn't guarantee your health and happiness. But it certainly helps to take away some of the stress and anxiety of everyday life. Knowing that all your basic needs and some luxuries are a certainty and that you can pay for the highest level of health care is definitely a standard of wealth.

I have a relative who works in social care. Its certainly complicated, even when it comes to this type of accommodation. Many, to combat violence and fear factors impose rules to which many homeless folk chose not to adhere to, so continue living on the streets, drugs use and weapon carrying being the main 2. I suspect that most people would assume you are just begging out of idleness, without first understanding your lifestyle and culture. Regarding your PS. This attitude is ripe across a number of situations. Years ago when I ran my own construction business the wealthiest clients tended to be the meanest. Like wise the poorest the most generous. The poorer clients would happily offer drinks, food and cash tips to the workers. Whereas the wealthy clients would offer nothing but expect huge discounts. Just going back to homeless donations. I often offer loose change or a hot coffee, but on one particular occasion I was approached and advised by a police officer who saw a particular person begging not to approach or gift anything. She explained that the person was a multiple offender who was a drug user and had been offered help over the years choosing not to take it. Donations would encourage his poor behaviour so the police and social care were trying to deter him from continuing his current life style. Just something to consider and shows that each individual case is different and some complicated. There are people who are born into poverty, forced into poverty, chose poverty and chose to ignore poverty. As you said poverty isn't just about money. I was having just this discussion with my son the other day. What makes a person wealthy and what makes them poor? In modern western society for the general population a certain amount of money does help to provide a certain level of well being. The question is, what does money buy and how much does one need to achieve it? For example, my son offered to buy me a fancy car, a big, house, expensive holidays upon him becoming rich and successful (by the way he's still a student at Uni, so currently broke in reality). I explained that I don't need any of those things. What would be nice (for my personal wellbeing) is my house paid off, my early retirement, and enough money to cover my bills and health care. The rest is just material and has no value for me. My point being, wealth is really about health, happiness and content and poverty is really about suffering and hardship.

Yes, exactly. (my bold) Though I would say, new testable physics rather than just theoretical. Worm holes, space warping etc... can be plausible from a theoretical perspective just not currently testable. This is why most serious scientists and science enthusiasts are very sceptical about claimed alien visitations, and rightly so! We all want it to be possible (well perhaps the majority), why? Well because if it can be done and aliens have succeeded then this means we can also! I don't think there is anything more exciting than the possibility of visiting other planets, especially exo ones! I think this is why some sceptics (like myself), keep open minded and not too dismissive. Remaining positive and hopeful.

Yes, and reading through this thread you can see that there are a number of perspectives, considerations and assumptions. Which is inevitable, since we are discussing a topic that is with all intent purposes, way beyond our current technical capabilities (visiting exoplanets). Much of the discussion so far is around what we can technically perceive and or feasibly engineer (ignoring costs and constraints). Its a bit like being back when the only means of mechanical transport was horse and cart, then discussing ways in which you could circumnavigate the Earth by making the horse faster, or the cart lighter. Unfortunately the reality is, that from a practical view, the only way we can conceive relatively efficient interstellar travel would be based on, what seems like highly improbable, but theoretically plausible methods such as worm holes, space warping... All other methods are slow, very inefficient, very impractical and very expensive. Our constraints are fundamentally based on time and distance, simply because we are a biological species limited by short lifespans. If there is a possible scientific way to overcome these constraints our next challenge is technical. Then we have to consider the feasibility, cost and lastly (or firstly) the motivation. I cannot perceive (based on our current understanding of physics) how a biological entity could/would travel interstellar with any meaningful purpose. Unless they/it had over come the constraints of time and distance. Failing that, biological aliens would either have to be almost immortal (compared to life we know) or be life as we don't know. Alternatively some form of machine like visitation (probe, robot, A.I...) seems, from our experience, a more plausible possibility. Note: Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that we may be closing in on a full understanding of physics. This was countered, and rightly so. Our current models suggest that we occupy and can only observe around 5% ish of what appears to make up the universe. Leaving 95% still unknown, I'd say its a little presumptuous to say we are nearing a full understanding based on this observation. I enjoy discussions like these, but we have to be a little imaginative and speculative to answer the question "Could aliens ever visit Earth?". If you want to strictly stick with our current understanding of physics and technical capabilities and assume that aliens are life as we define/know it (in other words could we feasibly visit other exo planets), then the answer is a plain NO. But there is a caveat in the question - "ever" this implies no time limit so since we are unable to foresee the future then the answer is - For the duration of Earth's existence, allowing enough time, for any technically advanced being who can travel interstellar, then YES.

Yes, so fundamentally based on our current understanding of physics and technological capabilities any meaningful and practical interstellar travel is near on impossible. Unless you can consistently harness huge amounts of resource over a very long period of time. So therefore we can conclude that IF E.T has visited Earth from outside our solar system then it must imply that either the warping of space and/or the dilation of time can be practically harnessed in some way that we have yet to discover.

Though interesting, discussions on "realistic" interstellar travel based on our current understanding of mainstream physics and technology is a bit pointless. Delving into the engineering requirements alone, aside from human biological limitations and vulnerabilities shows that its basically practically impossible to go any significant distance. Its pretty obvious that "if" aliens are doing such then they have discovered either physics we are yet unaware of and technology which is beyond our understanding. All our realistic assumptions on this subject are, and can only be based on human experience. The reality being that if interstellar travel is practically possible in a meaningful and useful way for humans, then traditional reaction propulsion systems are not the way forward. This then brings us back to what we currently consider as "sci-fi speculation", warp drives, anti gravity mechanisms and so forth. This is what Bob Lazar's claim has been since the 1980's to this day. Whether you believe his story or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he claims a type of "gravity warp field" is the mechanism which the craft operates with. Sci-fi, hoax or other, objectively this makes more sense for interstellar travel than slow, inefficient reaction propulsion systems (ironically what Bob was an accomplished engineer in). The point being, as outlined originally, reaction propulsion systems are a pointless mode of interstellar travel. You can tackle the physics and engineering all day long but the conclusion will remain the same. Either aliens have never been here or ever will, or they have and we have yet to learn how to do it ourselves.

All life as we know it is made from matter, simple. So you have 2 options outside this: Option 1. Life emerging from pure energy, which we have no real examples, evidence, or models for. Option 2. life emerging spiritually, which we would define as "super natural" again we have no real examples or evidence for. Both these examples extend our current definition of life outside of what would be considered mainstream. If you want to propose an alternative to life as we know it (matter based), then by all means crack on. But if you are going to make propositions outside of the mainstream and bring them to a "science" forum then you better have some credible, testable evidence to support your claims.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense.

I find this interesting, and would like you to expand on your reasoning further.

Sounds to me a poor excuse for not facing up to the responsibility of your actions.

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question. I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.

Or the ultimate escape. Depending on your beliefs. If a person is an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of after life or transcendence, or reincarnation then death means full stop, the end in every sense. But you can be an atheist and believe in some form of continuum. (as per what The Vat stated) For a person to be be punished then they need to be judged.

Agreed, Going back to this recent claim Either the film makers of close encounters knew something no one else did, or the person making these claims is very unimaginative! I read that the latest NASA report on UAPs states that they have no reason to believe that any of the UAPs are non terrestrial. However, they do go on to state that the findings are inconclusive and many of the phenomena remain unknown both in construct and in origin. they also state that some of the evidence suggests that some of the objects are not moving as fast as reported and maybe just "drifting" with currents. This last part I find rather odd and I'm not convinced. Many of the objects where witnessed on multiple occasions by various experienced air force personal. I find it hard to believe that they would all mis-construe what they witnessed. I do however remain sceptical of "alien" visitations. But I'm not in the club of completely ruling them out. What may convince me more to join the "believers" is if we discovered new physics which may allow for, or at least theorise, a plausible practical method of long-distance short time space travel by meaningful physical objects.

I would have structured the sentence differently, because when I read the first part it came across as though you condoned Jimmy Saville's actions. Any person/s who abuse children deserve something!

hmmm... uncannily The sad thing being that all this does is fuel the stigma surrounding aliens and the possibility of their existence.

The problem is that the public cannot discern what is fact and what is fiction these days, especially so on subjects like this. People tend to buy into what ever is trendy at the time and with social media so accessible and also easily manipulated then the general public can be convinced of fiction over fact without much question.

I'm not sure that is true though. Even if aliens were visiting (i'm not advocating they are) then why would we still not explore our local neighbourhood anyway? The question would be why are we not using the so called captured technology to make it easier for us to explore our local neighbourhood? The so called "whistle blowers" have claimed that the government has being back engineering this technology for over half a century, and included in that are claims of test flying anti gravity devices. It all smells of a diversionary tactic to cover up advanced technology testing that is human in origin.

I'm not, I'm advocating that in order to integrate transgender then the rules should consider the new definition of what a woman is. They are not changing the definitions, society (a group of) are changing the definition. The governing bodies are attempting to integrate this new definition into sporting categories. I'm not!!! The rules have to consider the new definition to enable integration. How that is achieved is beyond me since the original definition was fundamentally based on biology. Now its not, so now the ruling boards need to consider this.

I never advocated it was. There is an undeniable difference between male and female physical performance. The current world athletic championships highlight this as we speak. So where predominantly does that extra performance come from? cause it sure aint all just psychological. It comes from physiological attributes that are fundamentally biological differences.

Sure we do, we have many clear definitions for many things, there is nothing stopping us redefining as we probe more detailed depths or as more accurate data comes to bear. It also depends on the context and purpose. For example you mentioned a black hole, the simple universally accepted definition is simply - a region of space where not even light can escape. Sure you can refine that definition and continue to improve on it if you wish to do so. Until recently a woman was defined as - an adult human female. The definition has since evolve over the past few years and now includes - gender identity that is fluid. I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition????? The original definition of a woman was - adult human female. That's what the women's category was originally based around. Now the definition of a woman has evolved to include an additional definition - fluid gender identity. So the logical step to include trans gender in the "women" category, the rules must be fundamentally changed to fairly include the new additional definition. Or we could split the category into separate divisions, like they do with weight. You cant have a competition with rules that were based on old definitions and expect it to continue to function properly without evolving to include/consider changed/new definitions, that would be illogical.

Sure it is, all rules have to operate around universally accepted definitions else they are open to interpretation which leads to confusion and sometimes controversy. Any category defined by a marker needs a well defined marker. For example categories set by weight. If the definition of the term "woman" is fluid then how can that be used to define a category? If we can clearly define (within reasonable accuracy) the physical performance difference between what we label as male and female then we can use this as a universal marker (definition) specifically for the purpose at hand - sports. Is that not the whole point? Things get complicated when gender identity and biological sex performance attributes are conflated. When clearly by the very 2 definitions of the term "woman", gender and biological sex are not mutually inclusive. We have to start with clear definitions based on a selection of data and testing. We can argue till the cows come home about how deep into the biological aspects we delve. But the logical step would be to take from the data that which is most relevant to the context - physical performance, and apply it so we can draw a sensible and universal conclusion. But this is already done to a degree, and has been workable for years. Now we want to include trans gender, and rightly so, all should have an opportunity to compete! But qualification by gender identity alone comes with complications, which need addressing. Maybe so, but for the purpose of this thread which is centred around sports then there are biological aspects that have been proven to be clear markers for physical performance. The data is out there look at the sporting results, on average males out perform females in physical activities. So clearly there is a physical (biological) difference between what we term male & female. So regardless whether this thread is specifically about gender identity, to have any sensible discussion we have to also look at the biological aspects related to physical sporting ability! We need this in order to determine what category a person should be included in. No different than weight divisions or other physically defined categories.

Ok, so maybe this needs changing. If there is (data driven) evidence supporting cis - male over cis female physical advantages then surely the categories require acknowledgement of this and adjust the rules accordingly? This is fine but where do you draw the line to enable sporting rules to be applicable? We have agreed and established that on average there is a physical difference. What we need is a distinct definition for sporting events, a cut off line so to speak, that clearly and fairly categorises in a way so that participants can compete on a relatively even playing field. When all said and done this argument isn't even really about gender identity, its about biological sex. the 2 get conflated because we insist on using the term "woman" for the categories where in modern society the term woman has an additional definition that is not mutually inclusive with the original.