Intoscience

No thanks, no need to do anything, they don't require advice from me or anyone. They have handled racism all their lives, faced adversity many times. They just don't waste time whining about it feeling sorry for themselves, they act in a productive way to attempt to educate or change people's views towards them. They are my good friends, decent honest hard working people. What makes me smile about this thread is that its been suggested that: thinking I'm perfect, insensitive, uncourteous... when all I'm suggesting is that there are some cases where people are whining about things to seek either attention or sympathy therefore have mental health issues that require addressing firstly. It's a bit like feeding an alcoholic more alcohol cause that makes them feel better. I have no problem with being kinder towards people. But if I interpret you correctly I think your balance is tipped opposite mine and maybe somewhere in the middle is about right. Depends on the preacher and the intent. Of course I'm perfect, aren't we all? You are correct, my courteousness extends only to the point just short of ridiculous, so it all depends on the request and how I feel about it. I don't believe this would be any different for anyone else either. If you say different I don't believe you and would assume you are an hypocrite. If James wants to be known as James and not Sally I'm good with that, I'll do my best to adhere, however if I slip up from time to time don't whine and make a big deal out of it. The world has bigger problems to solve.

And I think I don't "need" to be a bit more anything, this could be your opinion and as you stated "opinions are like buttholes..." I think in the cases I'm considering the vast majority of people (other than the extremists) would also consider the behaviour to be ridiculous. But, times are changing and I accept that moral standards and what is deemed acceptable changes with it, however - My personal stance is, I try to be courteous and considerate as and when possible, but if I get called out for something that in my "opinion" is ridiculous then I'm not going to back down just to be more "PC". I won't repeatedly intend to continue to offend someone, I will accept that we share different opinions and feelings so respectfully decline from further communication or discussions on the subject. But I won't accept that I should change my view to fit in or be accepted by someone just because the risk of offending them. All I'm saying is, where does it all end? When does it get to the stage where people are in fear of making any comment at risk of being branded offensive or a bigot? But life is unfair and tough, over sensitivity can breed weakness in people. A weakness to face up to hardships, facts and deal with issues, instead burying their heads in the sand then complaining that someone else should fix it. Like all good things moderation and balance is required. Tough love is often as productive as soft love (for want of a better term) The right balance between them is the key to success. I don't have names that you would be familiar with, my point was drawn from my own experience interacting with people within my community. I can give you an example. The company I work for produce a particular product, the product is designed to appeal to gender, age, genre... we had a large group of visitors come and as a gesture the company decided to have one product made for each member of the group. Our sales director ordered a quantity of pink hearts design and a quantity of blue star design. This in his mind was to satisfy the ladies and the men . He was called out on this for discrimination, and described as a sexist bigot by some colleagues. He re-considered his actions and decide that the easiest solution was to just offer the neutral design which is non gender specific. Now you may ask, why weren't the people offered the choice, I asked this, and at the time the gesture was meant to be a surprise gift, so asking them to choose was not an option. He realised that in the modern PC world sending the neutral design was the most appropriate thing to do. He had made an honest and reasonable mistake with a considerate original intention. Yet he is now labelled as a sexist bigot. That's just not true, On the contrary, in my experience it tends to be the middle class, white, normally abled, often privileged people who get "oversensitive" sometimes on matters that don't even concern them or affect them directly. I have a couple of friends who are from an Asian ethnic poor minority, living in a white majority area, who do experience racism and deal with it admirably without getting oversensitive.

It's no problem and neither should it be. But if you made a mistake and said "while there HE bought food and supplies. I told HIM it would've been better to wait..." Which is a natural unconscious statement with no intent to offend, then why would Migl be offended?, courtesy works both ways. If Migl felt so strongly about how he is to be identified then he should kindly remind you of this and you would I'm sure show him the courtesy of doing so. However you may find yourself slipping accidentally back back mistake and unconsciously refer to Migl as HIM or HE again. It's this sort of thing that gets my back up, and what my point is aimed at. The world has gone overly PC in my opinion and people are now been called out for all sorts of ridiculous things. No, its weak to sling it around and then blame others I agree that there are people who intentionally offend then claim it to be "just a bit of fun / it was just a joke". But I think in general most people spot this. There is a difference between scientific objectivity and social objectivity. In a court of law scientific objectivity is paramount because personal opinion and interpretation is (should be) irrelevant. In a court the aim is to deal with facts, yet even in such areas, people's interpretations, feelings and context are taken into account. So though not always intentional subjectivity does exist even in courts of law. Where as, there is no place for subjectivity in the scientific method. The problem with taking the stance of total objectivity in a social aspect, is that people can become overly supressed into not speaking their thoughts or opinions in fear of offending. This doesn't mean people should not be courteous and considerate to others, of course they should, we are a civilised (one hopes) society. But how far do we go? I thought freedom of speech is a constitutional right? I don't want to be afraid of calling an apple and apple in fear that the apple actually wants to be identified as an orange. I would like to think I would be courteous to the apple and refer to it as an orange if it chose, however, the apple should not then accuse me of being discriminative or offensive if I slip up occasionally when we are taught in my culture and society that an apple is an apple. So my point is/was that the world has much bigger problems that need politically addressing. People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar, are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention.

I'm not angry concerned or offended, I'm not that sensitive. I don't have a problem with people being sensitive towards others, I advocate such. My issue (thus my point) lies with people being unnecessarily over sensitive and then making a big song and dance out of it, when it is perfectly clear and accepted that the person doing the alleged offending had no intention to do so, or the comment/s made was taken out of context and sensationalised either for attention seeking or sympathy. People should be considerate and sometimes sensitive towards others, but over sensitivity, especially over petty issues, promotes and encourages weakness in people. This is one aspect where the "nanny" state mentality can arise from. Yet another point of view that JP and people who dare to speak out on get slated for.

Yes, perhaps, my point was mainly aimed at those that continually complain about petty PC. iNow replied mainly with examples of purposeful comments that were intentionally designed and aimed at being offensive, even though some appeared to be or attempted to be jokingly cloaked. My point was aimed at the minority who just take things completely out of context when it was evident that the allegation is totally unfounded. But this seems to have gone over everyone's head. So now I'm made out to be unsensitive (which I could take offense at) by not considering everyone's perspective, the irony. There are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, wars... I'm saying some people need to get a grip and consider those poor people's feelings. JP often takes this approach and is slammed for his opinion, and many times people are offensive towards him. Whether you agree with his claims or not, right or wrong he maybe, considering his perspective and then discussing this can be productive, especially when the things he talks on are "sensitive" subjects.

No, I don't believe in God. However, I hope I'm wrong.

During my school years all the teachers just used our surnames when addressing us. Maybe it was a show of authority, I doubt there was any other particular underlining reason other than to gain respect for that authority. No big deal, and I'm sure it had no effect on anyone's wellbeing or state of mind then and now. People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

I don't agree with the first sentence, though this maybe true for some women. However, in my experience the 2nd sentence is quite true. This is the reason books and films predominantly aimed at women, portray the "bad boy, but nice" type of guy as the hero. Women are attracted to powerful men who they can tame, and its not just about physical power, Beauty and the Beast is just a simple metaphor. JP is just pointing out a fact that is popular among a vast majority of women across many cultures. I don't agree with everything he says, and I'm not particularly a follower of his talks, I do think though he often speaks out about things others dare not, and this provokes the negative reactions. Some people are just afraid to discuss things in fear of not being PC.

You've lost me, what's an amoeba got to do with this discussion? It took billions of years for us to evolve from amoeba to humans. Modern humans have only been around 10's of thousands of years, so comparatively not really had that much time to evolve the basic instincts, wouldn't you say? Regardless, we haven't evolved past many of the natural instincts inherent thousands of years ago. Why would we assume we have suddenly evolved into any thing majorly different in modern times? Yes we can argue we are more civilised and more intelligent, or rather, better educated. But many of the basic natural instincts we still share with our long ago ancestors. So yeah - "boys will be boys", "men will be men", this is the point, isn't it?

My understanding is that J.P is arguing for nurture to combat nature. He recognises that we have genetic evolutionary traits that are inherent and instinctive, some that are negative within modern civilised society. the argument is that we should consider these traits and recognise that because they are natural instincts we should investigate ways in which nurturing them will help to control the negative ones in a positive manner. As apposed to relying solely on "intellect" and suppression, but to channel the instincts in a productive manner. For example, Some kid is aggressive and struggles with behaviour. He may have home or upbringing issues that require addressing, or he may to some degree, just be naturally aggressive. Rather than teaching him just right from wrong and persisting that he refrains from violent behaviour, or continuingly punishing him. Consider introducing him to a sport, maybe even a combat sport, where he can positively channel the aggression. This nurtures the natural instinct that he was born with, in a way that he can learn to control and positively channel his aggression, without the need to continually suppress it. Where without this nurture, even with good education, as he grows into an adult it may have an adverse effect, possibly leading to criminal or violent activities and a possible threat to society. Obviously this is not exclusive to children per say, and can be useful for adolescent and mature men who struggle with controlling aggression. The argument is, intelligence and education are only part of the solution, understanding the basic inherent instincts and dealing with them positively, both for society and also the wellbeing of that person, is also a major part of the solution and should not be ignored.

I never said he was being or should/shouldn't be ignored, I like, Peterson is saying that we should not ignore instinctual traits that date back thousands/millions of years of evolution when considering behavioural situations. In that, to be able to better control these inherent instincts, the ones especially bad for modern society, it pays well to consider them, what they are and where they come from, then work towards ways to control them in a positive manner. Suppression of these can be as harmful in the long run, as allowing them to act out in a negative way. Finding ways to control them without prejudice and suppression in an acceptable manner is a positive approach, in my humble opinion. Regardless of intelligence, we all bare our ancestral instincts some more or stronger than others, we all deal with them in our own way, some positive some negative. Anyone who ignores this fact is either lying or naïve. This is one thing which I agree with Peterson on. So who doesn't, if they have the opportunity? Every celebrity in the public eye does the same. Doesn't make them wrong or right, or any more or less an expert or professional in their field. Its down to the individual in the audience to decide on whether they agree, disagree or get convinced or even brainwashed into believing something or not. I watch and read many of the "pop" science books, YouTube videos and pod casts. I'm not naïve enough to fall into the trap of assuming everything is correct and also appreciate that many things are sensationalised or written in an analogous way to gain more interest or appeal to the layman.

Agreed, however some have "grown up" more than others and there still remains evolutionary traits that date back thousands of years. Evolution is a long slow process comparatively. So I don't disagree that humans are evolving, of course they are, more civilised for one we could argue. No, you completely mis-interpret and mis-represent what I'm saying. Myself, and I believe Peterson is saying that certain traits/instincts observed in males still exist that date back thousands of years and are likely inherent of the evolution process. No one, not even Peterson is saying that some of this behaviour is acceptable or uncontrollable. He is saying that to aid in controlling these urges/instincts understanding why they exist and what may trigger them is useful. On a recent thread about punishment, folk on here were advocating that rather than punishing criminals they should be either rehabilitated or efforts made towards prevention. Yet here we are slating a Phycologist for suggesting that some unacceptable behaviour is evolutionary, and should not be ignored, so that it can be addressed in a positive manner.

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way. This doesn't mean that some of this behaviour should be acted out or indeed be acceptable in society. What he is saying is that these urges to do certain things should be channelled in more productive ways so that men who suffer from strong urges, or at least difficulty in controlling them can be helped. For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. Ultimately modern society expects a certain level of behaviour (rightly so) which means that some males have to control or supress urges/instincts "men being men" that come natural to them them in order to maintain a safe and healthy society. This is my interpretation of what Peterson suggests.

I certainly wouldn't want the job at the moment, that's for sure. Maybe others shied away, who could blame them, this however doesn't mean Boris is an idiot. He could just be a brave person who is happy to face adversity even at his own demise.

How do you know all this about him? Do you know him or any of his peers, family or friends personally? I doubt you become the leader of a political party, then on to be prime minister, without some intellectual attributes. He may not portray himself in a way that is fitting for his position, maybe for a number of reasons. But you cannot judge his integrity and intelligence based on his public appearance or media portrayal. Just saying that's all.

As Swansont states, A point is not a Planck length. A Planck length is the smallest possible measurable distance of space, a point has no physical dimension.

Relativity deals with this. Your relative position, speed and distance determines what information you receive and when. If the separate observers are viewing from different reference frames then they may experience different situations to each other, or the same situation at different times etc... There are no fixed times or points in space for any observer, only what they experience relative to something else. For example; I'm sitting on a moving train reading my book, I'm fixed in position relative to the train and my clock reads a certain time. As we pass a platform a person observes me sitting on the train whizzing by. Relative to that person I'm moving and also our clocks will tick at a slightly different rates (in reality almost negligible since the train will be travelling too slow for our clocks to measure the difference, however lets assume for this analogy the train is travelling fast enough for the clocks to measure the difference) so the observer will experience time slightly differently relatively to me.

Many people, maybe the majority are inherently selfish. The natural instinct for survival evolves into greed and/or gluttony, for some more so than others. Couple this with a "free" society and there you go. The rich oppressing the poor is nothing new though, probably dates all the way back to very ancient times. Probably got worse when monetary systems were introduced over goods trading. All of a sudden it became easier to gain wealth unfairly, illegally... The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, not much has changed really. The question is, how can it be changed?

It gets worse, we pronounce many words dependent on the region, often have unrecognizable slang unique to each region. In some areas you can travel just a few miles either way into different towns to find the dialect very different. Some areas drop the pronunciation of letters from some words and others even drop words from sentences. Then there is the Northern English, the Midlands and the South where there can be many differences with lots of words, sentences and sometimes meaning. All this within an area of around 50,000 sq miles. In the region I live there is a unique slang that is used which is almost its own language. It is however slowly being filtered out as the older generation pass, the younger generation are not using it as profoundly or as often. I remember working with a local elderly fella who was born and lived his entire life in the city centre. He used the traditional regional slang to its full entirety for every conversation, anyone outside the region would not be able to understand a word he was saying, even me myself as a local would have to listen closely and try to discern some of the words he used. I did do some research on the origination of the slang and it turned out that it was a derivative of a language style used by Anglo Saxons.

Unless it hits something and sinks.

I'm sure most political systems are full of corruption. I'm sure there are many politicians in the back pocket of many wealthy people. It's not just the individuals, but also the corporations, companies that boast massive profits where the profits are only filtered down to a select few. There is definitely a moral issue when a company boasting a profit then decides to cut costs by making people redundant. Unfortunately they can afford to pay the top legal people to find loop holes, avoid tax and hide investments. I know of one billionaire, I don't know him personally, but my father does. He started out as a dodgy salesman, dealing in anything, mainly illegal stuff. He approached my father years back to invest in a business deal that was very illegal and corrupt, my father declined. The guy ( I won't mention his name because he is well known) found other people to invest and went on to make his fortune, at the cost of many people's livelihood. He made enough money to be able to hide his corruption and provide himself with indemnity, buy political friendship and security for his business and fortune. I don't think there is a clear answer to how a system can policy against such. iNow stated very nicely in his post and I totally agree with him. Efforts should be focused on how the fortune of the wealthy can be filtered down to the less fortunate in a true and meaningful way. Now, I've written this post I'm just off on my private jet, with my $250,000 bottle of fizz, to view a couple of yachts and villas...

@inbreeding You are now just spouting off and preaching. To suggest you would rather be in Afghanistan than in the west (I assume from this comment that you live in an affluent western country) is an insult to the people who are currently fighting for real freedom and independence, with many innocent people dying in the process. If my assumptions are correct then this is a childish shameful comment to make.

Depending on the size that the sun gets to and the new orbit of the earth? Is the Earth situated in such a position that it could go either way, or is it more likely to get engulfed like Mercury and Venus?

It's not a simple as space warping. There is another thread currently discussing this https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125700-is-gravity-a-force/page/9/?tab=comments#elControls_1186227_menu

Yes it is a poor analogy as you stated Studiot I think the idea behind this analogy was to try and get people who have no scientific knowledge or education to attempt to conceptualise how gravity works in the GR model. Once you start realising, or rather delving into deeper understanding of GR gravity, it soon becomes apparent that this image analogy is misleading. I guess, since it is a difficult one to imagine, each individual will have their own concept of how to visualise it, some more accurate than others. I try to steer clear of this analogy, using or thinking about it, as it does impose on my conception, even though I know it's inaccurate.