Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    21096
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. In my experience, people who say this are looking for ways not to have to study it. Or they don't understand the maths of the LCDM model the theory is based on, and assume BBT is equally confusing, so why bother to dig deeply into it?
  2. Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.
  3. ! Moderator Note This doesn't belong in any Physics section, and I doubt you could support this in Speculations. I'll put it in the Lounge for now, if anyone wants to engage.
  4. The top half looks like a bell, as studiot mentioned. Does the split there have a function, like allowing the top part of the bell to vibrate? Or perhaps a thread or wire could be passed through to secure one of the pair to another pair? Or is the seam/split purely decorative?
  5. Sure, but what if someone purposely told you there was an important reason they didn't want their username capitalized (it's a family thing, or a cultural thing, or a religious thing, or...), and they'd appreciate it if you'd remember not to do it when spelling their name. And if you kept "slipping up" and substituting a y where that person prefers an i, it would be somewhat like the experience of transgenders who place a great deal of importance on how they're addressed, and consider it a matter of respect (or lack thereof). To them, your slip ups may eventually looked planned and purposeful, to insult or otherwise show a lack of respect for their choices.
  6. If koti points out the proper spelling of his name to you, yet you insist on capitalizing it and using a y at the end instead of an i for reasons of your own, and continue to do so in spite of his pleas to get it right, I think you're not only being discourteous, you might have some bigoted reason for not using his preferred spelling. After a while, it might seem like you were being purposely disrespectful and had some insulting reason for doing it.
  7. Do you mean the "latter", as in the last example you gave ("wanted, attractive, positive valence, or towards preference"), opposite of "former", THAT latter? If you mean "the letter", I don't know what that is. Sorry. It really seemed like you were. You claimed the proponents of it were "interesting", and then laid out their proposals. If you're not arguing for these down-with-life stances, what did you want to discuss?
  8. The basis of that "value" you mention would be interesting to know. What scale determines the value? What exactly is being negatively impacted wrt animal life? Now you have to define "feelings". I define a love letter as containing positive and negative feelings. Life should have stricter parameters, imo. I can see why, and I'm glad you have doubts about this philosophy. It seems to focus on some perceived lacks in certain higher order species and conclude that they all need to be eliminated. It's difficult to see where that kind of reasoning ever becomes clear or critically thought out. Oh, so another bad faith argument. "I'm doubting my philosophy, can you please help?" And now you're going to soapbox for killing people to avoid their suffering. This is a science discussion forum. Jeez.
  9. Intelligent life is the source of suffering in the world? How intelligent? Humans only, or do the dolphins have to leave as well? I suppose I'm being too philosophical in taking a much deeper view of humanity over a longer period of time, and placing them in context with other species. Sorry. Consciousness as in human-level awareness, or conscious beings like primates, or what? And no matter where you set the bar, life is ALWAYS best for consciousness. If you aren't defining it this way, then you have a non-mainstream definition of death. Welfare is something else you should probably define more clearly, but it would seem to be a fairly subjective and contextual measurement with regard to living beings. I'm trying to show objectively how, if you take a big step back and look at the bigger picture, life is inevitable if there's enough solar energy to take advantage of existing conditions. From there, evolution is always adapting life to the conditions it finds itself in. Any arguments you may have after that need to take that universal process into account.
  10. Thank you very much for the clarifications. And do I understand that you no longer benefit from holding these stances, and are questioning their validity in general? I can see why promoting an anti-life stance would be prohibitive intellectually. Evolution selected for enough intelligence in humans for them to see that life has a negative value? That makes little sense. If you understand evolution, life is anything but negative. In fact, it's reasonable to say that life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing energy from the sun than inorganic matter is, therefore life is inevitable and desirable. You could sterilize the whole planet but there's a great chance the whole marvelous process would find a way to start up again. I can see why some folks have a negative view about humans on the planet, and why they think of us as some kind of usurper in a world of nature. But it sounds like your old beliefs lumped plants and animal life into it as well. I'm not sure I've ever discussed life with someone who didn't want ANYTHING to live.
  11. Are you seeking response only from those who know these terms, have held these stances, and now don't?
  12. You caught me. I was hoping to provide a good contrasting example to show everyone that masculine insults, peacock showboating, and aggressive dismissal diminish a conversation in much the same way they diminish the esteem of everyone within earshot. I don't have to respond to ALL posts in the thread, just the ones I think warrant it. It occurs to me that many might view calling someone by a different pronoun the same way they'd view being asked to wear something silly. They're the one who have to speak the word, and if they think it has no point then they object that it's "ridiculous". In that POV, it's like asking Arnold (every man's image of themselves, right?) to wear a tutu. And of course, that's not the case at all. I prefer to think of it as a friend who is asking me for a favor that costs me nothing (I'm not wearing a tutu after all, I'm using a pronoun the person I'm talking to prefers). I have to use a pronoun anyway, so it will just take me a bit to adjust and make someone feel better about themselves (and I don't have to understand why they don't like the ones that I've always used before).
  13. I've noticed that many folks are pushing back against what's already been built into our societies, which is usually a kind of binary relationship out of convenience and economy. In the US, people are shoehorned into too few categories, and it seems to be that way in many countries. If you're not a circle or a square, you end up getting flagged as different. And these flags, they're persistent and act as a drag on people's prosperity. It's like trying to compete in a race fairly but every flag on you weighs an extra twenty pounds you have to compensate for just to keep pace. Yet science (and especially you, David Attenborough!) tells us that diversity is the key to a vibrant ecosystem. It seems like a poor use of our intelligence to want such homogenization and lack of choices and potentials as are advocated by JP and the far right in this regard. In the modern era, our best accomplishments have involved more diverse use of resources and intellect, and embracing new ideas (especially to help fight the depression many are finally admitting to) to solve old problems is good science. In my society, I try to see from a more collective perspective when I'm dealing with others. The staff at restaurants and shops aren't there to serve me like a lord when I snap my masculine fingers. When I drive, I want all of us to get where we're going safely, not just me quickly. And it's in my best interest to address those I interact with in the way that makes them feel best (if I want to make it all about me). This seems like an easy way to help someone remove a flag that's been holding them back, and the ripple effect can help create more diversity for society to work with.
  14. It's not a problem. Depression is like cancer, one often doesn't realize one has it until it's suddenly affecting everything in one's life. Respecting how a person wants to be addressed by peers may seem like a little thing, but it can have an enormous effect on self-esteem. And ultimately, if I get a happier, more confident Koti to discuss science or politics with, it benefits me greatly. If I care about the pronouns others use wrt me, I'm not going to set a double standard by ignoring their wishes.
  15. It may take us a while to change since it's "old normal" to address someone who looks like a man as "he", but if you're sincere I have no problems with it. Since I'm going to be addressing Ze as a pronoun at some point, it might as well be something Ze appreciate. Oh man, that's pretty sneaky! You move the goalposts while demanding they now stay in place. Hoogland's case involves him going public about a 15 year old girl's private biology. The way the stories read, he's being held in contempt on another charge and NOT this new law, because Canadian law is very twitchy about using the names of minors in news stories.
  16. To be brutally honest, you aren't. I know you've stated that traditional learning isn't your thing, but the areas you're interested in are extremely deep and interconnected with other branches of science, and it's almost impossible to study effectively without a regimented coursework designed to help you learn the knowledge you need in the best sequences. The pushback you're getting in this thread is mostly because you're asking us to help you do something in the most difficult way possible. It's like you asked for our help in getting from your home to Washington DC, but you only want to do it by swinging from tree branches. Perhaps you can see how this looks from our perspective? It seems unnecessarily difficult and we have to wonder if it's helpful to encourage you, and we also wonder if you aren't ultimately joking (because yes, what you're asking for is going to be impossible-adjacent). But in any case, let's stay civil and avoid lashing out. Clarity is important here.
  17. The Extremists driving the GOP agenda these days appear to admire the Taliban, so perhaps your friends could pretend to be something they aren't. If your friends tolerate homosexuality, it will be seen as weak, not what "real men" tolerate. This will be a big problem with the Extremists in the GOP. They want to define masculinity in very restrictive ways, and part of that is being physically aggressive and violent, not afraid to smack folks around to get your way. They believe people listen to you when your hands are around their throats. The Republican Party is in big trouble with the electorate as people urbanize, get better educated, and learn more about living in a society. As their numbers dwindle, they're lashing out, trying to find ways to reduce the electorate by restricting who can vote, or where or when you can vote. In many cases, they're just refusing to acknowledge votes that don't go in their favor, even when certified by their own, even when audited over and over. In denying reality and replacing it with conspiracy, they can pretend to be their own version of justice warrior, fighting for Democracy as long as their party always wins. And as far as toting your gun around goes, you're just giving them what they want, an excuse to shoot you as the aggressor. You won't be seen as a comrade in arms, you'll be the armed person who loves gays and Muslims and hates 'Murica. I don't think the dangerous potential of the "Trump Won" extremists is being overstated. Just as we saw in the Capitol riot this January, we're not taking them seriously enough, and they're getting stronger for it. And that means our democracy is weakening under the attack as the extremists thirst for a modern civil war.
  18. I dislike the use of broad generalizations while simultaneously trying to draw shallow conclusions from guesswork about people's motivations. We don't have a specific rule against it, other than to keep asking for evidence and support, but the other side of this particular coin is a lack of engagement once the thread is open.
  19. One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can. And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.
  20. And even if dyslexia is an excuse, a reasonable person would focus on the mention of your dislike of a certain spelling, rather than assume you're sensitive about members using your correct username. I think your mind, education, and professional status intimidates some people who object to being tethered to facts. And that could also be part of why some folks grab the words of JP and use them to bolster their own positions. He's a professional (in a different field), well-educated, with a prestigious position, and he wants them to be real men!
  21. Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.
  22. Nothing wrong with thinking and dreaming, but on a science discussion site, we like a bit more trustworthiness than guessing usually offers. Having science knowledge focuses your thinking and dreaming, and allows you to reach farther in your ideas. Most people can get in a car and drive it, but learning how to drive makes you capable of traveling much further. Does that make sense, or is learning mainstream science part of the "boring Earth" you left long ago?
  23. ! Moderator Note Thanks joigus! Let's make this official. ColinJ, can you copy/paste from your document and post it here? It's important to make sure each step in an idea is sound before taking another.
×
×
  • 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.