Phi for All

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Not at all. There's no reason why natural science is any more of a "science" than anything else, unless that claim is simply reaffirmed through circular reasoning.

There are many reasons, but you don't behave as though you appreciate the methodology. You claim to have found religious answers that make more sense to you, and now it looks as though you're trying to justify not studying more "science". 

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

One could just as easily ask "is natural science (aka "hard science") a real science?".

A common misconception for people who don't know science.

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Jow do you know which is which ?

If it's nature, it will happen no matter what you do. If it's God, there will be a way to avoid it somehow by being a "better" person.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

Often violence committed by God is a point of criticism of religion (generally in relation to the Abrahamic religions), however violence committed by nature (e.x. earthquakes) doesn't tend to draw the same criticism of nature. (e.x. people often hold that "caring for the planet" is a good axiom, sometimes to a quasi-religious degree, even when nature seems apathetic to the suffering of humans).

I'm curious why this is. I suppose one could take a purely pragmatic approach and believe that human intervention in nature could cause loss of human life, and therefore should be avoided purely for the sake of consequences to humanity, however this wouldn't explain a reverence of nature (e.x. such as a desire to preserve endangered species even if they offer little to no practical benefit to humanity.

Nature isn't an entity like a deity, so it's not really capable of "committing" anything. Most of the "violence" you're highlighting are events like fire, floods, and lightning, which can't happen unless certain conditions are present, unlike the designed destruction written of in the Bible.

Caring for one's environment is a result of intelligence and understanding. Other animals make sure their immediate environment is kept functional. The desire to preserve the species we can is a nod to diversity, which seems to protect this whole planet from the harshness of our environments.

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

I was looking for something along the lines of "You're right, I shouldn't have edited iNow's statement to make it look like he was being unreasonable and ridiculous, I'll avoid fallacious logic in the future." I know you disagree with him, but you can do it honestly. 

It also looks like you're moving the goalposts here by talking about motive. This seems so important to you that you're willing to cheat to make your points. Next you'll be breaking out ChatGPT to argue in bullet points for you.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either:

1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker

2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it.

Solutions to safety concerns seems like a red herring considering the topic is about whether or not gender is even relevant in terms of framing such concerns in the first place.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

The link is to a thread on this site.

I see that now. I was on my phone earlier and it didn't ID the link.

Sorry, you seem more interested in luring me offsite than in discussing this here, where you joined to supposedly discuss this.

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Even if you want to argue that there is a statistical prevalence of men being the perpetrators of physical violence against women, "only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement.

I gave you a -1  on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.

8 hours ago, St0rm said:

it gives me an electrifying feeling throughout my entire body.

Define "electrifying feeling", please. Have you ever touched wires and gotten a shock, is it like that? Is it painful or pleasant or neither? Is "entire body" an exaggeration, or do you feel it simultaneously in your toes and your face? "Throughout" implies that it feels like it's moving on a path, rather than a static buzzing all over, is that right? Does it feel like you're activating it by meditation or just focusing to hold it? 

14 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

Or, we can believe that behaving kindly to others brings inherent benefits. There's no need for consequences, other than not gaining the benefits of fair treatment. Reduce the friction and the whole system has less stress and functions more like it's supposed to.

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.

Do you have any evidence to support this position? I don't think "ants v humans" is equivalent to "humans v extraterrestrials" for a variety of reasons, but mostly because our understanding of the universe is enhanced by a unique combination of skillsets and evolutionary features. An ant isn't designed for much beyond its capabilities, but our brains allow us to specialize and grow new skills and knowledge, and to adapt accordingly. There could be extraterrestrials that are far more advanced than we are, but the probability of them existing in such a way that we can't detect them at all is very low. 

16 minutes ago, Linkey said:

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

8 hours ago, kayasawayn said:

I think a lot of ordinary people travel by plane because it’s often the quickest way to get to new places. For some, it’s about visiting family or friends who live far away, while for others, it’s the chance to explore new cities, experience different cultures, or just take a break from the daily routine.

This can't be true since there are no bullet points.

36 minutes ago, chron44 said:

There was also a post from me (which disappeared)

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Quite: a minor classic here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-bacon-rally-wind-power-b2604316.html

WTF???…..

Right?! Can't be true. Everybody knows heavy metal fans love their bacon. 

But seriously, I hope the media in other countries don't give him the blank check the American media does. He says crap like this and they all see $$$ as people try to unravel the lunacy, and nothing holds them accountable for the horrible damage their news entertainment reporting process inflicts on the world.

Same playbook, flood the zone with shit. He claims one thing, Project 2025 says another: https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-women-abortion-gender-equality-1926453

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I fit the two categories almost as well as you.
But he wouldn't have made the post at the top of this page to you.

Of course I would have. If swansont had "cringed" when I posted about Atomic Physicist Terrorists, I would have berated him for his predisposition towards Atomic Physicists. I would have pointed out that his bias might be enabling terrorist bombers. 

Honestly, I think you've doubled down on a bad stance. As swansont mentioned, three descriptors highlights the intersection of a Venn diagram. You claim you don't care, but you "cringe" when white and Christian are included with Nationalists, ignoring the fact that the intersection doesn't include you at all, not even a little bit. Are you imagining that the intersection is 2/3 you, is that the problem here?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

What I 'winced' at was the broad brush you used to paint two other groups the same color as Nationalists.
Not all whites are Nationalists.
Nor are all Christians.

So never use three descriptors if one is considered bad? That seems a fragile stance.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I was in no way offended by Phi's comment, as I mostly feel the same way.
However, I suppose a small subconscious part of this non-believer still feels I belong to the 'white Christian' demographic.

I suppose I still consider my values as 'Christian', although I don't believe everyone needs to share those values, or be punished for having different values.
( as long as those values aren't harmful to others )

I would imagine there are a lot of non-believers who feel the same.

Not to point fingers, but I think this is part of the problem. You "cringed" when I spoke negatively about white Christian Nationalists, because you're two of those things, which means you're predisposed towards white Christians, even those who want to bar any other religion while making Christianity the recognized state religion. You may be guilty of giving a pass to people who look like you and sound like you but who want the government to control or suppress the rights of others. 

I don't think you'd "cringe" the same way if I was railing against Canadian/Italian pedophiles (for whatever reason), would you? You'd understand that you're only two of those things, and should be relieved nobody thinks you're the third.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Most of the problems we have with gender, group color, sexuality and even religion stems from our tendency to make it an 'us vs them' issue because we don't recognize it as simply an 'us' problem.

I could agree with this if it weren't for the fact that people who don't judge others based on these attributes (or try very hard not to) don't have these problems. Living alongside others should mean acknowledging the special problems they face from society. Many of these issues are about "us" acknowledging "our" differences.

Picking up tampons at the store should be an "us" problem, but only men turn it into "us vs them". Religions should be about us, but white Christian Nationalists turn it into us vs them. Sexuality and racial equality should definitely be all about us, but homophobes and racists are the ones who build walls and draw lines in the sand.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are there reasons mental health might be harder for men? Also, of course!

As others have implied it's important to understand the differences while not assuming they apply to a particular individual.

Harder, no, not for the reasons the OP listed. Different, yes. The only thing that's harder about men's mental health is that they usually ignore it due to peer pressure.

Like many things in our society, women lack privileges that men take for granted. No doctor is going to tell a man that he's being hysterical. Women's mental health issues have been misdiagnosed for centuries, usually based on the idea that their hormones are somehow imbalanced. Many women these days have physical pain that gets diagnosed as a mental problem when the doctor can't find an underlying cause. Rather than a referral for further testing, the doctor tells them it's in their heads, and I have yet to find an example where doctors diagnosed men this way. If a man says something hurts, the doctors believe him.

Which "key" accounts for the surge in voter registration we're seeing? It not easy to see where this information is being accounted for:

https://www.salon.com/2024/08/29/with-democrats-fired-up-by-harris-candidacy-young-people-are-now-registering-to-vote-in-droves/

These numbers are unprecedented. I predict Lichtman will change his prediction.

So he completely switched from popular to electoral college predictions 8 years ago. Add COVID, the misperceptions about how well Biden has done, and TFG's criminal record and I think this methodology is flawed. I don't think the Dems are one "key" away from defeat. Far from it. I predict Harris/Walz is going to destroy the GOP, or at least force it to power wash its leadership.

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For the record, this is Linus. 🥰

 

So much suffering going on there! But the cat won't learn morality without torture, so bring out the feather wand!

14 minutes ago, ITRB said:

Did not work.

You can't put your cursor in the Title box?