Phi for All

Or celebrate them loudly with a smile because you're doing your part to keep your society safe. Aren't we all glad there are laws that prevent people from urinating in the streets? Aren't there situations where the government "being tough with society" is exactly why we have government in the first place? I think the mistake is in thinking mandatory masking or isolating is the government being "tough". In this case, enforcement of laws should be considered a neutral or null state. If the police give you a ticket for going over the speed limit, are they being "tough on society"?

! Moderator Note Aliens are like karma. If you want to use them as an argument for anything else, you need to establish support for their existence FIRST. If you keep asserting things you're unwilling to support, you won't be doing the minimum needed to keep this speculative thread open.

! Moderator Note Moved to Suggestions, Comments, and Support. Asking questions to start a thread? Excellent idea! It engages others by signaling that you're encouraging conversation rather than standing on a corner shouting at passersby. Religion is treated differently here, I have to admit. We want a reasoned, critical look at any subject we discuss, including Politics and Religion. We don't want rants or opinion expressed as fact. If you have something to say about anything here, understand that the members will hold you to certain levels of rigor while the moderators will hold you to the rules. Other than that, there's no clampdown of rights or censorship going on here. The topics aren't the problem, and if you just want to bash religion, I understand, but please use language that makes it clear you're expressing opinions. Do you understand? You can talk all you want about reincarnation, but if you use it to support another idea, we're going to ask you for evidence of reincarnation first.

! Moderator Note You need to spend more time thinking about the opening posts to your threads. This doesn't invite discussion, and looks like you're simply starting with an assumption and ranting from there. Please do better next time. This is a science discussion forum with a section for Religion.

! Moderator Note Fixed that.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please provide evidence (not just the links) for this belief of yours, in order to raise it above the level of "opinion". And if you're going to use "karma" in your arguments, you need to first establish it with supportive evidence.

Is this homework?

The topic is fine. The problem is your approach to discussing it. Einstein's theories had nothing to do with either biology or politics. You're projecting one analogy Einstein used onto a situation where it's not appropriate. Analogies have very discrete and limited application. The trampoline analogy isn't even a good one for gravity, and confuses lots of people. This is what I mean. This is a False Dilemma. There are other situations that can cause change on the level you're talking about. You're basing your argument on something demonstrably false. There are other globe-affecting phenomena besides war, like severe weather or contact from off-world or even a global pandemic. Then you assume a world war will be a great thing, ushering in a new era of stability. How has that worked out for many of the world's war-torn countries? When you make assertions like this, you need to back them up with evidence, or state them so they're obviously your opinion. Or you could start by asking some questions, get some people interested in DISCUSSING this with you, rather than trying to preach or blog at us. So far, your science isn't at the level where you should be drawing conclusions without a LOT of outside input. This is the part where you're supposed to discuss your ideas with peers to make sure they can stand a rigorous beating. Well, when you can handle forum discussion and tough questions about your arguments, start another thread.

No, this is demonstrably false. OK, so you haven't studied any evolution, so proper responses won't be understood. What prompted you to just make stuff up? Do you think this is a reasoned argument? The rest of your post was built on this nonsense, so there's really nothing constructive to say about it. Wrong, please study the subject, and take another try at it later?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.1 says: Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Nobody is interested in your bigotry, and your posts are aimed more at controversy and prejudice than discussion. If this is your A game, please take it elsewhere. This is a science discussion forum.

! Moderator Note If you open another thread on this topic, please remember to phrase it so others can participate, and leave out the dramatic blogging (OMG, the only way to stop the trampoline!!!). This is a science forum, and rants are boring. This one is closed for being a big old ugly soapbox.

! Moderator Note One account per member, please: https://www.scienceforums.net/profile/143735-alexpontik/

Engineers should never design systems that make the engineer redundant.

You are, but I blame Mr Spock from Star Trek. He never used formal logic, but he became synonymous with the word "logical", and now whole generations are using a bad definition.

The OP wants to discuss formal logic. What you're commenting on is more like "reasonableness", or "things that make sense to me".

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Overgeneralization is the simple part. Assertions like this need more though, otherwise you're just soapboxing. Do you have any evidence to support them?

! Moderator Note You can only have one of these accounts. Sockpuppets are against the rules. Which one would you like to keep?

The long-time members have all been through the process of learning to avoid behavior that hampers discussion, but we still see a lot of posts that attack people instead of ideas, and fallacious logic being used as arguments. It's always good to remind ourselves that having peers to discuss things with is a very valuable tool, and it needs to be cared for respectfully. You lot are often the sanest part of my day, and it's really appreciated. Many of the newbies don't understand discussion, and tend towards blogging or making over-generalized statements. There was a recent one where the poster claimed something universal about all vegetarians, and when called out on it, they dialed it back to "many may feel this way". How can they know they're likely to be downvoted or chastised if they jump on a soapbox right away? It's obvious a lot of new joins aren't reading the rules first.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. It's not a pulpit or a soapbox for your grievances. Pick part of this rant and decide what you want others to join you in discussing. And please avoid generalizations and assertions you can't support, like your last sentence. Do better, please.

Cultsmash has been banned for confusing their soapboxy ranting for interesting discussion, and other abuses nobody here deserves. Hopefully, we're really the last forum that has to deal with them.

! Moderator Note OK, that's all for you here.

! Moderator Note Let's have NO MORE of that, please. Use the words that are written.

And you've distilled them all down to a few remarks that fit your worldview, yes, we get it. You so great. Discussion should be interesting, though. Do you think this prejudice of yours is interesting?

I'm sure she and other women feel safer knowing you're out there trying to fix their lives via internet photographs.