Phi for All

Frankly, I'm appalled at the suggestion that a father torture a kidnapper for information about the location of his child. I might be interested in discussing the effects of torture on the torturer (especially in the case of the father pressing the kidnapper on the whereabouts of his child). The assumption is that there's nothing worse than losing your child, coupled with the assumption that recovering the child should be done at any cost. But you've reduced my interest in your OP by insisting on the parameters you have. The way you're approaching this, anyone who answers "no" has to argue against an unlimited amount of scenarios you can dream up. It feels cherry-picked and designed to appeal to emotion.

Are the feminists threatening the lives of the trans-females with beatings and guns and violent overthrow? Is there a feminist Jordan Peterson out there claiming you can't fully respect anyone you could easily beat up? I thought the women who feel their territory is being invaded by trans-females were working intellectually to change rules and laws, rather than physically bullying those they oppose.

Perhaps important enough for its own thread, but many downvotes seem aimed at repeated fallacies (mostly strawman and ad hom) where exactly this happens. There is a heavy tendency (especially in Politics) to use the argument that if you don't support x, it must mean you support y, and I think folks get tired of correcting such misrepresentations only in rebuttal. Repeated use of fallacies is against the rules but probably one of the hardest to be strict about. It's frustrating to discuss anything when you feel your points are misrepresented. Do we need to have some meta-threads about discussion among peers? I think no system is worse than this system, but no system is more honest than a like-only system. I didn't mean to suggest it's predominantly those not involved in the discussion, just that not all the votes are eligible for the "petty weapon" category.

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about. Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well. For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or who're repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or who argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for.

Primates in general exhibit this kind of behavior when they think their territory is being threatened. Humans, at times, are able to overcome baser instincts with bursts of higher intelligence and can more fully utilize the gifts evolution has given them. Unfortunately, Jordan Peterson and Trump and the Proud Boys.

Two wind turbines are talking to each other, and the first asks, "What kind of music are you into?" The second replies, "I'm a huge heavy metal fan!"

Nobody said this was "the best course of action", so stop complaining. I pointed out how you and others seem to hold only one side accountable for taking the high road when it comes to dirty tricks even while admitting that it's the other side that regularly pulls them. What a liberal thing to say! I hope you can remember this when the US GOP slides back in the mud. Personally, I wonder why they haven't floated the idea of putting a businessman on the SCOTUS, since lawyers don't always understand the bottom line. It worked so well for them with two presidents who had little political experience, and justices don't have to have a law degree the way a judge does.

Actually, this is probably the thinking that got us where we find ourselves. Perhaps we should be looking at the makeup of the SCOTUS as a whole, rather than as individuals assessed by qualifications for the job. I don't agree with your realization, or your analogy. This isn't about digging holes, it's about setting a steady course for our country. If you want that course to be inclusive of genders and people of color, it needs to veer sharply from old course. You're right, I've forgotten about them completely, almost as if they were never there. But what I objected to was claiming the Dems should take the higher ground only AFTER getting a dirty trick pulled on them by the GOP. You defend a LOT that the US GOP stands for (not everything) until they do something despicable, then expect the Dems to be the bigger people and avoid a civil war. There it is! It's all up to the US liberals you complain about so much!

I can appreciate your feelings towards the Dems, but I disagree that they use the same playbook as the GOP. Both sides are implementing the wills of competing extreme-wealth actors, but the GOP base has been declining over the years, even though they're better organized, which has forced them to cheat wherever possible. The Dems problems are different, since they seem to prefer an intellectual approach to emotionally charged issues that splits their efforts and makes them look weak. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for the GOP to do anything to win, since that's what business is all about in the US. As long as you're not currently in jail, the scummy things you do don't seem to matter as long as you're winning.

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

What have you got so far?

In my experience, most folks follow the passive markings and the road laws to a certain extent, but inevitably there are those who drive the streets competitively and just do what they feel like, and others have to brake to avoid collisions with them (I shall call them Le Mans-ters). It's almost a guarantee here that if the traffic lights have all failed, Le Mans-ters are going to sew chaos every couple of minutes because they either don't know who's turn it is or don't care, and just go as soon as they reach the front of the line. That's the argument that shuts down any talk of implementation around here, that it's some kind of scam by the police to make money. To me, it just sounds like using a bigger net that catches more fish and frees up more fishermen to do the parts of the job the net can't handle. Even with ten times the police officers, they couldn't catch every violation the way the technology can. Do you think the speed traps and red light cameras make people drive slower and take less risks when they know such tech is around? That would be ideal. Having fewer police officers around seems like a trend, and one that the Le Mans-ters are taking full advantage of. I was hoping to make it harder for unapologetic assholes to drive a vehicle on the roads with the rest of us who understand how pieces of a system should behave.

! Moderator Note Posts on Automated Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness split to here.

It does. In the US, there's a great deal of pushback against automated enforcement, and we have very little in my state. Politicians don't want to change existing codes to implement such measures. In fact, our state assembly has ruled that these measures can't be used unless you post a big sign warning offenders that they'll be ticketed even without police presence: https://leg.colorado.gov/content/speed-photo-radar-and-red-light-cameras-automated-vehicle-identification-systems

I'm curious how much you've automated your traffic systems wrt law enforcement because of this. I think one of the best ways to defund police departments and make them more efficient is to take speeding and running red lights off their plates by having radar-type traps and cameras that send you a picture of you violating traffic these traffic laws. If this is too far off-topic, I can start a different thread.

Those protesting just the mandatory vaccination measures are battle fodder and future recruits for those with more hateful and long-term agendas.

As are probably everybody outside your country. For discussion purposes, to which changed laws are you referring? Also, you're fairly vague about accidents rising, but extremely specific about 99% of people "giving way" (yielding?) and all cyclists being courteous. Even for political opinion, I'd like more rigor when it comes to assessing the behavior of large groups of people.

! Moderator Note You as well. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note You need to go back and read where this has been done. If you don't understand it, ask a question. If you continue to ignore replies that are doing exactly as you ask here, I'm going to have to close this thread.

I changed from wanting to smoke a cigarette to NOT wanting to smoke a cigarette by changing the appeal in my mind, but I doubt that would work with something as complex as sexuality.

The harm is more abstract but >0, imo. Your relative is working on a redefinition they can apply to virtually any situation, on the assumption that CLO is "true" (based on further assumptions about Ki, Chi, and Chakras are also true). Arguments like these are impervious to facts or observation due largely to their vague and encompassing nature (use the box enough but not too much). The more they apply this misinformation in their lives, the higher the probability it will adversely affect their choices. They'll ignore when it doesn't hold true and revel in the times when it seems to work. And there's the argument that your relative should have spent these resources on understanding mainstream science (that website represent a LOT of sunk cost). Most(?) folks run up against something they can't figure out quickly and assume it must be complex or counterintuitive or sophisticated, and they dig deeper. The ones who assume it's wrong start making things up based only on what they know, so everything about their ideas makes perfect sense to them, yet they can't really explain it to anyone who understands the science. As long as they aren't changing their entire lives to accommodate these "insights", I suppose there's no harm. If they really are seeing "patients" and selling miracle cures though, I wouldn't feel right about it. If my relative became convinced they had designed an over-unity device and were prepared to invest their life's savings, I'd do what I could to show them they're wrong.

Deconstruction is possible, but usually when folks start making up science, correcting bits of it doesn't make them question their premise, and they end up thinking they're still right but their ideas need more work. You can explain what's really happening when you put your hand near a computer monitor, but it won't dissuade your relative that at least some of their ideas are also at work. Using words like "truth" wrt science is a red flag, and one we've found particularly difficult to discuss. Claiming theories can be true shows a lack of understanding about what theory means in science. So many folks think science is looking for Truth, and that a theory is just a "best guess". The methodology used is very sloppy, and reaches conclusions without addressing other possible explanations (when you put your hand below your waist near a monitor playing a particular video, it turns red because of CLO?, or if you stand in front of the monitor for 15 minutes your sinuses will be clearer?). There is so much woo entwined around the points made. I would assume this relative is emotionally invested in their concepts, so critical thinking and reasoning will only take you so far. In my experience, when someone comes to conclusions based on what they want to be right, reason alone can make them more convinced they're onto something big.

This is all true, but this also describes what a theory is doing. Models need to represent a phenomenon, to show what the explanation is talking about. They should provide a valid approximation of the behavior as a perspective on the phenomenon. Like Eddington using spherical cows to illustrate a particular aspect or insight.

! Moderator Note A scientific model is the representation of a phenomenon, rather than a verbal explanation. You could use visual models like charts, or a computer simulation, for example. Building a physical model is difficult at the levels you're discussing, but that's another example of a model. Using maths to represent how the phenomenon is calculated is the perfect tool at the quantum level. Without any of these, you don't have a model. This is an hypothesis at best, and several members are trying to help you shore it up where it's falling apart, despite your best efforts to ignore them.

! Moderator Note Please stop posting just to tell people to read what you wrote. Everyone has read it, and they're asking for clarity about the parts that are unclear or observably untrue. Focus on answering the very valid questions being posed to you. And you keep mentioning a model but we've seen no maths.