Phi for All

yahya515 has requested to be banned. Apparently, self-control is not enough to keep some people away from science. We wish him all the best.

Well, thanks for shouldering the burden. I respect that you wanted to do this right since it looked like you started it. I'd shake your hand, but... well, boogers.

I can't forge an OP and slip it in ahead of yours; that's the only reason your name is on it. I think everyone knows by now that you didn't start the thread. That's a burden you can drop right away. I can rename the thread.

Brad Watson_Miami FL has been suspended for 63,510 days for repeated hijacking, personal attacks, and sending threatening PMs. We hope he's learned his lesson when he eventually comes back to us.

Why do you insist it was used against you, personally? I've re-read that particular entry, and it's very clear it's being used to describe a specific set of ideas you posted. You are not your ideas. I don't know in what context you view the word, but it was clear that the meaning here was "rubbish". Does it seem more likely that "rubbish" describes those ideas, or that it describes you personally? It's not a definition one ascribes to people very often. But really, you should be addressing the excellent questions others have posed for you. And provide some evidence for the parts of your idea you've asserted most.

The key here is that you're holding to principles that conservative political leadership also claims to hold, yet vote against on a regular basis. I can see where you could say that these conservatives aren't insane, they're just lying to support some hidden agenda. But then that really points out how crazy people are to keep voting for them. I get so sick of hearing conservative politicians talk about recognizing some personal responsibility, not making the government be responsible for me and my actions. I've never heard a single one of them that didn't take out an SBA loan, or accept a subsidy, or take advantage of any of the programs a progressive, modern society is capable of providing. I guess that's more hypocrisy than insanity, but it still gets gobbled up by many conservatives. And as the study we're discussing mentions, right-wing authoritarians often think you're talking about someone else when you list their characteristics, so it's unlikely an RWA will ever be persuaded by reason. And this is where we seem to be arguing about different things. You're still defending conservative principles, and the rest of us are saying that the conservative political leadership is only agreeing with you in principle. Their real-life actions are completely different, so it seems crazy to keep thinking you're being represented well.

Here's a great example of insane actions. The most outspoken conservative Republicans are also the most outspoken proponents of Christianity. Much of what they do they attribute to their relationship with their religion. Yet... Studies have shown that it's the far-right conservatives that are driving Americans away from organized religion. Yet another example of claiming to act on certain principles while reality shows the opposite. When people claim to be close to Jesus, then turn around and vote to starve the poor and feed the wealthy, that's just crazy.

I don't know, but it definitely means you and I aren't talking about the same argument. There's a difference between insane people, and a conservative political stance that leads some to react more emotionally. As has been pointed out through the last several pages, this political stance has caused many conservatives to make decisions that seem more than a little crazy. So it's not about the people, to me. People can have crazy ideas, doesn't make the people crazy. But all too often, emotional decisions get taken advantage of, and we end up with way too much crazy. I don't think political conservatism is something that has to be unlearned. It's something that just has to be examined more closely, more rationally.

You're still trying to pull the journalism trick of making both sides seem balanced in this. They aren't. There may be wingnuts on both sides, but the vast majority (like 75% plus) are conservative Republicans. I thought we established that successfully back in the first few pages. You're also still trying to strawman the insanity language as well. It's the political stance, the ideas they engender, and the almost comically destructive actions that result that are being called a mild form of insanity. You're making it about people, and then including yourself in that number and taking umbrage at being personally attacked. I actually can't think of too many conservative stances I have, other than my personal taste in fashion. And in most cases, my conservatism is motivated by fear, not by a belief that it's the right or smart thing to do. I see far too much manipulation of American values being done by mock conservatives pretending to be rational humans but are instead just self-interested liars who hide behind self-constructed "common sense" in order to benefit at the expense of their fellow citizens.

We had a reported reply in this thread. The claim was that the person replying is trolling by giving answers in more than one thread the OP is involved in. We don't understand why this is a bad thing. If more trolls would give helpful answers, we wouldn't call them trolls.

I heard you were swinging astronomers around, and that's how the cat died in the first place.

Tim the plumber has been banned for repeated soapboxing and trolling. A blog was suggested.

After this many pages, I thought the argument would have settled on "Conservatives", not "people who have conservative values". There seems to be a world of difference. I think it's similar to the Republican party. My brother clings to being a Republican, because he identified with the party under Eisenhower. Too many Republicans today are following a different platform than the one that gets implemented by the leadership. And those who label their entire outlook as "Conservative" seem to have an agenda that's often not what someone who has conservative values would approve of.

One of my greatest hopes for humankind is that we colonize offworld. We're the only species capable of doing this that we know of in the whole universe. We have a lot of traits that lend themselves cumulatively towards civilization building. The type of civilization we build as we move forward needs to be one that's worthy of spreading our influence to the stars. We are animals, one of many species on the only planet we know that has life, but our intelligence has given us compassion and imagination. I completely disagree with your proposition. Music, other animals, plants, we don't need to give up the best parts of us to suit you. I'm sure it was a wonderful thing, the day you became a vegetarian, but that certainly doesn't give you the right to dismiss every other animal except humans from a colonization effort.

So no animals? You have no idea how this would devastate the plant kingdom. And it's faulty reasoning to think that because we can live without beef that we should. We can live without music, learning, and interaction with each other, but would we want to? Are you talking about Martian colonization? Or are you taking over someplace here on Earth?

I just think in some cases we relate better to animals because they do more of the same things we do than plants do. Walking, making vocal sounds, eating with a mouth, that sort of thing. We know plants are essential but we'd rather share pictures of cats. But I think it's a mistake to look at it this way. It's not that one part is more important than another, it's that the whole system works well together, that should be our perspective.

I like this. We should stop peeing in the pool.

I don't know. One is a creamy, sensual delight that never fails to satisfy when you pop one in your mouth, and the other is made of chocolate.

So the joke is...? How about, "If you want big mussels, you have to work hard and suck it up!" Or, "She wanted to be a big star, but ran out of clams and ended up dancing on a pole."

It depends on the cheese you use. SFN Cheese Nips are made with Tetilla:

! Moderator Note Four posts have been... filed elsewhere, as they hijacked the thread topic. A bout of leniency caused me not to issue warning points. Please report hijacking rather than responding to it.

In the thread Ebola in the U.S. of A., the OP made a reference to Americans all being assholes, in violation of our rule 2.1 "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. The reference was not part of the argument, and seemed more like a rough attempt at humor, so no warning points were assigned and the offending language was removed. A modnote was placed to explain the violation but staff didn't want to call more attention than was necessary. Still, we really dislike removing words people have spent their time typing, and really appreciate a more thoughtful approach to discussion.

fiveworlds has been suspended for another week, this time for hijacking mainstream threads with speculative ideas. Apologies to any students who trusted those posts to be accepted science.

There's a regular Joke section in the Lounge.

Oooh, I wouldn't even compare Reagan to Eisenhower. Reagan reveled in the military-industrial complex. I doubt Ike would've approved of $3000 coffee pots.