Phi for All

A jumper cable walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, I'll serve you tonight, but don't start anything!" A skeleton walks into a bar. He tells the bartender, "Gimme a beer and a roll of paper towels, please."

A cowboy walks into an empty bar. "Where is everybody?" he asks the bartender. "They're at the hanging," says the bartender. "Who're they hanging?" asks the cowboy. "Brown Paper Pete," says the bartender. "What kind of name is that?" "Well, he wears a brown paper hat, a brown paper shirt, brown paper chaps, and brown paper boots." "Well, that's weird. What are they hanging him for?" "Rustling."

conway has requested a ban, and we've responded with a year's suspension, to give him time to let his ideas mature. Kudos at least for recognizing a problem, conway. Best of luck.

The approach to correct the problem. They don't respond to "OMG, you've lost your collective mind!" They think in terms of big picture scary, so big picture concepts from the left are automatically bad and quickly dismissed. That's why you can say "Gun control" or "Welfare" and get an immediate negative, stompy boots jumping up and down on it, unequivocal response from the base. But when you feather it out into tactical parts they can deal with, like "background checks for those purchasing firearms at private sales", or "no homeless widows with children", they feel completely differently. They're willing to approve spending that will alleviate the problems as long as it's not presented as one of those big picture scary concepts their media pundolts are always cranking the handle of the Jack-in-the-box about. It may not be the most favorable, effective, and efficient measure that gets taken, but progress is made with an otherwise intractable party. There aren't too many people who want widows and their kids homeless. I know staunch Libertarians who hesitate about cutting that type of public funding. And it's been shown that a majority of Republicans favor some of the specific gun control measures being proposed. It's a good vent to call out the crazy, but being specific about their faults probably won't work as well as being specific about where they can help. These aren't big critical thinkers, and they don't accept much criticism even if it's constructive. That's not a metric they respect. They're generally good people with big, easy-to-push YES and NO buttons (white and black respectively), who don't spend time much deeper than that. Whether they flock to the media sources that manipulate them, or the sources target them with gingerbread treats and candy, the choice I think they've made is a lazy rather than crazy one. So we can insist they need mental help, or we can break off some small chunks of reason and go out of our way to make sure they're palatable. The vent feels good but I doubt it's helping much.

That's a wonderful perspective, though. The Republicans have created this scenario where their own people are the ones who cause the fear that makes the whole party respond with more fear and stupid legislation. It's almost exactly like the real problem with auto traffic. It's the brake lights that take energy out of the system, and it's the people who are driving like jerks to avoid the traffic that are causing the traffic. It's a case of thinking you're doing something about the problem when you're really the biggest cause of it, something few people could ever admit. This makes more sense to me than the whole Republican party losing its collective mind. They're the ones trying to unclog the toilet by pushing the clog further in with a mop handle. It makes sense to them because they see themselves caring and doing something, forcing the clog down the drain because that's what you do with clogs. They never see that they're actually making the clog worse. But then, I'm always looking to apply reason to irrational situations. It makes me feel good but has a low success history. Like my analogies.

More kneejerk, emotional reactions that make no sense on review. Why do I get the sense this isn't about morals as much as it's about "some big old boy who calls himself a girl is going to beat my daughter in women's soccer" (or worse, a girl will beat my boy!)? It's probably really about repealing that law, and forcing kids to use a bathroom they don't identify with, but since it's about sports they're going to get support they shouldn't have. High school sports parents in the US are maniacs anyway, and they see unfairness everywhere. It could also be that Mr Hunt would really like to start "proving himself" to anyone who will watch. When I think about transgender people and bathrooms, there's nothing "dirty" or sexual about it (maybe I'm using the wrong bathrooms). When I hear Rep Hunt's proposal, all I hear is peeking at children's genitals for no reason, and it's all about the dirty. Shame is what he should feel, instead of trying to foist it on others.

The Geckomancer has been banned. We were just going to suspend for his "I'm never wrong" style of soapboxing, but then he went foul and started abusing the PM system. We hope he finds whatever he might be looking for, and people that understand the way he explains it.

Scott Mayers has been suspended for 2 weeks, also for abusing the PM system. Folks, the staff here are volunteers. We're happy to discuss just about anything. Please leave the profane abuse in your house, though; we aren't interested in the least.

david345 has been suspended for two weeks for abusing the PM system.

Bruno da Silva has been suspended for a week for his fixation about doing a favor for all of us suffering creatures by destroying Earth, since it sort of violates our rules about the discussion of committing a felony.

Something different than LaTex?

Recently, we had to ban someone who was a good resource in certain areas, but who repeatedly refused to exercise civility in his posts. He knew his stuff, but if he couldn't make you understand what he meant, he threw up his hands pretty quickly and called you a crank. He couldn't break this habit in the years he was a member, even after being suspended for it. He just didn't think he had to be civil, because he was right. Don't say things that don't help. If someone is having trouble with a concept, the last thing they need is to be told how dumb they're being. Your attitude affects your behavior, which affects other's attitude and behavior. And if you can't force yourself to walk away without some flaming comment, you're going to get banned.

I still think it's weird that humans often make this distinction between artificial and natural using every animal except ourselves as the baseline. Isn't that just doomed to fail every time? Won't that always make everything we can do that other animals can't do unnatural? Why do we place such a curse on our intelligence? Why are humans the only creatures who can do something unnatural? Isn't our medical specialization ability just one of the traits we've developed to help us adapt to the environments we face? We get more of these types of traits because we're smarter, instead of faster, bigger, stronger, meaner, toothier, or better swimmers/flyers. Failing to take this into consideration is unbalancing the equation. On a side note, I did have a discussion recently where a member thought that beavers building dams was unnatural. I'm sure he'd include chimps using sticks to catch termites, but most people wouldn't. By that reasoning, humans should be able to use a fishing pole, or build a thatched hut and still be considered natural. So where is the line between natural and unnatural? When we stop using straw and start building with wood? Or is it when we move to bricks? Why?

... no more extreme discomfort, no more risks (like falling) that affect both mom and baby, no more morning sickness, no more wild cravings, no more maternity leave, no more clothes that don't fit, and no more abstinence from alcohol. Yes, it would sell by the millions. OTOH, no more feeling your child move, no more physical bond between mother and child, no more maternity leave, no more pampering of the mother (which I think builds a stronger bond between spouses), and no more "patience testing" (which is what I call the simultaneous growth of your new baby and your ability to cope with the changes the new baby brings to your body and lives). Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

! Moderator Note A thread aimed at turning this into an actual project has been opened here. Discuss the technology in the current thread, but if you think you could help put specific ideas to work on the project, then join the discussion there.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-32621595

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.