Phi for All

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.

How my daughter dresses, and the stance I take on the issue, is perhaps not the greatest example of political social conservatism, but it's an area where I feel a more traditional value, e.g. clothing that covers valuable territory instead of flaunting it, is appropriate. In my defense, I feel that way about clothing in general, for both genders. I don't favor clothes on anyone that reveals too much; if you want to be sexy, I've learned over the years that, for me, it's sexier imagining what's under the clothes rather than everyone seeing it on display. There may be a psychological factor at work here as well. I don't think dressing like a hooker is a good self-image. But how people dress is hardly something I could, or would want to control. While I might think it's a good thing for everyone to dress modestly, or at least less skimpily and see-though-ily, I don't want legislation about that. But I think it would affect the way I feel about regulation in the entertainment industry. I'm liberal about sex and sex education though. This is an area where social conservatism historically messes everything up. From circumcisions for preventing masturbation to public school abstinence-only programs, conservatives have been scientifically in the Dark Ages with regards to sex. Repression and senseless control are just about the last things our sexual education needs. Actually, I'm asking why you think the government is to blame, when it's the corporations that have bought legislation that favors them, allows them to hide their profits offshore, and control all the media that's supposed to inform you of what's really important, instead of making it look like it's the government's fault.

I think we need to stop with the Left Wing/Right Wing labeling. Same with Conservative/Liberal. Nobody is always conservative or always liberal about everything. We do ourselves a disservice throwing a blanket over our political stances. I'm not a Liberal. I can't be, not the way I feel about how my teenage daughter should dress. I'm not a Conservative. I can't be, because I think government should work for all the People, not just the People who live the way I do. That said, in my experience, there are more people calling themselves Conservatives. They don't say, "I'm pretty conservative", the way I hear people say "I'm pretty liberal". No, they say, "I'm a Conservative", like every decision has to be a conservative one. I think there are a lot of scared people out there who feel life is just moving too fast for them to keep up, and they have a dim view of all the progress happening because they just don't understand it. They label it "Liberal" so they can kick it to the gutter and denounce it as BAD. Modern political conservatism seems to be the worst to me. I know many people who are mostly conservative when it comes to fiscal policy, and liberal on social policy. They recognize that we need to keep a close eye on the purse-strings, and also recognize that programs that benefit and strengthen the society as a whole are important as well. But modern political conservatism seems aimed in the opposite direction. Squash the social programs because not everyone is worthy, and let big business suck the coffers dry with a combination of lucrative government contracts and tax evasion. Slavery sought to turn people into property, and now Corporate Personhood, a conservative agenda, is trying to turn property into people. I think real People are being tricked into thinking that being "A Conservative" means being cautious, thrifty, wise, and unwavering. This is exactly what the mega-corporations need to keep up the plunder of this country; people who don't want change, who will trust your judgement in money matters, who will ignore the bad things you do, and who can always be counted on to give up more of their freedom in order to be more patriotic.

You should start another thread based on this study, one that can explore more than just the homophobic angle of this thread. It's totally on-topic here, but I see a lot of tangents coming off this conversation. I, myself, would probably create most of them. Conservatism is becoming more pervasive as people start labeling themselves and not their stances (some people call themselves liberals too; it's weird to me, I take a different perspective on just about every issue). I think people who call themselves "a conservative" tend to make conservative choices even if a liberal one is better in context (again, weird). WRT homosexuality, intolerance like that insures that gay people will always be "wrong" instead of "different". And everything they do will be labeled wrong as well.

The easiest solution is to put a caveat in either your title or opening post that says you only want to talk about a specific religion, or an aspect of a particular religion. Then the staff understands that general comments and replies regarding a different religion are considered off-topic. We have the section because people will bring up religion whether we have it or not, and it's easier to deal with in it's own section. And we also try to keep the conversations oriented in rational directions, even if we're talking about an essentially supernatural phenomenon science isn't meant to be used with.

If I didn't know you better, I'd swear you're claiming that Ann Coulter bought herself a baseball supply company.

Made worse by the fact that so many Republicans disagree on platform issues. How is a small government going to successfully regulate all those people having sex and playing soccer?!

There is a portion of the populace in the US who think their opinion should be everyone's opinion. These are usually bigots and evangelical Christians, with a healthy dose of businesspeople who want to manipulate the free market in their favor. They're not always Republicans but usually call themselves conservatives, even though their vision of the US is actually pretty radical. I'm starting to see signs that nonsense like Coulter's blog is actually starting productive dialog about issues in this country. She's getting less and less support the more she attacks out of personal incredulity. I'm actually kind of amazed she wrote this since part of her base has to be the Soccer Mom Army. She gained no friends in Colorado with that crap, if the attendance for our little league soccer games is any indication.

In the thread on Killer Drones, it was reported that one member was being uncivil and rude. Upon review, there are no personal attacks, just attacking the idea. If we can focus on ideas and remove our egos, a discussion happens instead of a debate. You win knowledge when you discuss, you win nothing when you win a debate.

Awesome, welcome to a thousand conversations about your questions.