Phi for All

We, as in humans?

It's not a sustainable system when what you have to do to maximize your revenue is in direct conflict with the basic practice of providing goods or services AS NEEDED. The current system in the US incentivises people to own every piece of merchandise they possibly can. Neighbors don't share lawnmowers or tools, everybody needs to buy their own. It's never been sustainable.

Notice that the new tariffs don't include China like he promised his base. Canada and Mexico are being targeted, and Canada has some of the harshest sanctions against Russia. If Canada loses the US as a trade partner, they may have to loosen some of those restrictions against Putin. I think we'll also see TFG continue to laud authoritarian dictators with lifelong positions, while vilifying traditional democratic partnerships.

Well, you aren't the first creationist to hide behind that piece of garbage argument. Before consideration?! Because you don't understand the science you're deriding, you don't recognize when others have carefully considered your waffle and found it lacking, even when they point out exactly what they mean. Crackpots often claim they're being dismissed out of hand, without consideration, just because they're challenging preconceived notions. But those preconceived notions are theories with mountains of evidence behind them. That's what's being taken into consideration when we read your posts. It's bizarre that you think your scratchings hurt the theories involved, when you have such a hurdle to overcome but don't bother to actually study the science. You prefer to pick what feels right to you, then quote mine anything that seems to support what you're saying. That's part of why you don't recognize that a LOT of consideration is being applied to your posts.

I think the only reason he'd lift the ban is because his own magats are flooding the app right now. If it's a great app for the left to use to mobilize their efforts against fascism, it's an even better tool for fascists. He's not going to lift the ban and leave it for the left to use. Yes, and learning it for the first time. I saw a clip of Tom Hanks from a few years back, who was a huge history buff in school, where he was absolutely flabbergasted to learn about the Tulsa Race Massacre. He heard about it through social media, and couldn't believe how many other people hadn't heard about it.

If we embrace the OP's suggestion, to create a movement to destroy the sad and regrettable bits of American culture, perhaps technology can be used to help organize it. I think this is partly why there was a surge of effort to ban TikTok, to keep Average Joe from realizing how many others are sick of the hate and division TFG has perpetrated on the US. Protest movements are going to increase. They take time, but they work. We finally got the right to vote for JohnDBarrow's mom, and by the mid-70s she could have her own bank account or a credit card in her name only. Protest drove those gains in equal rights, the ones JDB doesn't think his mom should have had. Progress (aka NOT stuck in the mud) requires that we destroy or ignore the old culture and traditions when they no longer serve us. If they only serve the hateful, greedy, or jealous, they probably deserve destruction. Thanks to the OP for suggesting this movement. What other elements of American culture and tradition need to be destroyed?

He forgot to run that past President Musk first. In an oligarchy, TFG is a very minor player, a tool really.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. We can discuss your idea here if you like, in public. If you prefer to keep your idea private, I can lock the thread. Please don't contact members via PM for this.

Ah, so your god has a Plan, but it's not aligned with its Will? People die because of other people, your god didn't will it, but it's part of its plan?! You've got this figured out where you never have to give a straight answer and you can always claim you're right!

Except when it's not. The heart isn't like skeletal muscles. It's not attached to the bones and cardiac cells are powered differently than other muscles. Do you have a point to make that isn't rooted in misconceptions?

No, I'm pretty sure Sensei just denied your premise, in the part you didn't quote. The heart DOES get tired, with catastrophic results.

For science, you require direct observation, but not of your god? Yeah.

For too long, many of these issues have been pushed on us as political, where a vote can decide, but whether you respect someone as a human enough to use non-hurtful terms is a moral issue. Persecuting fellow humans for the color of their skin or who they love or how much money they have isn't a right vs left, liberal vs conservative decision, it's a right vs wrong matter.

Your style of masculinity hasn't helped any society in over a thousand years. Real people are waking up to that fact that you're all a bunch of Neanderthals and we need to weed you out or suppress your influence enough to stop inhibiting the natural growth of our unique abilities, independent of our violent, regrettable, animalistic past. I hate it when dinosaurs insist everything was better when they were in charge. Take your walnut-sized brain and get out of here!

Nobody trusted your mother to serve on a jury, or have her own bank account or credit cards, and she wasn't good enough for Ivy League colleges. She couldn't even decide NOT to have sex with your father from a legal stance, so caving in to you boys and your pie cravings was just part of her poor existence. Something tells me that if she'd known how hurtful the term was, she wouldn't have used it.

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you. Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means. So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

The heritage you're talking about is pretty sick and twisted. America, home of the free and brave, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, all people are created equal, and all of it meaningless to hypocrites like you. You don't care that many of the words you use on people who don't look like you are hurtful and disparaging. You just want your childhood back, when people didn't complain about your racism and inhumanity. It's a shame you've rejected humankind. What we have today is a whole lot of people who don't want to be hypocrites like you anymore. We want the USA to actually be the home of the free, free from white nationalists and religious zealotry, a place where everyone can pursue dreams (unless they're dreams like yours, where you dream of using hurtful words and phrases on whomever you like). The only thing we can't tolerate is your lack of tolerance. You diminish our society with your pursuit of criticism and mediocrity. Wake up and smell the diversity. You should watch some David Attenborough docs. He'll convince you that diversity is the key to the survival of life on this planet.

Science is about the best supported explanations for various phenomena, so nobody is asking for "proof". All we're asking for is a persuasive argument that makes sense, that has some reasoning behind it. Unfortunately and admittedly, the OP is NOT well written, and has some assertions that can be shown false, and those haven't been addressed (or have been but in the same difficult to follow style). A second page of explanation hasn't helped. Do you understand what the OP is talking about? Proof is for maths and philosophy. Science uses theory. But thanks for the ignorant criticism of the forum.

Both sound like social constructs. I think you're applying some kind of unnecessary mystery to your concept of spirituality. A focus on growth and inner peace that enables connection with other humans is no mystery, and certainly nothing supernatural. We're social creatures with certain complimentary physical attributes that allow us to communicate with each other to an astonishing level of complexity, which in turn facilitates an incredible propensity for cooperation, which benefits whole societies. You keep trying to cram a bunch of woo where it isn't needed. Watch a protest march, or neighbors helping each other after a natural disaster, or locals gathering to help a beached whale regain the sea. Gods aren't needed at all for that feeling of oneness, of common bonds, of the spirit of hope in the face of adversity.

So tell us the difference between religion and this quasi-religion you call "spirituality"? Please also tell us what is humble about accepting someone else's unsupported explanation about a phenomena without questioning it first? That doesn't fit my definition of humble. It's more like "naive" or "gullible". It describes someone who thinks blind faith in anything is a strong and admirable stance. It's definitely unscientific. I'm often humbled (in the real sense) when I read about scientific advancements or some new knowledge about life on this planet. I'm humbled to think that all life we've found in the universe seems to be clustered on the surface of this planet, but it's the life itself I observe that humbles me, not some imagined mystery involving things I can NEVER observe. What if gods are just mental laziness on the part of otherwise intelligent humans?

That's not what I'm talking about. There is no "body" memory, and forgetting something is just a regular memory problem. Here's the Wiki entry for muscle memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory

Can you explain this idea without assuming humans have souls, something you can't support? As an argument, this is a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. Otherwise you should focus on convincing us that souls exist in the first place, then add in your mysterious energy (you know energy isn't a physical thing, right?). This assumption prevents you from modeling your concept (not a theory).

The member I responded to didn't ask that question, so I didn't respond to it. They asked for proof rather than supportive evidence, but I gave some supportive evidence that we know of ways inorganic matter could react in an early Earth environment to form the building blocks of what we define as life. There is an understandable amount of debate and argument over which way it happened.

I read all your posts before responding to you. Each of my responses has been specific to a quote of something you said. Thanks for acknowledging that I make a good point. I still have a problem with your premise, that having memories taken away is the same as never having lived them. How do you account for muscle memory and capabilities? Doesn't that make a difference, that you don't remember studying how to cook but when asked to help with dinner, you handle a knife like a pro? Doesn't that make it NOT the same as if you actually never studied cooking? If your memories of being an olympic gymnast are taken away, you're still a person that could compete at that level and you still have skills that could fairly easily be tapped into. Your new coach would be amazed at how quickly you pick up on everything. But if you never lived through gymnastic training or chef school in the first place, you'd have no advantage, and would learn at a normal pace. Does that make sense to you? Do you see why I have a problem with your premise?