Phi for All

Moderator NoteIf you can't clarify what you want to discuss by posting/pasting your picture here, there's nothing to discuss. Last chance, um, you.

Our prisons provide slave labor for many corporations, and it's very convenient that we are a nation of high criminality who prize law and order, even when it's common knowledge that the vast majority are underpaid. I think many of the perceptions of freedom we have start with incarceration as the least free environment. Stay out of jail and you get straps for your boots that you can pull on to lift yourself up out of poverty.

So post it here. We don't trust that your link is healthy. If it's so easy, WHY DIDN'T YOU POST IT HERE?

And the murdering bastard had the audacity to hit SEND on the post. Pure evil.

It's one of those concepts that merits more than a single word, so people don't all come up with personal definitions. This is the part I think a whole bunch of people don't get. And I think this definition has been pushed on us to manipulate us. Big Business wants us to think our freedoms are being curtailed by the government so they can reduce the regulations imposed on them. Removing regulations gives these businesses the freedom to make more money. This is the part I question. Our vision of being free is actually living in a well-regulated society that respects rights and works for the betterment of all, while many see such regulation as shackles. Theirs is a definition of freedom that probably shouldn't exist because it's been falsely pushed on them.

Congratulations, Mayor Mamdani! It will be interesting to follow how this proposal develops. Most of what I've read is opposed to city-run groceries for capitalist reasons, which mostly seem like extreme wealth sneering at anything that threatens their investments. The only reasonable arguments in that vein are about the impact on small businesses and gig workers. The bodegas may end up as part of the taxpayer funding strategy, but gig workers are currently filling a void that hopefully won't exist soon. A more neutral and meaningful argument is the historic rate of failure such ventures have in larger cities. I hope Mamdani has studied what not to do in those instances. Getting the wealthy to pay for this should help. My state just passed a measure to feed public schoolchildren by taxing households making over US$300K.

In the US, at least, freedom has been dangled in front of its citizens as the pinnacle of the human condition, something we should all value highly and strive to find and protect. But the freedom to do whatever you want is ALWAYS balanced against the people around you, so that the smaller the group the more freedom it actually has. Larger groups have to compromise to accommodate everyone. Gathering into a society means less freedoms but far more opportunity. The structure of a society and the ways it curtails certain freedoms create even more opportunities for prosperity. Follow the rules on walking together in public and we'll build sidewalks. Agree not to pee on the sidewalks and we'll improve healthcare. Learn to live with reasonable restrictions and your government can design processes and programs that lift everyone up. Instead we're told the government is bad for requiring all these rules and regulations and taxing us to enforce them, and that we should instead vote to protect our freedom. The institution that could save us is painted as the cause of our problems. I think the wealthy are the ones interested in doing whatever they feel like doing, and the average citizen is better served by reasonable rules than the ability to do whatever they want.

There's a lot to criticize in places where leadership relies on terrorizing its own citizenry, but what is the solution? If authoritarianism brings out a sadistic streak in some, does bringing down a regime solve the problem? Is there a way to address the cynicism while the dictator is still in office?

Seems we're done here. Let's hope this isn't cyclical. Thread closed.

I don't find anything you've been arguing for compelling or interesting. There's nothing trustworthy about any of your assertions. You certainly haven't met any of the criteria the site has for supporting your speculative notion. Hand-waving isn't particularly persuasive.

Is this what you CHOSE to know? With our entire accumulated human knowledge, this is what you got? This is physically ridiculous. So which is it, the BB is a myth or your god did it? One thing: what if your assumptions about an infinite past are wrong? What if it's not a cycle, and this is the first go around for the universe? We can't possibly know that either, but I'm certain you will turn a guess about it into Truth.

This is what authoritarians do. I doubt it's part of Russian culture, any more than any other place where autocrats rule. The Roman Caesars hired goons to seek out instigators, and the propaganda at the time made it clear it was dangerous to be associated with these "undesirables".

bubbu has been banned as a sockpuppet of tim the scientist.

Moderator NoteCreating a sockpuppet account to discuss a topic with yourself is against our rules. I'm banning the new account. Ask yourself if you're here in good faith. Since the sock started this thread, it's closed.

Now I'm remembering the cowardice of the creationist extremists, who scream about things like this while NOT offering valid explanations of their own. The ones they offer up are tired and useless, having been debunked many moons ago. God seems to have designed their fingers to go in their ears. I'll confer with the other mods, but I find your lack of good faith disturbing.

If an idea warrants attack, is it really effective, or is it a poor idea? I'd like to point out your habit of seeing things that aren't there. Downvoting has its place when members aren't listening to criticism. It's only done by active members though, so I have NO idea where your paranoia is coming from. It's not based on facts. Sure. It must be all the forums, not you. We knew the potential, since you started out rejecting scientific methods, but it was always up to you to present reasoned explanations.

Moderator NoteWe attack ideas here, not people. You are making this personal, and this is supposed to be objective science. Don't do this again, you're on thin ice here. Your discussion style is demeaning and provocative, and it drags most subjects off topic.

You're posts seem less helpful and more baselessly critical these days. Are you OK? Please take care of yourself.

You're ignorance of what I've studied is displayed so provocatively, it makes me think there's nothing really to talk about with you. I read the Bible three times all the way through before reaching my conclusions about it. The first time I was a believer, the second an agnostic. By that time, I'd come to realize there were a LOT of people like you who wanted to interpret away the unpalatable and ignorant parts, and tell me how wrong I was and how right they were. The book is designed like that, to be ambiguous and open to interpretation but also sacred and infallible, with no provisions for changing times and people. Enjoy your beliefs, I find them untrustworthy. As long as science continues to let us proceed with such accuracy (we can land on asteroids, which I find much more awesome than your omnipotent sky fairy), I'll take experiment over interpretation.

Well, since you haven't studied evolution to any extent, it makes sense that agreeing with what the theory says would be hypocritical and ideological for you. But what about those of us who have? What if we understand the mainstream explanation and have reviewed at least some of the mountains of evidence available to support it? You're right, science isn't a belief system. It's provisional, and always represents our best current explanations. Most of us think that makes it more trustworthy than your "studies" that center around a single collection of Iron Age literature. And I notice you dodged the question of how the JWs accelerate evolution in an unscientific manner. I'm used to the creationist bob and weave, so please just explain it without all the epithets and vitriol. Be calm and rational, even though someone disagrees with your beliefs.

Moderator NoteMoved from Science News to Computer Help.

Estimated by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who somehow are able to accelerate evolution while simultaneously denying it. Do you have anything credible? Or do you want to double down on millions of species evolving in just a few thousand years?

This is a bad habit. If you have no good arguments, it doesn't help to sit on your high horse and denigrate those who disagree with you. It just makes your poor arguments seem more so.

We're still trying to develop policy on this. There's room for the technology here if it's used to help someone express their thoughts more clearly. Unfortunately, we see a lot of folks who misunderstand it, and think the AI is taking the seed of their idea and turning into scientific reality, math and references included. I hope you'll bear with us. We need you to help keep it fun.

Your references mean nothing scientifically. They're opinions about biblical theology, and their opinions about the soul are just opinions, not fact, certainly controversial from a scientific standpoint. The soul is NOT blood, it's not life. We know what constitutes those things, and a supernatural soul simply isn't necessary. Your scriptural references are circular arguments, like the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. There's no need to attack anything but ideas here. Leave the personal attacks in your head, please. We've already attacked your argument and found it lacking. If you want to concede that you misspoke or used fallacious reasoning, that's up to you. I think your arguments suffer from an overabundance of vitriol. It doesn't help them at all.