Phi for All

Yes, and we all know men who wouldn't assault a vulnerable woman, and we all know politicians we believe tell the truth, and we all know conservatives who aren't racists, but how do we protect ourselves from the others? By assuming they're all the same until they show us otherwise. I've heard enough stories about god-fearing, righteous people who did unspeakable things to their children in the name of their god to know that nobody who claims to be religious can be trusted. I've heard many religious people claim to be looking forward to when the bombs fall and the righteous are called to heaven, and quite frankly I wish they'd leave now, and let those of us who care about this life live it in peace, away from all those toxic judgements from those who truly believe God thinks humans are pieces of shit that deserve eternal torture. I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

I think we need to divest ourselves of capitalism, personally, and the best way to start that is to focus early on teaching children ways to succeed through cooperation as opposed to competition. And I'm not talking about getting rid of competition, just educating young people on how humans get more positive outcomes by cooperating with each other than we do competing against each other. A few generations of that type of focus might remove much that is highly toxic in our societies.

! Moderator Note And that person, who isn't part of this discussion, needs to stop it or they get their privileges taken away.

At least part of the problem is the inherent disconnect between the three religions that supposedly share the same progenitor. The religions of Abraham are distinctly at odds with each other, and they even demand their own holy books, which automatically creates discord and ill-feelings. They're distinct enough that when they each preach about monotheism, it's like they mean three different gods, which means only one can be true in the minds of believers. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34340/chapter-abstract/334356122?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false Exposure to the Abrahamic religions has stifled many other areas besides science. None of them are stellar examples of morality and ethical treatment, and the teachings they pretend to follow just point out the hypocrisy of the three church's stances. Women in particular are treated as cattle in the Bible and Koran, and continued exposure has created the horrible patriarchal systems that still makes life miserable for so many. Quite frankly, many of us are sick of the violence the churches pretend they don't have a hand in. Many people claim to have closely held spiritual beliefs, but they organize under banners so soaked in the blood of innocents that it seems like flat out hypocrisy. Modern churches give lip service to the tenets they supposedly hold dear, all the while funding terrorism, human trafficking, slavery and worse. Most of the problems we have today can be traced back to a rigid adherence to some part of either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. You might claim it's only the extremists, but these are the people the religious have chosen to lead them. Netanyahu, Raisi, Orban, all are extremists who hold (or held) the fates of their followers in their righteous, blood-soaked hands. I think the current US Republican party has continued to weaponize religion, and I think people who object to their closely held beliefs being labeled generational abuse need to seriously ask themselves if they get enough spiritually from their Abrahamic religion to offset all the torture, rape, murder, broken lives, and broken minds those religions also foster. You may not be the problem, but you're supporting the problem, so you're the problem.

I think what iNow is referring to is how the abrahamic religions often support multiple things that are contradictory, allowing the leaders an answer, no matter how absurd, to any question a follower might have. If they get you to believe one bizarre thing, you're much more likely to believe the next thing they tell you. Sunk cost is definitely part of the larger question of how we lessen the grip of religion in our society, as well as the grip of politics, imo. They aren't what will save us, they're part of this obsession with populism that's killing us.

! Moderator Note This is pure supposition. If you want to use this as part of an argument, you need to provide some credible sources that support it. This is a mainstream section, so we need more rigor.

I'm a Humanist, and I believe in humans. Are you saying your gods are just as real? Are you saying humans aren't more real than any god people believe in? I don't have to dip into my trust fund to believe in humans, they're very observable.

This is what I'm choosing, since it makes more sense than cultural choices. I like the French educational system, where everyone is schooled with a public curriculum. Private schools increase class divides. I like the German road system. They know potholes cause too much damage to well-made cars, so they don't put up with them. Actually, most problems I see around the world are because of too much focus on private ownership. The People in a democracy and the State should own certain sectors of the economy, especially wrt infrastructure like roads, ports, and power grids. Some things are more important that they work efficiently and sustainably than that they make a profit for the owners. So I'm not sure if making certain countries the leaders of the world will work. We need leadership that decides it's important to put a computer with internet hookup in every household, so everyone has a chance to participate in modern life on the planet at a cost that reasonably reflects such a massive endeavor.

If they were beating people over the head with a hammer, am I supposed to consider the hammer harmless? Or should I treat the hammer and those who wield it carefully like the deadly weapons they are? What if you consider just about everything in that book has caused abuse for generations of humans, told believers what pieces of shit they were born as, and has allowed the Church to rape and pillage its way throughout history, until today where they serve as a real estate holding scheme for pedophiles and murderers? I think you're making the mistake of conflating an enormous, multigenerational scam perpetrated by various Abrahamic Churches with anything remotely ethical or moral. And when it comes to unacceptable morality, I don't need to read what it should be about, I have their unacceptable behavior as my guideline. So shame on you for the "out of hand" part, like you're the only person who'd thought hard about this.

Bad question, makes it look like you're linking low serotonin levels to ALL depression. The claim is actually that impairing serotonin function can cause depression in some circumstances.

Not copied and pasted, but rather generated by AI in the first place. Against our rules of arguing in good faith.

I've noticed a tendency for many people to ignore the fact that the technology we develop is part of the large brain adaptations we've evolved towards as a species. It seems you don't think sunglasses are "natural" even though they're only tools we use, made from naturally occuring materials. Our body is NOT naturally born to tackle harsh environments, and that's why we make clothes and shoes and hats and coats, and we made wearable shade to protect our eyes, and develop filters and screens to protect our delicate skins. We didn't get wings to fly, but we got brains big enough to figure it out, and that's part of OUR nature, which is just as natural as any other species.

I completely relate to this! Your upper lip probably curled when you purposely misspelled it above. We're proud of our use of the written word, and go to some effort to craft reasoned responses hoping they're clearly understood. Having a word flagged in an otherwise well-crafted sentence and hitting submit is like having a great conversation with someone but belching every time you try to say their name. Ignore those flags at your peril! As a side note, watch out for the double consonants and vowels. I've noticed a tendency of mine to triple tap when gooogling flaggged missspelllings due to embarrrasssment at my fooolishnesss.

If an undone fly was enough to let my junk burst out of my underwear and hang there in front of everybody, I think I'd be proud as opposed to embarrassed.

There's a BUNCH of people these days who believe in a vertical morality, where they position others on a scale of right/wrong with themselves as judge, using a hodge-podge of religious teachings and confirmation biases to determine whether they're worse or better than others. The best of them only judge your worst behaviors, but too many cast a broader net, trying to put you below them on the morality scale because of the music you listen to, or the way your hair looks, or the money they think you don't have. Humans brains naturally look for patterns. They give us conventions we use to assess situations in our lives, based on typical experiences. Historically, noticing things that diverged from typical patterns has saved lives and enriched many individuals. "A critical eye" is often applauded in many societies, and may embolden your parents to "fix" your broken biker look. Most parents secret unreasonable wish is that their kids not get picked on for any reason, that they fit in, and get along with everyone. And then some folks take it to extremes. They don't think of things as typical or divergent, they think of them as right or wrong. I think these folks need to realize how worthless and destructive this kind of judgement is. I had a friend once who wore wildly colorful clothes, and if anyone called him out for it, he just said, "If I look just like you, why do we need you?" Loved that guy.

I've found that I'm not best judge when it comes to self-assessment. I make mistakes in social contexts if I'm not looking for outside input. My own reasoning can only go so far since it's tightly tied to my knowledge. It's embarrassing to me when I realize I've made a mistake that could have been easily prevented by asking others. So in this context, embarrassment helps me stay humble about what I know. There's always more to learn. Are you saying you use formal logic to make decisions? I've seen many philosophers use formal logic to make a completely false statement that's still valid. Formal logic is NOT an empirical study. Most of your examples seem like cultural pressure, and the need to "fit in" with our tribe is stronger in some than others. What we wear is often signalling to others something about us, and misreading those signals can embarrass us into either better focus or figuring out personal solutions. Sometimes that personal solution is "I don't care if people make fun of this shirt, I love it!" And there are arguably situations where one should be embarrassed by their actions. It's one thing to ignore whether you're using a feminine or masculine deodorant, and quite another to skip the deodorant altogether (or much worse, douse yourself in cheap cologne/perfume) in a situation where other people have to put up with your mistake. Embarrassment is normally something felt in degrees. The bigger the offense, the more embarrassed you should feel about it. I wouldn't say it's a useless feeling, but I do think it's probably being abused by some, used to manipulate us by others, and in general something you should avoid by focusing less on the embarrassment and more on whether this is something you need to fix or not.

Could it have been another enthusiast using Merlin? That would be an amazing way to meet someone.

There are going to be steps needed by anyone trying to form a micronation, like acquiring the land. This is a tough step considering no existing country wants to give up good territory. It may be easier to suppose you can just build an island in an appropriate place. Then there are steps (you mentioned some) that are unique to your new country, like your energy and transportation infrastructure, economy, and port systems. Are you a democracy or something else? One of the most important considerations is how you'll deal with other countries. Do you want open trade or do you want to protect your own manufacturers? It might be interesting to focus this discussion on how a new country like this could attract people to be citizens. What policies would you draft that would be most attractive to the people you want to populate your country?

Mordred might have those numbers. I remember reading that the universe doubled in size about 90 times, going from the sub-atomic level to about the size of a golf ball in an instant (remember we're talking about faster than hundredths of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a second here). Also, I'm not sure but I don't think a per minute rate is applicable at that point in the timeline. The universe is still all matter with no space, so I'm not sure time has much meaning. The singularity is a maths problem. When we calculate back far enough, we end up with temperature and density problems that we can't be precise enough with so they calculate as infinite. We know that can't be true, but it's what the maths tell us based on our current input. I have no idea what you mean by "other side", but again, calling it an explosion is physically wrong. I may not understand this correctly, but the explanations I've heard don't claim that matter suddenly came into existence. Instead, matter can be compressed in a degenerate state where it loses its electrons and neutrons, becoming extremely dense and hot. As the matter regained its current structure, it was diluted (for lack of a better term) into the various particles and quanta we see now, and a lot of it boiled away in matter/antimatter annihilations. BBT is not a theory about life. We are composed of matter that came from the rapid expansion of all matter at the time of the Big Bang.

This isn't a good argument at all, sort of a weird appeal to authority. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in any of the various theories. That doesn't take away from the fact that these theories are our best supported explanations of various phenomena. BBT is based on the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, and currently it's our best explanation for the evolution of the early universe. Based on what you've posted so far, you don't understand BBT, and have dismissed it as a viable account of what we observe. You've said you invested in this idea of yours, but I think you started filling in gaps in your knowledge with this stuff you made up before you understood the theory and had legitimate objections. IOW, you tried thinking outside the box without understanding what's inside first. We see this a LOT here.

I bolded the part that makes no sense to me. I don't know what "furthering oneself to the technology" means. The problem is simple. As an example, before calculators people had to know how arithmetic works, but after calculators people only had to know the operation they wanted and the machine did the calculation. After a while, many people used it as a substitute for learning. Those folks today can't do the calcs in their head, and rely on the technology. It made those people dumber while helping others do more smart things. And most technology works like that. Canning preserves food, but those who rely on it often don't remember older ways of doing the same thing, so canning is the only option. Nail guns really help speed up construction work, and also produces people who don't know how to use a hammer. Does that help you see my point?

You Canadians are so NICE! In even simpler terms, the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North wanted to do more business with countries opposed to the slave trade. There were folks on both sides who felt that slavery was wrong in principle, but the South relied more heavily on owning both the resources and the labor for production. The North was more interested in preserving the union of the states than in emancipating slaves. We even kept the concept of slavery and use it in our prison system, and people of African descent are still persecuted and not treated the same way white people are. But the North won because the states are still united as a country... sort of.

Here here, I totally agree. Posting a video as an explanation on a discussion forum is like giving someone flowers but not putting them in a vase for them. You've just given them more labor, not a gift. This is far too critical. Jesus, it was a video interview. He probably would have been more specific in print. I'm not a fan of the popular scientist approach to many subjects, but his statement was completely reasonable for the popular science crowd. We do know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't, to a great degree.

! Moderator Note This doesn't seem to be working at all. You keep trying to explain something that others have found flaw with. You need to address the flaws mentioned instead of trying to say it in a different way.

In addition, I dislike subtraction so much I'll stop at nothing to avoid negative numbers.