Phi for All

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum, and we aren't here to promote articles you've written elsewhere. If you wish to discuss what you've written with the rest of the members, then give us some discussion points. The article can be used as a reference, but members should be given enough information so they don't have to go offsite or click links they don't trust. So far you've posted twice, with links to articles you've written. We need you to respond as if you were discussing your ideas rather than lecturing or blogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon. It seems like having some of your clothes on (or available nearby) kept one from "nakedness", which was seen as shameful. Overall, it seems like naked means "your genitals are showing" rather than referring to the full monty. It may be assumed that it didn't matter what you wore up top if your bottoms were visible.

But this isn't my expectation. This is, in its basic context, what I accused your arguments of doing. You imposed your modern version of modesty on biblical characters, and I pointed that out and even remarked that women often went topless. You countered with some strawman argument about breast-feeding, which I never mentioned. Women often went topless in the regions mentioned in the B because it was hot, and it just wasn't as shocking as it is today. I dislike your argument style. It seems very dishonest, and you make claims you don't seem prepared to defend.

If you're going to make blanket assertions like this, you definitely need to back them up with some evidence. Nothing I see on the webs supports this, unless you're talking about specific regions or countries, in which case you need to be specific. Science discussion, remember?

It's good form when someone polices your responses by saying "We aren't the thought police".

Oh sure, except for the many parts that don't. Leans in favor? Bet I can find more extremist behavior than you can find humble behavior in the Bible. It preaches moderation, but few of the characters actually practice it. I disagree that it IS a basic assessment, which should be far more objective. Moderate is what YOU consider it. It was not uncommon in biblical times for women to go topless. It wasn't considered immodest. In fact, there are more mentions in the B about women covering their heads than there are about covering their breasts. And try reading the Song of Solomon sometime. Well, this is the Religion section, which makes this a religious discussion. It's OK that you aren't interested in a POV that disagrees with yours. And I completely understand why it wouldn't interest you. But my points weren't inaccurate or off-topic, and I'd be happy to defend them for you, from Biblical times all the way up through more modern primogeniture practices. You can defend why you think sports influenced the biblical stance on nudity.

Biblical strictures against nudity stem from the world of sports? Seems a stretch, to me. Even jealousy and envy seem misplaced. Everything about the way women were treated in the Bible supports the concept that everything but their fellow men (and even them if you followed the laws) were possessions to men back then. So not jealousy or envy, but the pure greed of ownership and wanting to be taken seriously. They didn't want their women to be attractive to other men because they wanted to ensure that any offspring they support can only have come from their own loins, and that the heirs to their fortunes were legitimate. And beyond the inheritance, according to Deuteronomy 23:2, illegitimate children can't join any congregations, which probably means they can't get into heaven. And that lasts for 10 generations, so that's probably a big part of the whole "keep it covered" campaign. Of course, the problem with the OP is that we can talk about sexual topics without having sex with each other, just like we can talk about death without killing someone. And we can talk about public nudity and how it impacts Christian morality without showing pictures of ourselves naked.

Great rack for you here, Moon! And I don't normally do this kind of thing, but:

Sorry! How about this pair?

You need to share the science of how you think you could do this. "Enwrapped with a lot of energy" is not a good start. Energy isn't a thing; it's a property of things.

! Moderator Note I don't think you understand how any of this works. You've tried this many times before, you don't actually support your idea beyond stating it, restating it, and waving your hands in insistence that you're right. I agreed to let you bring it up yet again because you promised you had some supporting evidence to back up your claims. And here is the first post, with nothing but vague promises and absolutely no direction for discussion. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?! If I was trying to persuade anybody of anything, I sure wouldn't make a bunch of promises I had no intention of keeping. I would lead with some good, solid evidence that supports my extraordinary claims.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Is there something about biochemistry you want to discuss?

And this seems tied to the religious hierarchy so many cling to to this day. God is above everyone, and the rest of us are placed beneath Him in descending order based on worthiness. Our leaders MUST be better than we are, and priests and doctors and lawyers are surely the goodest folks ever, so they're usually ranked very highly. The masses desperately try to place themselves as highly as they can, and are generally only too happy to judge which folks are BENEATH them, or less worthy than they are. Most businesses are set up with this hierarchy, and so are most governments. And with this structure, there will always be slaves at the bottom with no alternatives.

I don't agree that slavery is defined strictly by ownership. Even the slavery the OP is talking about didn't end when black people stopped being "owned" by white people. "Forced to work" is a different measure. It doesn't only refer to beatings if you can remove all the other options available, so that work or suffer are the only choices.

You should probably define what you mean by slavery. Is it defined by a lack of pay for productive work? If so, does paying a pittance make it NOT slavery? Emancipation didn't end slavery in many areas. In any case, describing African slaves as "lucky" sounds like something that would prolong slavery as opposed to ending it.

we2 has been banned for sharing everything except science discussion.

! Moderator Note Deadline passed, thread closed.

This effort seems aimed at promoting the continuation of colonialist practices. Foster racial and social inequality. Establish legal and political domination over the non-white population. Keep the indigenous population from mixing with the disaffected elements of your colony. And don't let them have access to an education that might lead them to expect better.

My hunch says it was Smokey. Bandit would have people in the picture, drinking and grinning. Smokey is behind the cameraperson, probably establishing concrete evidence that this is, indeed, beer. They already have concrete evidence about the concrete.

Probably from the same bowl he uses to cut his hair.

Florida claims to love it, so Colorado paid to have it sent to Ron DeSantis.

Ned has been banned. They seemed adamantly opposed to the purpose of learning science.

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream ideas must be discussed in Speculations. You don't have the evidence to explain your ideas in a way that satisfies our rules on speculations. You've also dug in your heels in your ignorance and now consider yourself an expert on time. In science discussion, we need to know that the people involved are capable of accepting what mainstream science has discovered and considers the most supported explanations for various phenomena. You keep insisting you're right, and you don't know enough science to see you're wrong. You should go somewhere else and start a blog. You can't stay here with your approach to knowledge, it's too destructive and detrimental. Goodbye.

The object IS darker, because there isn't as much light reflected from it. It would still be darker if you weren't looking at it. And if you keep removing the light, darker and darker and darker finally become darkness. Do you understand now?

This sounds distinctly like a bad-faith argument posed by someone NOT interested in anything but their own perspective. Many animals, including humans, have extraocular photoreceptors in our skin and central nervous systems, even inside some of the organs. This supports the concept that light and its absence are detectable outside normal sensory perception. Shadows also support the idea that as you remove light and its properties, darkness is the result.