Phi for All

Didn't you just make a decision based on the situation and the skills of the people right around you (you obviously asked about employment)? That's horizontal morality. You didn't decide based on what you think their appearances makes them capable of. You didn't rank them based on "Asian woman in a wheelchair" and "6' 3" white man".

I've made knives, but I've never forged my own blade. That part seems like I'd need a teacher, a ton of materials, and a lot of trial and error. It looks like a whole bunch of fun, sweat, and tears.

Not sure about a spring, but I've seen blacksmiths use the spark test to check carbon content on Forged in Fire.

Gender pronouns come to mind. Vertically, I'm ranking your choice based on what I think it should be, horizontally I find out your preferences because our encounters are more productive when you're comfortable.

! Moderator Note Copy from your original Word doc, drawings and all, then Paste it here. Do everyone a favor and Paste two or three pages at a time, so comments can be made before we move on to the next. There's a LOT to comment on.

This shows how you're thinking, assigning an above/below hierarchy instead of looking at efficacy and impact on those around you. It's more akin to choosing the tools you work with for specific parts of your job. A hammer isn't a ranked choice if you're trying to calibrate gas mixtures on a sensitive machine, it's just not right at all. The hammer isn't a poor tool, it's simply not a choice in this instance. Trapped in an elevator with five other people and no outside communication, some folks make vertical judgements about how to organize their rescue. They might immediately dismiss the idea that women could help beyond screaming for help. They might think a foreigner knows nothing about this country's elevators. They might consider anyone in a wheelchair to be useless in this situation. They probably look for whoever among the six is the strongest. Horizontal thinkers in the same situation might get everyone's ideas and input, and assess the situation based on that. They might get rescued by an idea the foreigner had, or by having a smaller woman stand on the arms of a wheelchair to reach the escape hatch in the roof. It seems to me that this way of approaching problems has a higher degree of correctly valuing the people involved. There are situations where vertical ranking is appropriate, but I think it's being applied incorrectly when used as a general rule. I think it does get me somewhere to avoid vertical ranking. And again, horizontal morality is absolutely NOT about feeling superior to others. Horizontal morality is saying nobody is better than anybody else, we all just make choices based on who's around us in the situation we find ourselves in. My religious aunt thinks sitting naked in a hot tub is immoral, period, every time, all the time. I think it depends on who's with me, if anyone. That vertical, ranked thinking is hard to get away from, isn't it?! Actually, the way horizontal morality works is that seeing you loving your family shows me how I should interact with you. I immediately know some behavior choices that would be appropriate, and some that would be inappropriate. I don't have to judge the way you love your family, I just have to smile, use appropriate language around your spouse and kids, respect that you're here with them, and let you all find your own joys with each other. My interaction with you and your family is then free to change depending on circumstances, and isn't rooted in some vertical hierarchy that can't change and often makes incorrect objective judgements.

I'm quoting this to increase the odds it gets read. Greg A, when we ask someone to support their ideas somewhat as rigorously as mainstream science does, it's so we're not wasting our time discussing unphysical/wishful/mistaken explanations for various phenomena. If you can't support an idea with at least some evidence (certainly more than your repeated insistence), then we reasonably prefer the mainstream explanation that DO have mountains of such evidence. We would love to examine the evidence that drives your trust in your belief, but if you can't give us any, we'll stick with what we know works. I hope that makes sense to you. It's not censorship, it's setting standards.

Just to clarify, do you mean matriarchs and patriarchs, or are you talking just about women who support your patriarchy?

I wonder if this is a mis-read of the latest trend of meals with just a handful of ingredients. That's done for convenience and simplicity, NOT for nutrition.

That's twice you misspelled "Putin".

! Moderator Note MavricheAdrian, you need to copy whatever you want us to look at (COPY), and then paste it here on the forum (PASTE). The members don't want to have to open documents or visit links they don't trust, so it's a rule we have. We've been all over this before, like three times. Can you do whatever you did before (perhaps read the whole thread again). It makes it much easier to address specific sections if it's posted HERE.

So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?! Again, I'm going to look at some studies that have actual numbers so you can stop waving your hands. Did you know that, if you take a sample of 100,000 white people in the US, 450 of them are in prison? A sample of 100,000 indigenous people (native American or Alaskan native) shows that 1291 are in prison. Out of 100,000 black people, 2306 are in prison. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw3K2XBhAzEiwAmmgrAqX1ByZOv00NNSKl-1_yiUB7xdgvJ1rfsxrzRPuaZHsns98Bq0lWnBoCz0oQAvD_BwE Yeah, the US has nothing like that kind of Left. Remember, liberals in the US like democracy. Since the civil war was all about kidnapping and enslaving black humans, are you in favor of bringing it back? Do you feel that the kidnap and enslavement of black people was justified by your Right? Voting age is certainly open for interpretation, but what's the deal with "not encouraged"? That sounds a LOT like you think some people aren't worthy to vote. Is that true? What?! I'm 65 this year, I've been shaping my worldview my whole life. I think about it with every thought. I don't view others as above or below me. We're all living side by side, we're all stronger side by side, and I think the uber wealthy have spent a LOT of money making sure you stay uneducated, uninformed, and pointing the finger at everybody but THEM. I've seen wages decouple from productivity, forcing average people to work two jobs to make ends meet. I've watched medical insurance go from being actuarial based and affordable to this horrorshow worldwide laughingstock we call managed healthcare. I was born an Eisenhower Republican, and I first voted after the Nixon years. I embraced the Democrats until Bernie Sanders came along, and now I'm an Independent. I don't know why you think you know my life well enough to presume what I think, but so far you've been wrong on every count. Perhaps you should read what I write, and reason it out for yourself? You have a great many prejudices, my friend. So maybe you aren't a Christian Nationalist? What form of government would you prefer to democracy, and why? Thanks very much for the replies btw, this feels much more like a good-faith discussion. I look forward to more substance and meaningfulness.

Huh, that's interesting, because the most recent studies show that when welfare is removed (for example, when an 18-year-old no longer gets Social Security supplements from a parent on SS), crime goes up. Source: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BFI_WP_2022-28.pdf Employment can be with a private company that pays a fraction of the worth of a good or service to its workers, or it can be through social cooperatives where each worker is paid closer to the actual value, and the owner is compensated fairly for providing resources. Employment can also be through the state, where goods and services are distributed and performed to all who want to deal. In this case, the emphasis is on making sure people have good products and services, and no emphasis is placed on falsely marking up the value as profit. Capitalism, socialism, and communism ALL use employment, so your distinctions need to be further defined.

No they don't, but men historically have ignored their part in procreation and leave it all to women. One of the problems I have with your stance is that you consider an unborn fetus to be a citizen that needs protecting, but you won't let me claim it on my taxes until it's born, and you won't give it any other protections citizens get, like the right to vote. You give more worth to a glob of cells than you do to a living woman. You insist that a heartbeat is life to an embryo, but when I'm old and dying you move the goalposts and insist it's the cessation of my brain activity that signals death. Why won't you even consider abortions before six weeks, before there's brain activity? Obviously, you aren't a small-government conservative who believes the government should intrude in citizen's lives as little as possible. I don't see how you could believe that AND believe that the government should step in to protect citizens from themselves. Do you approve of fascism as a mechanism for exercising this government protection? Kick in their doors if they don't approve of what you're doing?

Without insurance? That would be great, wouldn't it? Liberals think we already are wealthy enough to afford medical insurance, as long as it's universal and supported by everyone. I want you to have it, because your health matters to all of us.

This would be a good stance to flesh out an argument from, so we understand why you feel the way you do. Exactly why is "the Left" society's #1 enemy? What specifically have they done to earn them this distinction? I'm looking for clear evidence, not FOX News talking points. It's easy to say "liberals are the root of all evil" but it doesn't tell me why you think that way. Does that make sense? Give me specific examples of why you hate liberals and feel like they're the enemy of humankind.

WTF dude?! Again you skip an opportunity to teach me why you're making the claims you do. I really want to know, and you're avoiding it by posting that you're not avoiding anything. Pick even one of those items I mentioned, and give me your thoughts on why my liberal approach to the issue is wrong or bad for you.

What?! NATO didn't act in Ukraine because Ukraine isn't part of NATO. You REALLY need to read better sources, because your current ones are letting you down badly.

Is it unreasonable to ask you to answer some questions? I gave you a list of things "the Left" would like you to have, full of all kinds of talking points. Instead, you're off on this censorship tirade, yet I can't see where that's happening. We don't delete posts. We move them if they're off-topic, and we sometimes hide them if they're offensive, but we don't delete. None of your posts have been hidden or deleted, so where's the censorship? Most conservatives I've discussed politics with do the same thing. You tapdance around issues you don't intuitively grasp, relying on talking points you really haven't thought out. An example is healthcare. Many conservatives don't support universal healthcare because they say it all comes out of your taxes, and many liberals are confused because that's partly the point. You spend less on health insurance because EVERYBODY pays into one system through taxation rather than deal with hundreds of private insurors each charging enough to turn a profit. The government can run a risk pool like that more efficiently and cheaper because they have lower administrative costs and don't have to make a profit. Can you tell me why you don't support that, without all those partisan whines about being unreasonable and censorious?

I noticed this request was ignored by the OP... again. They quoted all the rest of your post but skipped any actual substance. Going back over their other posts, this is a familiar pattern. If it continues in this thread, I'll report it and maybe we can either get some clarification or we can get it to stop.

Interesting article from the Economist: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/11/green-finance-for-dirty-ships

You asked a working physicist what spacetime is "made of", they give you a mainstream definition, and you reply with "what it looks like to me", in direct opposition? No offense, but I have to ask if you came here to learn like the rest of us, or if you're here to push some form of woo that seems intuitive only to you?

The Left wants you to have universal healthcare coverage, which isn't tied to your employer and would cost a fraction of what most folks pay now. They want you to have bodily autonomy and be the ultimate authority for what is done to you physically. They would rather support you financially so you don't turn to crime than put you in prison for being poor and desperate. They want people to have equal rights under the law. They want to be governed by principles, not authoritarian commanders pretending to lead. They want everybody who's eligible to have access to voting, and they want them to exercise that right. The way I see it, you either have to think those things can't happen, or you don't want them to happen. Which is it, and why?

The concept may not be new, but I recently heard this argument phrased in a way that really resonated with me. Many people, including many religious people, view morality as a vertical scale, with their deity or moral mentor at the top, those they disagree with below them, and themselves and everyone else ranked somewhere between. It's a hierarchy from which they can strive to do better, and recognize when they do worse. But it's also a perspective of subjective judgement, and I think it's responsible for much of the inequality in our societies. Horizontal morality asks us to look around at each other from a side-by-side perspective, and recognize that nobody is inherently better or worse than anybody else. It requires us to assess the impact of our actions based on how they affect those around us, and to adjust based on the individuals and circumstances. It tends not to judge groups of people, and it seems like a better framework for diverse societies to deal with each other. What do you think?

He forgot the comma before "stupid", so he must be in grammatical agony anyway, and we'd hate to add to that burden. But I think everyone can handle talking about this without insults and rudeness. I've always wanted to know why some folks don't think others are as worthy as they.