Phi for All

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.

! Moderator Note Split off to its own topic for focus. So when you're wrong about science and get called out for not following our rules of evidence, you call that censorship. Now you'd like to talk about how the Right is your ideal. How far do you take this? Do you believe anyone who thinks liberally deserves to die? What are you going to do with these people when you take over? Are you going to repeat the colonization indoctrination policies that worked so well for the Right to suppress all those people of color?

Great idea. While we're at it, let's take another look at Intelligent Design, and some of the other doubts regarding evolution. Have doubts about relativity, by all means let's go over the arguments against phlogiston again. Let's waste our time taking another long look, photo by photo, of something that's already been debunked ad nauseam over the last 50 years. Because all the evidence shows that the OP is totally sincere about expressing their freedom of speech, and isn't interested in casting doubt over one of humankind's greatest accomplishments for their own purposes without providing a shred of evidence. I know a few of the 400,000+ people who worked on Apollo. I know one of Buzz Aldrin's biographers, and I've met Buzz's son Andy. I'm going to step out of this discussion as a member and a moderator because it literally makes me ill to see the accomplishments of these brilliant people drug through the dirt by members of this board. Enjoy your mockery and disinformation!

I believe conspiracy rhetoric increases ignorance and fear, and if you're doing it on purpose, I believe you're a manipulative monster. I believe in the intelligence of the other members here and their ability to see the shaky foundations of your arguments, but too many young students come here to learn, and I'm afraid those are the people you've set your sights on. And I believe, rather I know, that you don't know what censorship is, even though you probably use the word often.

! Moderator Note Too bad this was asked in bad faith. Now it can't stay in the mainstream sections, and there's really no place to put it since you refuse to support your conjectures with evidence of any kind. Hand waving isn't enough here, so I'm just going to throw this in the Trash. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog.

I don't understand how your title relates to anything else you're talking about. You've devised this whole concept and now behave as if it's intuitive, but you're the only one who gets it. Can you explain it to others? I don't understand the bit about your noun diagram explanation being specifically about marriage. Are you talking about the marriage of maths and logic? Why do you think they're married? I'm glad you understand the confusion, but do you understand that you're compounding it each time you try to clarify? Every post you've made so far has gotten replies practically begging you to make sense and focus on explaining your idea to others. Do you really think you've made an effort?

But a square IS a type of rectangle, though not all rectangles are squares. A second is a unit of time, and I think you make a mistake trying to mix units and types. OK, so you feel the need to convert and mix these concepts because of extraterrestrial fears. I don't have anything for you, and I've lost all interest in trying to have a conversation about this with you. Sorry, but I have no idea why you think this is important or interesting. OK, this site isn't for you. We like clarity and civility. You need to start a blog for people to ignore elsewhere.

Can you pretend we're all sitting at a table talking, and you put up this slide to illustrate your concept? Now we need you to narrate, tell us what we're looking at, so we can have a conversation about this. Tell us, in your own words, what aspect of your idea you want to discuss, please.

Why can't distance change? Also, this weird mix of maths and grammar may make a lot of sense to you, but I don't think anybody else understands it. Are you saying Time minus a noun, or Time is a noun? There's no meaningful way to combine math and the arts in the way you suggest. It's like mixing some poetry in with your paint and expecting the color to change.

! Moderator Note You need to stop doing this. This is why we don't indulge conspiracy discussions, because you introduce suspicions you have no intention of supporting with evidence. Merely mentioning it seems to be the intellectually lazy alternative. NO MORE, PLEASE!

Bluster from Mr Xi, but little else. He's not in a great position right now, and has many issues coming up that need delicate handling. China doesn't want war, Mr Xi wants a third term, and their overall growth has stagnated. He won't do anything to make the markets uneasy, but he'll rattle some sabers and show off some tanks and planes and ships so he looks strong and confident. Both he and Putin let a LOT of their countrymen die from COVID-19 through neglect and misinformation, and the pandemic has left citizens everywhere uneasy about authoritarian leaders.

! Moderator Note If learning mainstream physics is out of the question for you, then I don't think we can continue. For some reason, you don't even recognize the refutations you've gotten regarding your arguments, and continue to think you're "beating" us because nobody can tell you why you're wrong. That's a big problem, because you don't know enough science to understand why it's important to know more science. You claim you aren't interested in accuracy, you claim being wrong would be devastating to you, and you claim that your intuition is better than learning mainstream knowledge. All of this means you'll get nothing from science discussion. You just aren't listening to anything that doesn't make immediate sense to you, or contradicts the stuff you've made up. Thread closed, don't bring this up in other threads, because you certainly didn't convince anyone of anything.

! Moderator Note This section is for defending non-mainstream science concepts using mainstream mechanisms. All of your theistic arguments are supernatural in that regard, so you'd never be able to support your arguments to the extent we require for Speculations. It's not a matter of my mind shutting down so much as enforcing rules the site owner has in place. I'm going to move this to Philosophy. If you prefer Religion, I can move it there instead. We still like supportive evidence along with our claims, in any section.

The secret to a great veggie or soy burger is to fry it up in bacon grease. Your welcome.

My experience is a little different. I think really mixing and massaging that ground beef makes it more putty like so it sticks together, but the texture once cooked is not the greatest. Less handling is preferable to me, but I'm not sure that makes the meat break/crumble less.

If it won't hold its shape because it's mushy, add some breadcrumbs to reduce moisture. If it crumbles because it's too dry, add an egg into the mix to bind the meat & veg. I've been sticking a finger in the middle of the burgers lately to keep them from swelling, not sure why that works.

What's the objective here? Are you looking for critique, or is there an aspect of your idea you want to discuss with other members? This isn't your blog, and a LOT of this is just your personal musings about supernatural subjects, and NOBODY here is interested in unevidenced conjecture. Perhaps you could remove the religious aspects and focus on some science you want to discuss?