Phi for All

Support this statement before making any others. You need to engage in discussion for this thread to stay open. What makes you think it's false to state that we exist because we observe it?

! Moderator Note This is clearly NOT the other similar thread, and it would really be appreciated if you'd respect that. Please don't start repeating those arguments here, they've been heard.

Maybe in a different thread you can show us why any scientist anywhere would ever be a better scientist after having read the Bible. Back to the topic, do you think this focus on overturning abortion rights has anything to do with the hundreds of thousands more Republicans that died from COVID-19? Is this a long-term attempt to replenish their numbers? Control the births, then educate the ones you want and jail the rest?

The Bible is a great place for picking cherries, whether you feel like turning the other cheek or plucking someone's eye out.

! Moderator Note The OP has chosen NOT to wait for replies, and was apparently trying out for some kind of biggest waste of time contest. I'll leave this open for other discussion.

This is false.

I predict it will be the superposition principle.

Completely serious. Hindu and Chinese mythology also speak of the world turtle. The question then becomes, who created that turtle? It's an infinitely regressive question.

We're a discussion forum, not a bulletin board. We like open conversations. Can you write an abstract or overview of your idea and post it here please? We like to take things a step at a time, and giving us your elevator pitch will generate some replies. If those replies show promise, we can figure out how you can show us more. Sound good?

I heard it was a turtle.

Religion supersedes the biology because humans were given mastery over plants and animals in the Bible, otherwise you could point to how nature deals with the problem. Nobody expects every seed to become a plant or tree, or every egg to produce offspring, and I think most people understand how bad it would be if they did.

What an ugly choice of words, auto victimization. I prefer "systemic racism survival", and acknowledge that as a white person I'm certainly not the victim. I've benefited heavily over POC, and continue to take advantage of racist processes. Are you extra mad at fat black people who pay the same as you for a seat on an airplane? What about religion? Obviously, the people who believe in the right god would be the best passengers, since all their flights would land safely. We could charge more for Buddhists and atheists and the other religions, and less for the people who believe correctly.

Ethically, I think our processes in a society should focus on the strength of people in that society sharing the common burdens of life, while respecting the rights of an individual person to work within the system. If you start discriminating by weight on an airplane, can we charge you extra to work out at the gym because you're so small and need extra time on the machines? Can we charge you extra at the grocery store because you're short and need help reaching the top shelf? The clothing industry would like to charge more for extra small sizes due to extra labor, the same way they charge more for extra big sizes due to extra material. If we started this practice, I think the airlines would have special flights for all the skinny people, and give you the discounts you so deserve, and at the same time they'd double the number of seats so you could rub boney elbows with all the other special persons. They'd saave a bundle on flight attendants and food since you could just grab a cracker on the way to your abbreviated seat. You can always find a reason why a type of person doesn't fit and needs special treatment. I think we all have strengths and weaknesses that provide the perfect balance when we spread them out to cover us all as people.

Inertial theory - ideas that never seem to gain momentum. Hysterectomy - the panic you feel just before you fart in front of a bunch of people. Transistor - a nun who's had gender reassignment. Momentum - the truth about all those bad things Mo said about you. Elementary particles - the dreams that stuff is made of.

! Moderator Note Let me know when you can comply with the rules and I'll re-open the thread.

And how would you bind all these particles in an entangled state? I'm somewhat familiar with entangling photons in a conservation of angular momentum situation to ensure that their polarization is correlated with each other. Does the binding relate to time wrt both sets of particles? It's not impossible theoretically, it's impossible by definition. Absolute zero marks the point where there is no thermal activity, where no motion is caused by temperature, and it's the start of the Kelvin scale for that reason. How could you go below "no motion"? Also, it's "bear" in mind, not "bare", and "plethora" instead of "pluthora". Just sayin'. And I've probably just guaranteed that I've made a spelling or grammar error somewhere in my post. Skitt's Law.

While I agree with this part of your solution, I think this may be the real fear at the heart of the matter, what gun owners are most anxious about. A focus on mental health evaluation is quite likely to determine that people who are obsessive about owning hundreds of guns are mentally ill, just like those who hoard money they'll never be able to spend in their lifetimes, or people who lie after gaining a position of trust, or those who refuse to help people gain access to medicine, or those who judge others by the color of their skin. If they're paranoid about the government coming after their guns, they're probably more paranoid about their obsessions coming under scrutiny.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that members must be able to participate in a discussion without opening any docs or following any links. Is there any reason you can't copy/paste the information you want the members to have?

So it's wrong to sell assault rifles, but if you already have one it's OK forever? Is it really? Are you saying it's dangerous because these people will use their guns to defend their right to have guns? Or are you saying amendments are dangerous? I think this is the bullshit that's being shoveled, sure, but it's NOT what's being asked right now. Right now, we need to reduce the availability of guns through better checks, and we need to regulate private sales better. Claiming that means all your rights will be lost is an extremist talking point, a strawman that has a bright red target on it to make it easier to hit. I don't agree either, or with your assessment. I think the reason nothing gets done is because of heavy lobbying, average people believing arguments about losing guns totally if we ban assault rifles, and a climate of racist fears and paranoia that will help keep arms makers in business ad infinitum.

Here's your hypocrisy in action, right here. It's only common sense to ban guns for a good reason.

This is business, special bird seed shingles for car wash roofs! I'm on it!

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the Alliance for Gun Responsibility points out that "gun control" is how the right wing have framed this whole issue, and humans hate being controlled. "Control" becomes "confiscation", and even law-abiding citizens object. Reframing this issue as "gun responsibility" will force politicians into a clearer stance. I don't think they'd get elected if they objected to responsible gun use.

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way beecee was treating rebuttals with lazy arguments, copy/pasting his own words, and dismissing concern for underrepresented folks as overactive PC measures. And how has your original objection changed as a result of being exposed to other perspectives through disccussion? Do you still think the suggestions that have been made will harm cis women's participation in sports?

So you're saying, "Being male is not generally to possessing those qualities" is straight? I'm accusing you of being grammatically wrong. But I also think you've got a LOT of emotional investment in this issue, because you keep repeating the same arguments, even though lots of folks have peeled them apart fairly reasonably. And instead of then addressing THOSE points, you just double down, copy/paste something you've already said, and insist that any rebuttal is some kind of overactive political correctness, even though the positions have been thoroughly explained to you. If it's debatable, why do you keep copy/pasting the same things? And is thorough rejection a competent scientific stance? What's happened to your objectivity? Nobody is saying you have to agree, but it would help, if you're going to continue to discuss this, if you would at least keep moving forward instead of staying mired in your complete rejection.

This is a science discussion forum. It works best when you treat it like a conversation around a table, rather than lecturing from a podium to an audience. I want to be able to stop reading when I encounter something questionable, ask a question, and get an answer before I read any more. I learn this way, a piece of information at a time so I can see if it fits well with accumulated human knowledge. I eat the same way, so it's like you're trying to make me fit a whole pizza in my mouth, instead of taking small bites to make sure it's not going to make me sick.