Phi for All

Patterns are everywhere, and I think it's a mistake to conflate something mechanical (and fairly straightforward) with human behavior or biology. A water bottle may only have 3 states wrt being open but humans have a spectrum of feelings about being thirsty. What does your concept do or help explain?

My brushes have never been that wide. I acknowledge my conservative leanings when it comes to several areas, as well as my liberal leanings in others. Wrt guns in the US, I'm a gun owner who would happily participate in a national buyback program with the aim of removing all the guns. I'd also support Japanese style background checks done by the police for anyone who claims to need a gun. I think that's extremely liberal (for the US). I'd pay for all the extra police work by moving their funding around and instituting passive radar checks and automatic ticketing for running red lights, which actually enforce the law on vehicles and don't care what color/gender/other privilege flavor you are. I think that's extremely conservative, but I'm not interested in being exempted from punishment just because I'm normally a lawful driver.

I agree that capitalism has a big part to play, but I do think modern conservatism is also to blame. People who identify as all conservative tend to want a system that separates the deserving from the non-deserving. They want laws that supposedly apply to all, but are only enforced on the non-deserving. They want benefits that the non-deserving don't get. They want their guns and the ways they use them to be protected while the non-deserving have their guns taken away and are thrown in jail. I think right-wing beliefs are definitely part of the problem.

The one about AH abusing JD. I think evidence was asked for to determine what kind of abuse you were talking about, but instead you went with the Argument from Incredulity again, in essence arguing that you can't believe we've made up our minds to ignore the abuse she put him through. You're Begging the Question also, so you're raising all sorts of red flag pushback. Oddly, I think there are plenty of members who would love to acknowledge that you have a point, and that abuse of men is a problem that needs to be addressed, but they want to make sure the reasoning is sound, and that any conclusions were arrived at with little to no jumping.

No paint was needed. You were browbeating responders who were asking you to support your statements. They weren't outrageous statements, and I thought you should have done more to address those posts rather than complain about them. It's a science discussion site discussing a court trial, so words are extremely important, and the evidence doubly so. It shouldn't be a surprise that you get pushback from jumbled references to "abuse" and "hitting" and "physical" and "psychological".

This article seems to suggest that all blood adapts in some ways to higher altitudes, even after just a couple of weeks: https://www.science.org/content/article/two-weeks-mountains-can-change-your-blood-months#:~:text=The most recent finding%3A Even,after descending to lower elevations.

Do you know if this is strictly an adaptation of the blood itself, or does it also include changes in physiology, like bigger arteries and lungs?

Something similar happened in my city, in an area I frequent regularly. Someone with a beef shot a policeman, then a "hero" pulled out his own gun and shot that guy, then a responding police officer shows up and shoots the guy with the gun standing over two dead people.

What kind of charity are you talking about? Do you want us to say, hey, good for you for having an idea, don't worry about the parts that aren't supported by science, just keep having those great thoughts! Is that the charity you want? A publisher needs to profit somewhere, so you either have to write something that people will pay the publisher for, or you have to pay the publisher yourself. The best way to get support from a publisher of scientific publications is to write some good science. They love that. Iirc, you don't support your ideas very well. Any science publisher is going to want to see the evidence we've been asking you for. What would you tell them?

Which still leaves you with functioning putters, drivers, and wedges, which is all you really need. Even more ominous is the fact that far more in-home firearms are used to threaten people who live there than are used in defending the home. Those who think they'd never do that are supporting those who do it on a regular basis.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf From 2007-2011, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly .9% of crimes. This shows that you only have a slight chance to do something right with your gun, as opposed to the astronomically increased chances of doing something wrong. How do you justify the heavy risks of constant carry for the benefit of having a gun in the rare instance you might need it?

You're spreading false information about the price of gas in CA, and I think it's to cover up getting caught spreading false information about Kissinger being banned from Ukraine. Do you get paid extra for lying to educated people? Did you volunteer to scam a science discussion site, or are you being punished?

In that scenario, the Earth is gone, so of course we don't exist. If this is your argument, it's circular and meaningless. You waste time with this scenario that makes sense only to you, because you made it up using a limited understanding of science. You need to learn more before you use your imagination, otherwise you're just increasing your own ignorance. Try to squeeze good information into those gaps in your knowledge, and then you have the tools to use a good thought experiment.

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.