MigL

The literal definition of 'atheist' is "a person who does not believe in the existence of god or any gods", according to Merriam-Webster. Can that person prove that ''fact' with any observation or evidence ? Of course not. So 'atheism is also a 'belief', until Genady, or anyone else, can prove otherwise. ( claims that he was born a non-believer notwithstanding )

What has the new-fangled technology brought about ? I miss the good old days when you went into a bar to talk to real, drunk women ...

Why complicate matters. The current systen has been worked out over a couple of hundred years to be self-consistent.

Religion is a belief. Similarly, Atheism is a belief that there is no religion. Neither has effective proof or evidence, so what exactly is the difference ? The only viable argument is that one is 'more likely' than the other, but, as we are all human, we all have a 'built in ' ( nature ) belief system which can be further influenced by the environment ( nurture ).

Massless phtons at 'rest' are not supported by any realisic model, unless they are non-existent ...

Very much like Exchemist, even after having been around for over 10 years and gained some respect for my scientific opinion, when dealing with the likes of Markus , Mordred, Joigus, Swansont, and others who are no longer active in the Physics forum, I always ake sure to ask questions, not be confrontational and defer to their expertise. It is made easier by the fact that they are always willing to help, and are never condescending

No one seems to want to address the logical inconsistencies of the argument being presented by some. Homosexuals cannot help liking who, and what, they like; they are born that way, and conversion therapy does not work. Heterosexuals like who, and what, they do because of learned behavior, and being reasonong beings, can change their likes and dislikes. Can INow, or Phi, please explain this line of reasoning to me as I do not understand it. One of the above, bolded statements must be false.

Absolutely right, INow and Phi. Heterosexuals should stop disliking same gender sex. And homosexuals should like opposite gender sex and stop being so prejudiced. After all, these are learned behaviors as Phi states above, and can change if we want to. Except, I would have never thought Phi to be a supporter of Conversion Therapy. ( logical inconsistency much ? )

Melodramatic ? Moi ? And again, there is a vast diffeence between a personal dislike, or disgust even, of specific actions ( or sexual activities ), and a dislike of groups of people ( who may or may not engage in those activities ). I can tell the difference.

No, you don't. Apparently the 'new' approach is to have every one else recognize and abide by your 'egocentric' world view. If I dislike, or find an activity distasteful, I don't engage in that activity. If I like, or find an activity 'tasteful', I will engage in it. That seems to apply to most people ( not just me ), heterosexual males and females, as well as homosexual males and females. The only ones 'on the fence' about their likes and dislikes, are bisexuals. Who is anyone else to tell me what I should like or dislike ? Isn't that the problem homosexuals have had until recently ? Maybe 'tolerance' implies everyone has a choice as to what, or who, they like.

Hate to sound like a grumpy old man, but it's too darn cold for a brisk walk in the fresh air. Judging by the rest of your 'rebuttal',I'm surprised you were able to comprehend my post ... Have you gotten a clue yet ?

FYI Luke Air Force base, as well as a statue in Phoenix, are dedicated to Frank Luke Jr. Frank was a daring WW1 ace, who shot down 14 German balloons and 4 aircraft during a short combat stint in France. Because balloon shoot downs were considered suicide missions,he was regarded by E Rickenbacker as "the most daring aviator and greatest fighter pilot of the entire war" The F-22 Rapto that downed the Chinese spy satellite used the call sign 'FRANK'

If you have to use 'maybe' and 'if' in your explanation of the effect, you haven't thought it out too well ...

I thought you were going to complain about my use of the term 'UFO', as that seems to bring out all the wingnuts and conspiracy theorists.

Exactly. Level means equal gravitational potential. You should be able to use that information to answer your other questions.

Well they made movies about 'grumpy old men', so it must be true. No, purely anecdotal on my part also. And possibly more lonely/depressed than grumpy.

Maybe you can cite a study that shows old cnservatives are more "pissy" than old liberals. They may be more mean, but most old conservatives are rich, with no reason to be miserable or 'pissy'.

J Biden was blamed for taking too long to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon. I wonder if he will be blamd for shooting down the Alaska UFO too quickly. ( yes, UFO, it was a flying object that is unidentified )

That has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal. All OLD people are grumpy. But that's ok some people seem to like old men 😄 . ( does this lame attempt at humor hurt the sensibilities of gay people ? )

You've considered that human nature is often quite humorous ? and you found that flawed and contrary to your personal values ? Have you also considered MisterMack's and Stringy's one-sided, black and white interpretation of the situation ? MisterMack clearly refuses to see the many aspects of the situation in the Middle East, while Stringy doesn't realize that the Zionist 'book of values' is the same one used by Palestinians, with an appendix added. I'm not offended by much as it seems to be a useless emotion. I am a little disturbed by how serious everyone is these days, and their unwillingness to see the humor in many situations. You do know that there are Palestinians walking about the streets, and living their lives, in Israel without any Zionist giving them grief. I wonder how long an Israeli Jew would last walking about the Gaza strip. And if you don't know, maybe it's time you read up on the subject; get a clue before you get an opinion. I also suggest that political opinions be in a separate thread from one that is supposedly discussing the appropriateness, or lameness, of some attempts at humor.

The questions were rhetorical, meant to underline my point of view. Maybe had I added an emoji or two, and said in a joking manner, you wouldn't be so confrontational ...

You guys all seem to have missed the point ... The funny part is no-one can see, or is willing to consider, the other's point of view. And not just us, but the Israelis and Palestinians also, which is why they can't move forward and find a peaceful solution. Sometimes comedy and humor give us the opportunity to share our viewpoints, and consider others', without the confrontation.

The F-35 is a very good interdictor/strike aircraft, but its networking capabilities give it great situational awareness and make it a good BVR ( beyond visual range ) figter also. Shooting a sidewinder, or any other type of missile, from well below, will destroy the suspended payload, yielding no intelligence. Better to attck it at similar altitude and taget the balloon.

There is plenty of humor in this discussion. It's funny how people are so set in their ways ( ideologies ) that they refuse to even see alternative viewpoints. Monntanman mentioning the 'taking' of land by the Israeli Jews, when it was actually established in the colonially ( British ) mandated lands of Palestine. He mentions the bulldozing and herding into small compounds without mentioning that Arabs and Palestinians are free to live in Israel and can even be members of government. He fails to mention how some of these 'compounds' can elect governments whose sole purpose is the eradication of Israel and how these compounds, having no food or medicine for their people, manage to get their hands on thousands of home-made rockets that are indiscriminately launched into Israeli population centers. TheVat is so concerned about he association of apes with blacks in American racist culture, for which he blasts JohnCuthber that he fails to see the problems Europe has with racism. It's not an American thing when bananas are thrown onto the pitch at most major soccer/football games with black team members. Or Zapatos having a problem using the 'c' word ( TBH so do I ), when it is very common in the UK, and thrown about with careless abandon. Doesn't anyone else see the humor in how easily offended everyone has become ? Why do we, individually, want the whole world to recognze/respect our own individual sensitivities ? Why can a word/idea used by one individual 'hurt', but be perfectly acceptable if used by another ? I may not like MisterMack's political views, but, if he tells me a statement is a joke, I'll consider it as such and try to find the humor in it; there always is.

That joke disparages three groups of people, depending on your viewpoint. It disparages Jewish people, Americans who support Israel's right to exist, and people like MisterMack who believe there is only one side to every story ( maybe he really does ) instead of nuanced viewpoints. When you look at it that way it actually is funny; I myself will often turn a blind eye to some of the things Israel does because I fully support their right to exist in peace. And just like MisterMack sees only the Jewish bulldozing land seizures ( with American support ), people like me see only the homemade rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel from those same bulldozed and seized lands. If it weren't so sad, it would definitely be funny.