Leaderboard

Yes it can be confusing. Notice these groups are described as Main Groups, and also that the block in between (often called the d-block) is described as being for the Transition Metals. The "transition" metals were historically viewed as being in the transition from the simpler rules of chemical behaviour of the light elements of the 1st 3 rows to the more complex behaviour of the heavier ones from the 4th row onward. (As with so many things in science, history has a lot to do with how things end up being named.) Nowadays, it is really better to speak of the s-block, for the 1st 2 main groups, the p-block for groups 3-7 and 0, the d-block for the transition metals (and the f-block for the so-called lanthanides and actinides that are usually represented below the d-block.) But over the years there have been many different ways to display the table and also a variety of different numbering systems and naming conventions. So inevitably you will come across a few different ones in your reading. Just keep the shape in your mind: 2 columns of s-block metals on the left, 6 columns of p-block elements on the right, with the metal/non-metal diagonal running obliquely through them like a staircase, and the d- and f- block metals in the middle. The reason for the rather ungainly shape of the table is to do with the order in which electrons build up* in layers within the atom, as one moves through the table from lighter elements to heavier ones. Remember that It is the outer electrons (called the "valence" electrons) that are responsible for the chemical behaviour of the elements. The shape of the outermost layer, and how strongly or weakly bound the electrons in it are, is what determines how the element will behave in chemical reactions. * from the German Aufbauprinzip or building up principle, which explains how the behaviour of the outermost electrons is determined by quantum theory. You will get to that in due course. It's rather cool.

Anyway, it starts now here.

I'd be tempted myself to take a more direct approach. First, who deems life to be "impossible" without supernatural intervention, and on what basis? There are many highly complex structures in the universe, both at macro and micro scale, for which we have good models accounting for their formation. Why should life be uniquely different? Is there a logic to this judgement, or is it just the Argument from Personal Incredulity? Such statements are normally made by people without any knowledge of the relevant pre-biotic chemistry, so there is at the very least room to question whether they should think themselves authorities on the matter. Second, science is in fact making a lot of progress in understanding how life may have arisen. So, although abiogenesis is probably the hardest unsolved problem in modern science, it has by no means met a brick wall. There is every reason to have faith that science will in time uncover one or more likely pathways by which life may have arisen. Unlike people promoting a naïve religious agenda, science is patient: the fact we have no answer yet does not mean there won't be one in time.

When you die, what part of the body dies last? The pupils… they dilate.

Hello. I am a woman from Kyrgyzstan.I am interested in science and science fiction and i have some ideas: 1. Hyper space engine using electrons . Electrons transfer through covalent or ionic bonds , they can be the result of law of conservation of energy. Or there may be an electron field. 2. Hyper space engine through energy of ionization 3. Multiverse travel by deleting hydrogen from cosmic ship' s way 4. Artificial intelligence . Is it possible to catch signals or waves from minds of living organisms and create a machine. 5. Cosmic ship using biological characteristics of alien species like mind reading. 6.electrons transmitting energy or information from one machine to another. 7. Hyper space engine through these reactions: falling protons colliding with nucleus of nitrogen, oxygen and other nucleus kicking out neutrons and protons with emitting peony particles and other particles. Emitted nucleon particles, peony particles lead to secondary collisions. 8. Extracting energy from expansion of space 9. Extracting energy from rotation of planets , galaxies or other objects 10. Add plant or animal particles to cosmic ships and use the process of evolution to modify ships or to multiply ships through the process of cell reproduction. 11. Think about evolution of life to make human controlled insects or animals 12. Think about parcticle fields like photon field 13.. Use photons for a portable in space tv display

We made up how to measure time, rather than making up time itself. We observed that change is a process that requires things don't happen all at once. We observed many things that we understood better when we measured them using some sort of standard. We observed how important it was to know how long and how wide and how tall something was, as well as how long it took to build it. We observed all these dimensions, and the more we started measuring them, the better our tool-making skills and construction skills became.

A man entered a local paper’s pun contest. He sent in 10 different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win. Unfortunately, no pun in 10 did.

One of the more delightful occupations first recorded in the English language from the early 14th century period onwards was that of a ‘Gong Farmer’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gong_farmer Cesspits normally had to be dug out by these 'Gong Farmers' every two years or so, and in the late 15th century they charged two shillings per ton of waste removed. The waste was usually carted out of town and spread as fertiliser on common land, or dumped in areas known as ‘laystalls’ such as the appropriately named ‘Dung Wharf’ on the banks of the river Thames .

I think it gives one man too much credit. Gaslighting is a concerted effort from many online groups and "alternate" media of which Fox can be considered a moderate version. While he has been an excellent figure head, there are dozens if not hundreds of online personalities (and Trump has met with many of them) that are part of it. The whole Q anon movement started out as a prank, essentially. Also, the same movement is active across borders and is frequently linked to local right-wing movements. I think focusing on Trump is a bit too US-centric and misses some of the world-wide developments we have. It is certainly not just one thing. I.e., it would also be too simplistic to point to Russia and China as instigators, but there is a confluence of multiple technological, societal and educational developments that makes a person such as Trump to be able to wield tremendous powers.

These two rulers are very similar: 1) Both came to power rather by accident; 2) Both showed themselves as relatively secular, not fanatical, maybe even pro-Western; 3) Both started their rule quite liberally; 4) In 2021, according to official data, Assad "got" 95% of votes in the first tour of the presidential election. Putin "got" 87% in the first tour in 2024. The next point is that any dictator benefits from the situation when the population have a little choice - either this dictator or a civil war. Please tell me if anyone knows how Assad did it in Syria. Currently I understand how Putin does this in Russia: 1) Now Chechnya is in fact an independent state, with a monarchical form of government, currently as an ally for the Russian Federation. But this "union" has to be paid for. Kadyrov has always shown himself to be anti-liberal; and if the next president starts democratic reforms )a thaw_, then Kadyrov will say that he and the Russian Federation are not on the same path, and this president will have to start a third Chechen war; 2) Until recently, another such figure was Evgeniy Prigozhin. He has always positioned himself as an extreme anti-liberal, and while he demanded to ban YouTube and turn Russia into the DPRK, Putin favored him and allowed him to grow; 3) One more such figure now is Viktor Zolotov, a chief of RosGuardia. As far as I understand it, he has his own army with armored vehicles and artillery.

I started Purdue in "Computer Technology". As if COBOL was technology. 🤣 By Y2K I knew what was needed to fix the problems. PLUS my Profs., the military reservists at least, had been AWOL from Indiana for a good bit in 1999, mostly in Washington doing boffin shit. I first heard of Y2K from RAdm. Grace Hopper (you know what she did even if you don't know what she did. See below.) She mentioned that new Super Computer Center on North Island NAF (in San Diego Bay) was "proofed against that bug" and then told me what "that bug" was. This was in the mid-80s. She also said she couldn't believe that COBOL was still a thing. I remember that when I got to Purdue. Lt. Grace Hopper was charged with computing ballistics tables for the big USN guns, up to 16" in bore diameter. You can see pictures of her standing INSIDE her computer, manually reprogramming it (i.e. moving certain cables to certain connectors and running the numbers). BUT one day the numbers were wildly in variance with prior calculations. The team checked the programs, copacetic. Then they checked the physical plant. And they found a moth stuck between two contacts, preventing the circuit to close. SO she took the bug and taped it into the log book, below many frustrated/angry/confused entries. Then she added a note: "Found problem. Bug in computer." That log book is in the custody of the Smithsonian now, as documenting the first verified computer bug.

Yes I was aware of these facts beforehand. By the way, oxygen is not an energy source itself but is essential for the extraction of energy from organic molecules during aerobic respiration. And by implying that 'this mass extinction lead to all complex life on earth' is simply wrong because it alone was not the sole reason. More accurately it can be said that the rise in oxygen levels combined with mass extinction created the conditions necessary for the evolution of complex life on Earth. I got mixed up and made a silly mistake that slipped out of my notice until you've pointed it out. The correct that I wanted and should have written is: "but eventually life found a way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through cellular respiration although not always exclusively" But after a little reflection, I realised that the above statment would still be an incorrect one. As you mentioned, a lot of organisms died in the process because oxygen was poisonous to them but life didn't instantly evolved to be able to tolerate oxygen and perform aerobic respiration. Some microorganisms (likely ancestors of modern aerobic organisms) already had the biochemical machinery to use oxygen, but most likely this was initially just a minor adaptation. As natural selection goes, when oxygen levels rose dramatically, those organisms that could tolerate or even use oxygen for energy had a significant survival advantage. Since aerobic respiration is far more efficient at generating energy than anaerobic processes, this ability became more widespread and refined through evolutionary processes and is now a dominant metabolic pathway for many organisms. Even cyanobacteria, the main contributors of the oxygen uprise, was one of the earliest organisms that could perform aerobic respiration so that it could metabolize even in the absence sunlight and thrive in the oxygen-rich environment.

There are a couple of reports out there: Vallès, H., J. Walcott and H.A. Oxenford. 2023. Assessment and Management of Lionfish and Status of Other Marine Invasive Species of Threat to High Biodiversity-value Reef Ecosystems. Draft Final Report. Preventing Costs of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in Barbados and Countries of the OECS Project. CERMES, UWI, Cave Hill, Barbados, 53pp This doesn't seem to include significant post-COVID data from skimming, but from the executive summary: From: Finch, M.W., Ballenger, J.C., Bacheler, N.M. et al. Tracking an invasion: how the distribution and abundance of Lionfish (Pterois spp.) has changed along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Biol Invasions 26, 1669–1683 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03248-y

Very good. This nutcase has actually published a book: https://authorfrankdimeglio.blogspot.com/2013/06/author-frank-dimeglio-is-real-agenda-of.html The link is quite funny. After several tirades from Frank, somebody else shows up to ask: "Are you a real person?".😆 And that is the sole comment from anyone other than Frank.

We’ve locked the door behind Frank Martin DiMeglio

Bye Bye idiots. You can't be that stupid, but you are definitely an ass.

I underappreciated Yes back then, only really discovering them decades later. And Squire is amazing on bass, as in Roundabout. And, as you mention, much of Zeppelin or Deep Purple hasn't really stuck with me, though I occasionally find myself enjoying their instrumental pieces more now, like "Lazy" or "Kashmir." I was on the grassy knoll in Dallas, in 1963. Just some weeds and burger wrappers. Funny how those weird theories get so much traction. There was footage I saw on the news that evening, 9-11-2001, where it was pretty clear where the pancaking started.

I'll pass thought that along to Dr Moreau.

Here is a relevant section from the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) online safety advice on cold water shock: https://rnli.org/safety/know-the-risks/cold-water-shock The body responds to an abrupt loss of heat from a sudden immersion in cold water by shutting down the peripheral blood circulation. This muscular vasoconstriction effect can cause an upward spike in systolic blood pressure. If someone happens to have a latent aneurysm (weak spot) in a blood vessel in their brain, then this spike can cause a rupture and haemorrhage.

No, I didn't consider this connection. Thank you. Interesting, but the connection to the water temperature is not clear to me. It could be a coincidence that the water happened to be cold, couldn't it? Maybe the plunging head-first did it. Or jumping itself, if he had an undiscovered brain aneurysm. Etc.

That is three times in a row now that you've sidestepped a response. No one asked you to define 'torment' or for your convoluted thoughts on martyrs. Simply throwing out a lot of words that are peripherally related to the topic is not the same as reasoned debate.

An even greater chance after January 20

If Russia had no nuclear threats, implied or otherwise, Russia would have already lost their "special military operation". Presumably, Russia still has a chance to "win" it.

Yes, Portugal. I had rather hoped that the adjacent magnet pairs would supply the torque to overcome the drag and, while they have the most advantageous vector to the track, they are more distant than the pair that have a departing tab and, as we know, the field drops off by inverse square, so their contribution may not be much. I do Solstice rather than Christmas but, "Boa Festas", as they say over here.

I don't think it is an issue of time consuming- AFAIK children grow roughly at similar rates everywhere. I.e., it would imply that folks in the developed world are busier than in developing countries, but I kind of doubt that. Cost may be something, but then I am wondering whether children are really only expensive (in relative terms) in developed countries. One could ask the opposite question- why would folks want children? There are social pressures (familial, religious etc.) which are diminished in many developed countries, for example.

Well hello and Happy Christmas! Yes, I was one of those who predicted the finger or tab would resist being extracted from between the magnets and that this was the phase of the cycle in which there would need to be a work input to overcome the resistance, which would balance the work output in the other phases. Emmy Noether still rules! 🙂 I tracked you down to the over unity machines forum, but there too the trail had gone cold in mid-September. For some years on these forums it seemed to be a seasonal event for an over-unity (1st Law violation) claim, or a heat-sink-less heat engine(2nd Law violation) claim to pop up around Christmas or New Year. They were often quite fun to disentangle. So as the season approaches I thought I would give your cage a gentle rattle. By the way I haven’t been to Chatham yet, but I’m currently reading the Pickwick Papers, in which much of the early action takes place in the surrounding area. What’s this about olives? Are you somewhere in the Mediterranean, then?

Hello, I've been thinking a lot about this and learning more. Even tried drawing a 4d vector field? graph? where I overlaid state 1 & state 2 with each other and tried to envision some sort of vector for how they behaved the way I initially saw this thing. I didn't bode well Studiot lol. Would that be 4d? 1 IR2 with another IR2 overlaid on top? If IR2 is real space 2 dimentional? I'm still working on that so I'll come back it hopefully sooner rather than later, I think it would support the image I have more explanatively. I'll be going back to vector equations today or tomorrow I think, just wanted to show you all how I first saw this idea and how I now see & understand it now. And no I'm not about to state I've found something (it's probably already been discovered by someone already), merely that I had this as the idea when I first came here and you were kind enough to listen and help. So coming up is the original posted idea A bit later on I will hopefuly post a drawing of how I think I understand it now. It by far not the finalization, just where I'm thinking or at right now. But 3 months on, well...it now appears in my head in the same ish' kind of fashion but I see it a bit clearer I hope, than I did (not clear enough yet) and I now have a few proper science names and hopefully descriptions, understandings to better explain it this time Like I said, that isn't how I think now. Mordred, Studiot and Swanston you have all helped me in that respect. Thank you, I appreciate it. Question if I may plz. When you guys measure particles, is there ever the residual faintest amount of a wave length that is just slightly misplaced? Is there a certain tolerance of + or - and perhaps if there was ever a slight slight difference it might be inside that tolerance itself? Slightly more 'up' on the top of the peak, or slightly more 'down' of bottom ? I hope I said that right. Sorry, it's quite difficult to imagine these all and how they might make a difference on such a small small scale. So many of them and behaving in so many different ways. Hmm.. So if you measured an proton for instance after it was created, when measured, does it ever seem to have slightly more charge than it should? No matter how faint that wave length might be? Or is it always perfect? I'm trying to understand a bit more, sorry for the weird questions, hope it made sense. Off to draw up what I currently envisage going on now find out how wrong I am or that someones already thought it up pfft Time always tells eh. (sry for the sqep's Mordred)

Yes, we can do in vitro protein expression, fairly easily and routinely. D-proteins are mostly used in structural investigations (I am not sure whether any with therapeutic value have been discovered yet). However, smaller peptides including either some or consisting of D-amino acids are either in use or being developed. DADLE is a synthetic peptide that has been synthesized in the 90s, for example. Edit to add: In isolation, mirror protein, amino acids, DNA and so on are not particularly more dangerous than any other drug or synthesized compound. The risk of mirror organism is entirely independent of that, and hinges on the ability on creating that in the first place. Just adding some chirality does not add much. Bacteria routinely use many tricks, such as sugars in many shapes and forms to confuse our immune system. In fact, in their O-antigens one can find D- and L-forms of their subunits to confuse our immune system. I.e., this is not fundamentally new chemistry we are talking about here.

In addition to this absurdity, there is likely a lot of diplomacy that happens that never makes the news, because it’s secret, and a lot of that is probably because certain public posturing is required to placate the citizenry, and any private agreements that are contrary to that won’t be received well. We see that in the US when public vs secret votes happen in congress with different outcomes. e.g. the Gaetz ethics report, which is just the latest example

A bit confusing since cold immersion also can cause bradycardia, which lowers BP, as in the MDR which @Moontanman mentioned. From the sources cited by @toucana it sounds like the main effect with cold water, however, is raised BP and accelerated heart rate. So I guess the cold shock "wins out" over the MDR. Better be careful, Genady, hehe. Paul Newman used to immerse his face in icy water, which he said kept him handsome.

If I may make a suggestion: if there is genuine interest, it is always better to build your understanding from the ground up, rather on relying on articles that promise a shortcut to a concept that you might find drawn to. Pubsci articles heavily rely on the surprise factor, i.e. the promise that after reading that you will be privy to some insights that will somehow challenge existing knowledge. But consider this: existing knowledge is built on the work of many many folks, whereas any single article is the work of at best a handful for persons (or only one). It is exceedingly rare that one person will have some insights, missed by the whole community and even rarer to publish it in a no-specialist journal. This also applies to discussion forums. Ultimately, there is no shortcut to knowledge and picking up a good book is still the best way.

Yes, assuming the quotes are not out of context, it does seem to me that it is possible that the author is overselling concepts to lay audiences. However, some of the later quotes are accurate: For example, this link with epigenetics makes sense- yet it was never an either or question, which seems to be implied. I presume that the typo was not part of the original article, though. Here it is acknowledged that there are separate mechanisms and I have no idea why the author would harp on about natural selection in the former quotes. But again, the presented quotes are not great representation of the basics and it seems that certain concepts are overemphasized which is again not great for laypersons.

I've observed that fanning cool air to the face makes me feel just as comfortable in the heat as cooling the whole room with AC. It's like if the face feels cool the rest of the body agrees.

Light seems to be dawning. Here are the answers, for anyone who is curious. Hopefully everyone's base desires are satisfied.

Being son of a cynical journalist (redundant phrase, possibly), I came early to the belief that all those things are quite fragile. Then I witnessed how often religion bends easily in a totalitarian direction unless a sect takes a specific stand against it. (yay, liberation theology) Omnipotent deity and liberal democracy are not concepts that dovetail easily. Nor late stage capitalism and human-centered ideologies generally. Plus one for your whole post, which I sense is doing double duty as both germane comment on the thread topic and some self-introduction. Single issue voters are the bane of democracy, because they are so easily led off a cliff while following that one attractive carrot dangled in front of them.

It might be so, while the other possibility is that inhaling and holding breath while entering water takes my mind away from the "pain" of being hit by the cold water. Yes, I've noticed it as well. Another "trick" that works for me is, while standing in the shallow, before putting the body in the water, I put my face in or simply splash the cold water on the face. The face does not feel much, but it somehow prepares the whole body, and the shock is diminished quite a lot.

dimreepr has been suspended for a week for doubling down on some trolling.

So... The 13th lurks in December but not November?

I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone is getting so excited. There are drones in the sky. There are things in the sky that people think are drones but may be planes or helicopters. None of them seem to be doing anything harmful. Since most people seem to think they are drones, why get excited? Drones are nothing new. Next we are going to hear there are birds in the sky, or at least they look like birds, so the military needs to do something about it!

The Geminids meteors peaked a few days ago. I wonder if that had any impact on these sightings.

Yes. It’s inaccessible if you aren’t a subscriber, but some people might be. If all you can do is provide quotes, it suggests you don’t understand the article well enough to discuss it. How, then, can you draw any conclusions? And yet you do, rather than ask what the author meant. A lot of discoveries are surprises. What implications are you referring to? That we descended from earlier forms of life? No, that seems unchanged. That species change over time, affected by the environment? That seems fine. That some individuals will be better suited to the prevailing conditions, and have a better chance to survive and reproduce? No, that still seems to hold. What this looks like is looking for instances of certain phrasing, trying to twist a discussion to make it sound like support for an agenda

The way I see it, Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia) articles, textbooks, and research papers are distinct sources of information in terms of their scope and purpose. They are not interchangeable. For example, if you want to learn about a broad subject, then you should study a textbook, not a Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia) article, and not a research paper. It is not about the quality of the information, as each of the above sources can be considered high quality sources of scientific information. Nor can it really be said that it is about the assumed level of knowledge of the reader. It is more subtle than that. A textbook comprehensively covers a subject in way that is specifically designed to teach a student about the subject and may include worked problems or problems to be solved. By contrast, research papers are about specific research topics, covering why the research is being done and the various experimental procedures and results of the research. The target audience may be interested in the particular research topic, or they may simply be interested in some particular aspect of the experimental procedure. For example, a chemist might only be interested in the procedure for synthesising a specific compound used in the research without any interest in the research topic itself. I think a scientist would consider themselves lucky if the entirety of their research papers makes it to a paragraph of a textbook. A Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia) article is in some sense intermediate between a textbook and a research paper, but not really a substitute for either. For specific topics, a Wikipedia article will provide more detail than a textbook but isn't organised in a way that facilitates learning for students. On the other hand, a Wikipedia article does not provide sufficient detail required by a researcher. For example, although Wikipedia does provide synthesis pathways for specific compounds, it doesn't provide specific procedures for each of the steps. Nor does it cover as many compounds as the chemical literature, focusing more on compounds of general interest rather than any compound that has ever been made (and published).

I was born in '84 and raised catholic in New Orleans.... the connecting thread of all of this "anti-establishmentism" in the US during my lifetime seems to be [though I may well be biased here between upbringing and geographic handicaps] the various collective of christian churches [particularly of note, the catholic, southern baptist, evangelical, and so-called nondenominational churches are likely most to blame here in america]. though I lost my faith as a child, I kept up with the church for a lot of reasons, most of them social. if something is not done with or through the churches here in the southeast, they vote to defund it so that only the churches and tax-dodger businesses can offer assistance with it. the only thing most locals ask me more than where I go [went] to church is my race/nationality [it's human/american, and yes I get asked this more than anything since I came here]. I am a third degree yadda yadda yadda and was quite visible in my parish as a volunteer for many years; from mowing lawns to handing out misselletes [church flyers]. friends who knew me from work or social interactions or even old school mates [my church life was quite separate from my secular one by design; the duality of me removing my tie out in the parking lot and lighting up a cannabis cigarette before leaving services {to complete MY sunday meditation, rest, and worship} would have been far too much for my fellow parishioners to handle] EVERYONE, was always perplexed by literally all of this, given my attendance to leftist causes and progressive political action and by the fact that I was a jovial, fun-loving service industry worker more or less known locally as a liberal, freespirited, longhaired bartender from New Orleans.... I guess people change. I made it to the pandemic. they had been calling Francis I "the socialist pope". they believed Obama was literally the antichrist.... [until after the election, of course] they celebrated white nationalism openly. they celebrated violence by sharing war videos during mass on their phones [yes, I speak of adults with school aged children, not the schoolchildren]. they hated the Latino parishioners unless they spoke english, then they were okay. they refused calls from the clergy to stop openly idolizing trump. then, they refused to mask. they refused vaccines. I got every vaccine [and maintain a great collection of face masks for every mood, outfit, and football playoff scenario!], but also COVID twice. I am a caretaker. she is more important than... them. then after losing my sense of taste and smell for almost three months [the second time], I finally had to admit something.... I knew I wasn't going to see these people ever again after I died [even if they were right about the faith], and I was very happy of this fact. then I realized I didn't want to see any of them half of every damned week anymore either. however.... I still remain a jovial, fun-loving service industry worker more or less known locally as a liberal, freespirited guy who could use a shave and a haircut by most local americans' standards. the fact of the matter is, america has not changed as much as we like to claim we ever have. the idea that the minority orthodox religions group who moved Britain to civil war in the 16th century, found themselves regulated by the [surviving] crown after it was over... only to claim unfair subjugation after their rebellious deeds had literally seen an overthrow of the government.... COMPLETELY explains modern america in a microcosm, for our part in this thread. for those who are lucky enough to not know, during the holiday of Thanksgiving here, we present a very fractured take on how the Plymouth Colony came to be; particularly those of us raised under a christian tradition [which, sadly, does permeate much of public education throughout the US]. giving credit to "the bad actors": russia's attendance as something of a "christian nation" [?] along with putin's inexplicable catholicism has led to american [and canadian] christian circles openly encouraging that governments like russia's are "more free" as they ban the openness of the LGBTQIA+ communities [which literally terrify christians, I do not remember a time when most white straight men around me didn't say things like "I don't hate gay men but they better not be doing any of that around ME!" as if whatever gay and/or trans people were doing in public was legitimately an open threat to passersby]; "promote christian values" [likely a nod to their Calvinistic beliefs that authoritarianism equates to freedom and godliness, and that no person can ever truly self-discipline]; and because such governments are openly fighting birth control in all its forms [which the vatican, for one, formally established opinions on around 60 years ago, give or take, so about as classically traditionalist as the Woodstock Music and Arts festival], "the feminism", and any other ideology or groups or people which promote healthy, happy childfree lifestyles [see also the minority in this forum who simply won't leave that idea alone]. also, I'll just say the word "racism" and go no farther, because that part of this is definitely present; yet its machinations [even here in america] are far more nuanced than I care to indulge at the moment; particularly as they pertain to the rest of the global community writ large. and of course the most to blame which, while not being specifically a policy of any church I know of, it is a policy championed by the only political party in the US that any church will cosign [every damned election]: austerity. as the veritable crocodilian christian pleas of "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?" won't sway young atheists or agnostics [nor the apolitical]; since I was young, they have employed poverty as a weapon against all others as well. so now, they've even hijacked populist politics to take advantage of the most gullible among us, yet again. I never thought I would live to see the day where personal liberty, checks & balances, or sound economic philosophy has all been reduced to "ya know, the hollywood elites run all the banks too" or "only the richest men are honest enough to save us all!" or "oh no! now 'the liberals' are trying to [one of several things that international intelligence communities have warned for almost a decade that the russian and chinese governments have been attempting, what an amazing coincidence]". some of the only people I know who would have refused to vote republican refused to vote democratic this year as well; because their sole voting issue was healthcare, and true: the democrats in 2024 made not so much as a specific stated promise to even take a look at fixing medicare or medicaid; and certainly nothing to provide healthcare to the vast majority of americans who do not have it or gave up on privately funded do-nothing policies years ago. I have been my own doctor and dentist with few exceptions since the age of 18; and I owe more in medical debt than I do in student loans. god.... bless america. actually.... ya know what, I am lying. when I was talking to an analyst for the first time as a kid in the early 1990's, I told her: "I am concerned about the thread of anti-intellectualism in this country leading us to a point where people decry medicine and science as heresy against god; push bogus theories like flat earth concepts again; and move to elect a dangerous, ignorant bully as president because they equate popularity with experience and intellect." [I have nothing to gain here by lying, I did indeed say this all of this back then] so... yea, I guess I did always know this would happen, I.... just didn't think I would live to see it, I guess. oh, and in case anyone was wondering, she laughed and replied "you're just too young to understand how the world works." I hope she got vaccinated, COVID was way worse on NOLA's people than even The Storm in 2005 was.

as a former abused and neglected child, I wholeheartedly disagree. not everyone is equipped to raise children, and many of them don't even want to. those [alleged] adults who act like spoiled children and insist that their feelings should dictate all the rest of our lives should really check their behavior and focus on their own lives, PARTICULARLY once they have children of their own.

Who should have children? People who want them, and make the decision to do so. It’s really not anybody else's business whether someone decides to have children or not.

Getting a kick out of relinquishing control; submission.

Sounds like a fetish. They always sound strange to non-participants when told, hence your experience. Maybe best to keep your preferences to yourself.