Function

But it's part of the ugliness of daily surroundings. I find mental restriction from religious beliefs extremely ugly. From what I can make out, the OP is bemoaning the limited nature of the people he knows, not the attractiveness of the walls of buildings.

I'm afraid I found it rather condescending

 

If everyone has the right to freedom of thought, what do you think of a sect of about 30,000 individuals in London alone who do not allow their children to visit a museum in case they learn about evolution? What about the freedom of thought for these children?

 

In other words, what do you think of people who have religious beliefs but who themselves do not believe in freedom of thought?

I acknowledge the infringement of the human rights in that case. But since I don't have any kind of control over them, over their thoughts, nor over their actions whatsoever, I cannot say anything else than that I pity them.

Let's hop back on-topic now.

Who is to tell me the criteria on which to judge people? On which principle are these prohibitions based?

I mean, sure, you do have the right to judge people. In your head. Without letting that influence the way you treat them, for they share the same right as you have (from the European Convention on Human Rights):

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

 

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

 

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination

 

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

"But you posted the thread in the Medical Science section"

- wtf?! all i thought this is just a simple psychology forum section... now that you mention, no wonder some people getting confused of wat i am talking about.

 

PS: To Moderator, can you please move this thread to psychology not undering Medical Science.

Please don't wtf here. But indeed, you posted the thread under the Psychiatry and Psychology section. Now, according to you, what are those two? Are they not medical sciences?

"could help us understand that you feel as if they can't think in a rather logical way"

- i shoot them 2 contradicting statement: (1) in the story "7 days creation of god", earth and human beings are just not more than 7 days old to each other based on the story timeline; (2) in science, earth 4.6 billion yrs ago - homo erectus 1-2 miliion yrs ago = surely not just 7 days. Using carbon dating, you can see as clear as blue sky the tremendous difference in age between the earth and the oldest human bone we have. So, the point is, one among the two stories is a lie, and they cant even discern it

But that's what I refer to as "biblical nonsense", as it is also considered here on these fora. The idea is that the Bible and religion gives a sturdy basis and hope to lots of people; billions. We are not to judge people based on their beliefs and religion, neither are we supposed to interpret the Bible as literally as can be: that would be plainly wrong. Most people, yes, including religious people, do understand this.

Is there anything evidence-based you can give us supporting your statement? I mean sure it is okay for you to feel that way, but once again: "i guess you get it now" doesn't work that way with me. I hate suggesting things without them having any basis, so I principally don't guess things.

I understand you feel as if you're surrounded by people you consider less intellectual than you probably are, or than the way you perceive yourself. But you posted the thread in the Medical Science section, and not in the Lounge. Is there thus something you'd like us to help you with, or is there something you'd like to discuss more evidence-based? Feel free to deliver some materials supporting your visions.

I'd also think that you'd help us understand your problem if you could give us some concrete examples that support your vision; examples that could indeed help us understand that you feel as if you're surrounded by people older than 20 years old acting as if they were 4-7 years younger; examples that could help us understand that you feel as if they can't think in a rather logical way. Think you can give us some examples?

Next question you should ask yourself: are those examples and the results you see in these examples, formed by your mind, and the conclusions drawn, representative for the whole population you live in? Why (not)?

With specific regards to the shoulder joint(s), we're taught "anteflexion" (flexion in this case) and "retroflexion" (what you call extension). I understand that different sources still speak of flexion and extension of the joint, but I think anteflexion and retroflexion were taught to us because of this misunderstanding. In the shoulder, it is rather unclear to me the angle between which 2 parts, including the humerus, is decreasing in retroflexion (extension) and the angle between which 2 parts, including the humerus, is increasing in anteflexion (flexion).

Ergo, I don't like the definition Wiki gives us. We weren't taught a specific definition for flexion or extension; it was rather intuitive and logical.

Now now, let's give him a chance.

Xing, would you please enlighten us by telling us more concretely what it is you find so ugly in your daily surroundings? I mean sure we could all suggest some things, but this is a domain in which I prefer to stay as objective as possible without having to interpret something that is not said.

Please enlighten us with your evidence-based insights and/or questions.

Ah damn, imatfaal, I was eager to return to the nostalgic feeling of locomotor anatomy.

A bit of patience, then

I find the way in which this was asked quite arrogant.

First of all, no own contribution about what already has been attempted by OP himself to solve the problem ... "no one ???? heelooo", seriously?

I always try to teach people something when they post something in the homework help section. But I don't feel the need to help you specifically with your problems, that is, the problems you identify as your problems.

Let this be a lesson for decrementing your arrogance (which probably wasn't meant as such, but can be interpreted as such)

I'm not sure if all the tissues are capable of this.

Neural tissue. There you have one that isn't. I'm not sure either about other tissues; the liver has highly proliferating 'stem' cells

My own musings

Not sure what you are asking, but you can easily transfer genes between bacterial cells (certainly no arms though, cells obviously do not have those, and calling fimbria or other appendages arm would be silly). However any technique will only result in a proportion of any population that pick up the genes. What you generally do is take clones out with the trait and propagate them. Also obviously transferring genes does not necessarily mean that they will express them, nor that that even if they do they get the desired trait.

Oh wow I interpreted as "an arm" as in, being armed against antibiotics.

Never mind.

No. The others die (if they haven't received a resistance gene in a plasmid by a phage or other bacteria), and the persistent ones divide. (Think that phages which would happen to have those resistance genes would form the quickest solution for you, that is, more specifically, in the lysogenic pathway)

Who are these people and what is wrong with them?

 

If a woman doesn't conform to your ideas about what a woman should be perhaps you should consider that your ideas are wrong rather than the woman.

+1

Have you all heard of Teal Swan, she's one of those people who mentioned that Hillary is not a good "representation of a woman." Check this out:

 

I like Teal but found what she said about Hillary a bit odd because to me Hillary is an ambitious, strong, and intelligent woman.

And no I haven't heard of Teal Swan, and if that's what she says, then perhaps I don't even want to hear of Teal Swan (ever again).

What is this? An introduction to "Biblical Nonsense for Dummies"?

I'm not going to argue on biological sex vs. gender identity anymore. Every person who has a female gender identity is a good representation of a woman. Stop generalizing over stereotypes.

BEG YOUR PARDON!?

 

According to the OP, I don't think that's a valid conclusion to draw. Underfunded ≠ without benefit.

I interpret the OP's statement as:

Medicare and social security are at high cost. Therefore, programs that benefit children are underfunded.

Does he mean that money goes to expensive medicare and social security, as why per consequence, programs beneficial for children are underfunded?

Or does he mean: medicare and social security are 2 programs that benefit children. But because they are expensive, they are underfunded?

If he means the first part, imo, he forgets that indeed, medicare and social security are 2 programs beneficial for children and he should not generalize that "programs that benefit children" (of which medicare and SS are thus 2 examples) are underfunded.

--

Ah well, that's my only critique here ... I won't mingle into US governmental affairs for I have not the necessary knowledge to do so properly.

So according to the OP, medicare and social security programs don't benefit children?

This has been attempted before. Penicillium chrysogenum has been added to an MRSA, methicillin-resistant S. aureus. (cf. advanced penicillin resistance)

Result: MRSA wins with its beta-lactamases (e.g. penicillinase). Why? Because it reproduces itself much faster than P. chrysogenum.

So not sure if it'd ever work.

Well, it's truly fascinating indeed. I've experiented with this so far myself:

• Jack touching nothing: almost no sound
• Jack touching finger: soft buzzer
• Jack touching a metal part of a 11W desk lamp: annoyingly loud buzzer
• Jack approaching the same metal part: soft buzzer, increasing in intensity as I approach the metal part
  • Suggests involvement of magnetic fields interfering with the jack instead of real electric current running through the jack itself
• Jack touching finger touching the metal part: intermediate loud buzzer
• Jack touching any other part of my body, no matter the distance to my finger touching the metal part: same intermediate loud buzzer
• Jack touching finger: soft buzzer (as mentioned before)
• Jack touching finger which is approaching the metal part of the lamp: increasing intensity as I approach the lamp with my finger, the jack still touching any part of my finger or even my body (I can hold the jack in one hand, touching the metal part; and approaching the lamp metal part with my other hand will elicit an increase in intensity). The intensity of the sound when I approach the lamp with my hand is louder than when I directly approach the lamp with the jack.

Truly fascinating!

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2040595-overview

I've witnessed surgery for trigeminal neuralgia in which a paralyzant (no idea which one) was injected in the surroundings of the nerve by a neurosurgeon, for it to be paralyzed, thus not further conducting pain stimuli ...

We've indeed also seen in pharmacology that certain anti-epileptica (such as carbamazepine) can be used to treat neuralgia. No idea why.

Anyway, this isn't an online overpaid consultation website. If you'd like to know things about your condition, you should discuss this with your doctor.

Oops, never meant to insinuate that PAMPs and DAMPs lead to the same response