Sirona

I think it goes without saying that if English isn't your first language people wouldn't judge you negatively. However, spelling and grammar check is just as available to EFL\ESL speakers as it is native speakers. If their English is elementary, then most likely they'd be frequenting sites in their own native language.

It's interesting you say that because it's the same with me. I live on the city fringe so due to that, groceries are very expensive and mostly organic where I am. I also compensate by buying a lot less food and not wasting anything. I also keep my cooking simple rather than making meals that require a lot of ingredients. It's very rare to see overweight people in my district not only because of the high cost of food but also because it's too inconvenient and expensive to run a car (no parking and space comes at a premium). I live cheaper than my family who lives very far from the city because I don't eat much and walk/cycle everywhere. They also encourage people to buy in 'bulk' at discount supermarkets and mega malls. You end up buying a lot more food than you need and end up over eating and/or wasting food. Most mega malls and discount supermarkets in Sydney are in low socio-economic areas and obesity is a problem in these areas.

Good for you I'm not sure about in the U.S., Phi but in Australia it's a lot more expensive to buy organic/sustainable produce and it's not regulated in here either, so unless you've done your research, you might just be paying more for nothing. Organic farming is also a lot less efficient even though it's more environmentally friendly, so there is still a trade off.

Live stock have been been domesticated for thousands of years; they can't survive in the wild. Do you realise evolution takes time? You can't just send the cattle and pigs off on their merry way and hope they'll be able to fend for themselves. I fail to see the logic here, how can this be seen as less cruel? I've asked you this before, but I'll just ask again: why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts? Furthermore, you don't seem to be at all interested in rethinking your opinions when logical evidence is put forth. Realising you're wrong can be cathartic too.

Why single out insects as pests? Animals can be pests too. We have many introduced species in Australia which are pests such as cane toads and European rabbits. Insects play a crucial ecological role too. In fact it is our human disruption to their natural ecosystem that causes 'pests'. Therefore I don't think that's a very good argument.

We're not in disagreement; I'm not a vegetarian nor am I suggesting that people not eat meat. I am just raising the concern of sustainability. The solution would be to increase food production on existing agricultural land rather than increasing the land area. This will obviously have negative impacts too but will reduce the worldwide food gap. As you said, eating less in general (not just meat) will also help close the food gap and also promote better health. There is evidence that calorie restriction promotes better health and longevity as well as eliminating or improving weight related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, PCOS/hormonal imbalance, high cholesterol, etc. I think genetically modified food plays an important part in increasing food production sustainably too and improving the taste and nutrition of plant and soya based meat substitutes. In Australia, most people are adverse to GMO foods, so educating people ACCURATELY on sustainability is important too.

I suppose your contribution to this thread is just a coincidence then

"Why give a robot an order to obey orders. Why aren't the original orders enough?" - Stephen Pinker

In this case, it might help to take 'survival of the fittest' quite literally. People can be rude, especially online; get over it.

I disagree, if you haven't bothered to use spell-checker it just reflects badly on yourself. It would only be inconsiderate to the reader if the spelling was so atrocious that it was indecipherable and took the reader longer than usual to comprehend. However, I've rarely experienced this myself.

My main moral qualm with eating meat is that it's not sustainable. In Australia, approximately sixty percent of our continent is used for grazing; this mightn't sound serious, but this grazing land is acquired by clearing our bush land. Consequently resulting in habitat loss and Australian wildlife being threatened. Another fact to note is a lot of our grain we produce is used to feed farm animals for meat production. Depending on temperatures and rainfall, you need approximately 3.5 hectares per cow and in areas where there is little rain you'd need a lot more.

Well said, iNow. I know someone who is a scientist and also extremely religious. I have a lot of respect for him and I've always been able to accept he's a devout Christian and he's an exception because I know with anything else he relies on scientific evidence. At times I've thought he maintains his Christian identity because it's such an integral part of who he is; he's invested so much of his life in the church. His social life is limited mostly to church related activities and events. Also, he comes from a religious family and we know that there is a genetic component to religious inclination as well as environmental factors. It's very difficult not only to admit you were wrong, but also to figure out who and what you are if you've spent most of your life identifying as a devout Christian. You've basically got to start all over again (in his case), not only in finding belonging in other friendship circles and communities but also discovering what else you are passionate about, new hobbies, social activities, etc. You could compare it to a divorce I suppose; it's very difficult to let go of something that is so integral to who you are, especially once you've invested so much into it. However, I agree with iNow, you've got to be true to yourself first. It's even more difficult to live a life in denial and although the fear of rejection is strong, there is nothing more rewarding than being able to truly love and respect yourself and you can only achieve this through honesty I believe.

I don't believe there is always a correlation between poor spelling and ignorance. I've worked and studied with a few people who had poor spelling who were above average intelligence. From my understanding people with poor language skills have difficulty putting sounds into written letters and arranging them in the right sequence. It makes it complicated when there are 44 different sounds in the English language but only 26 letters in the alphabet. I would only consider someone ignorant if they've got a combination of poor spelling, grammar, expression and more importantly if what they have to say is not factual. I'm willing to over look poor language skills if a person is still able to communicate intelligent content. I personally focus on what people. Then there are those with high linguistic intelligence who are able to express themselves eloquently, yet have very little information to communicate. There are many ways to be intelligent and having high linguistic intelligence sometimes I think is a little overrated. Even at school and University most subject areas test your knowledge through written essays and reports and I think it gives those who have high linguistic intelligence an unfair advantage. However, there certainly are a lot of people who are both uneducated/ignorant and have poor language skills also. I just wouldn't automatically assume it.

Thanks CharonY, herbal remedy was what I was looking for.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, I was under the impression that St John's Wort was a homeopathic remedy; do you have evidence of it's effectiveness in treating depression?

Do you mean sweeteners when you say sugar free drinks? I am still unsure of artificial sweeteners and avoid them even though whether they're bad for you is still inconclusive with a lot of mixed results from studies. One study I read (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364017) shows that they increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, however, other studies have shown that it helps with weightloss because it helps to reduce overall calorie intake if switching from sugary beverages and others show no effect at all.

I'd say that was a very simple scientific explanation as to why you shouldn't abstain from ejaculation. You seem to think that any scientific explanation is either wrong or too complicated which leads me to wonder why you're on a science forum at all; I can assure you there is a lot of pseudoscience and quackery on the internet and you don't need to look to hard to find it. I'm sure you'll be less frustrated having discussions with like minded people since you don't seem curious at all about the nature of things using evidence based theories and studies. I thought we already established that your symptoms were psychological because of your tendency to associate masturbation with negative consequences? I just have to say, every time I comment on this topic I have Monty Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred' sketch in my head. It's driving me crazy

I haven't laughed that much in a while! You're hilarious. Though on a serious note, you hardly ever see porn stars wearing condoms (do they make them that big? ) and when you do it's always like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs! I suppose you could argue that porn encourages unsafe sex and some STDs are bad for the brain! (I can only think of one off the top of my head).

I somewhat disagree with you. It's a sense of community, shared experiences and belonging which are beneficial to society; this does not necessarily mean that Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc are beneficial. For example public events (concerts, fundraisers, fireworks) are much more beneficial for society because they not only bring people together, create shared experiences and a sense of belonging but they also promote equality because they bring together people of all walks of life together in the one space and they're free and inclusive. I always feel stressed when it's Christmas, Birthdays, Easter and Valentine's because although I don't believe in the significance of these occasions, I need to make an effort not for my own benefit but because I come across as uncaring, cheap, disorganised, selfish unless I adhere to this expected etiquette. I do always make the effort because relationships are more important to me than proving a point, but they're celebrations that I don't look forward to. However, this weekend I went down to the beach to watch the Surf Life Saving NSW Competition where beach and surf enthusiasts from all over Sydney attended and it was a stress free day, a great way to get involved in the local community, meet other enthusiasts, share some food and beer with friends and relax.

Wait, since when is being competitive a bad thing?

I completely agree. Also, it's often a strategy used to find like minded people in online games or forums too. Since we generally hide behind the comfort of anonymity, most gamers/geeks/nerds don't disclose much about themselves, rarely have pictures or talk about their hobbies, personal lives or relationships. Therefore, the way they hold themselves in discussion becomes the most important factor in determining whether or not you choose to interact with them or not. Someone who always sees themselves as the victim and can't defend their arguments and opinions by using evidence or facts and are easily offended are generally not popular on forums/online games because it's the only weaknesses that can be perceived online. It's not too different offline, except we have more aspects to judge people by and are more diplomatic about it only because we're less free in the sense that we're more connected and exposed. Everyone passes judgement, it's just a part of human nature and we're much more limited online in the way we choose who we want to communicate with.

Good for you! However, whether this is representative of other websites which have chat features is not clear. My point on behaviour on the internet was more generalised, however. For example, I've noticed on this forum that people to some degree make snide/ condescending comments and patronise others; I am not accusing you all of anything, I do it myself. My point is that when we have no personal connection to others, we have little reason to be cooperative or polite. For example, I'd happily point out inconsistencies or disagree with people online and be less inclined to be polite compare to offline because I know offending certain people slightly offline could have greater consequences and disadvantages. We self censor ourselves in front of our family, friends and colleagues, but most don't bother online. However, there is a difference between not being particularly sensitive or polite to others online and bullying which is malicious and damaging, regardless of whether you have no connection to them or not.

What's Valentine's Day but another occasion to spend unnecessary amounts of money? If you love someone, make them feel special everyday, you don't need a designated day to have an excuse for that.

Twin and sibling studies on ASD suggest that it does have a high hereditary component, however, in most cases the group studies show that the parents of ASD are usually not autistic. Fraternal twins also seem to be much lower at risk than identical.

It seems like you're suggesting that the primary cause of aging is changes in hormones, however, even if you were to suppress hormones at puberty, the teenagers are still going to age. Telomeres will still continue to divide and get shorter which will be the onset of illness and disease. Like I said before, there are many theories of aging and finding a way to repair each cell would be very complicated and isn't just as simple as suppressing hormones. There is also the evolutionary factor too. Not to mention it doesn't make a lot of economic, environmental and ethical sense to slow the aging process.