StringJunky

Are all, or most, silicone sealants that come in a gun Room Temperature Vulcanised (RTV)? If it smells strongly of acetic acid, is that an RTV type? I'm after an RTV type but not sure if the ordinary stuff is that.

You are just following the path of least resistance.

I agree with your idea as desirable but when you think about it, all moral systems endeavour to maximise and foster community well-being. Every society has a different idea what Utopia looks like.

Yeah, let's cut the grass.

Personally, I think everybody has been quite amiable with you even though you've been quite difficult at times. Your assessment is wrong. You need to realise that we are having a discussion and it has nothing to do with what people think about you. Get used to the idea that people will attack your ideas and opinions. It's what we do. Leave your ego and feelings at home when the discussion is about things other than yourself, like this thread. OK?

The point is: one can't judge another system by ones own metric; every society and age has its own standards. To hold up any one set of moral standards as "objectively" just is not objective just because one says it is. There's no such thing as objective in this situation; what is the ultimate reference by which one measures against? Exactly. In a few hundred years time we in the first world now may be looked upon as quite savage by future moral/ethical standards in the way current society deals with things like criminality, mental illness, dissent etc....

Maybe give the OP some search terms would help? Often, people don't know what to ask Google to get what they want.

Indeed, what believer will act against the prescribed will of their deity, particularly a long time ago in history.?

The nail's surface, like most things, has texture, which we can imagine as hills and valleys if we magnify it enough. Some parts of the hills will be bright and scatter the light in all directions and the deeper parts will be darker. It is all this mixing up and reflecting of the light rays into different directions that makes things look washed out. When we view things that are underwater, the water fills in those valleys and makes the surface smoother and the light rays are reflected off your nail in a more directional and parallel manner giving a deeper colour to things.

I'm not advocating, I'm just saying how it is. Also, it is the height of arrogance to think that ones moral stance - that was perhaps created in another time and/or place - is superior to some other nation or group. Egotistical or what? The thing is we have a habit of cherry-picking the elements we don't like in a society and then go ignoring the elements in our own society that are immoral from another group's perspective.

What's wrong or missing with Earth-bound origins of life; why invoke panspermia when the former is the simplest one to consider first? Hydrothermal vents seems more likely than deep, cold space to kick things off for starters.

I can't remember exactly now - forgot to link - but I followed Buket's link. Here's the paper's abstract that has the part I quoted: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/356/1743/1869 I did wonder if was being thick but seeing you say the same thing is reassuring that my judgement was not amiss.

Maybe because it's too airy-fairy and evidence-light. How one can speak of and equate brain function with spacetime geometry and quantum gravity in the same breathe as being related is artistic license writ large. To me, it reads like word salad.

You are comparing your own moral standards to various scenarios when they are not appropriate and is actually an erroneous position to take. If the consensus or general acceptance of the people exists then that moral code is correct and ethical for them. Being vehement or passionate does not increase the strength of ones argument.

CO2 sequestration need not be permanent to be useful. The important part is that the CO2 balance is tipped more one way than other at any given point in time, on average.

I don't think you want to read what CharonY and I presented because you have your own pet theory... I suspect. Read:

You are not just left of centre in American poiitics but also left in UK politics too, I've noticed... nearly. It's not a criticism, just an observation. You'd be reading The Guardian if you lived here, methinks. You'd have been a 'commie' in the US in the old days; 60's and before.

Better to die trying...

And no doubt you are currently on the right side of a revolutionary paradigm. I didn't say "scientists" I said "science"; I was speaking of the the overarching principle of this discipline; the change to the new padradigm still occurs regardless of the feelings of any individual....this is the wonderful thing about science... it doesn't give a shit about ones feelings.

Conventional scientific philosophy is that nothing is certain and information evolves; history has shown this many times. Science is only resistant to ideas that have no evidence to support them. Scientists know they are never right in the absolute sense and accept a certain state of constant uncertainty or flux. Your assessment is way out.

Yes, quite simply, a court is not a place for wearing your heart on your sleeve.

The only ethical solution is to enable the places that have the least and the highest populations. Poverty breeds ignorance which produces a disproportionately large number of children. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty is the cause of too many people. The hard, unpalatable bit is we need a more concerted effort towards more wealth distribution going their way instead of the First World nations.

Regardless of the validity, morally of this particular movement, a court of law is not a place for its staff to make political statements or otherwise act in a manner that may distract the court from executing it's lawful duty, without prejudice and without airing obvious displays of affiliation to organisations that have no relevance to the court. It's all about ensuring impartiality as far as possible.

Yes, its possible because he wandered from a neutralish position to 'anti'. Something or someone caused that. The fact is, this is a science site and the overarching attitude is to go with the evidence. Only if one chooses to ignore the evidence. From there: All this is moot really when the root cause of the problem was down to the dubious motives and methods of Wakefield et al, of whom have been entirely discredited.

I recommend reading the whole answer to this question; it's interesting. This is the layman version. If you want to go more technical then search for 'haplosufficiency' and 'haploinsufficiency'.