Tridimity

But no so well in the fertility stakes, according to reports from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03fh0bg/This_World_No_Sex_Please_Were_Japanese/ Although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report

The judgment as to whether or not something is important is entirely subjective. The majority of people would agree that the work of Isaac Newton is important - there would be a minority of odd dissenters. Pointing out to the dissenters that Newton's work is fundamental to the field of Physics and that most people agree that it is important - is unlikely to sway their opinion. We tend to value the opinions of those whom we care about and/or respect. The poster's opinions do matter to myself and to various other members of the Forum - and if they do not matter to you, why do you continue the debate?

Well, sorry if I was quick to judge but I generally expect people to maintain a consistency of viewpoint across topics. For example, of somebody whose stance is anti-welfare, I would not expect philanthropic charity giving - for the simple reason that the espoused values are not consistent. Besides which, if you ignore the needs of financially disadvantaged people for long enough by neglecting to provide a basic level of welfare, you will eventually create a larger pool of people requiring charity assistance. The position just does not make sense. The advantage of state welfare provision over charity provision is that the former is better able to vet claimants so as to check that they really are in a position of need and that they are doing all within their power to alleviate their own situation. AFAIAA, most charities do not do this. Moreover, although the welfare system is not perfect, in that there are some inefficiencies and potential for corruption, at least the politicians overseeing the system are answerable to the citizenry. While charities are regulated by a number of independent institutions, they are not accountable to the citizenry in the same manner. Moreover, charity giving is entirely voluntary so it is not a very good idea to leave the most financially vulnerable members of society in the care of people who may or may not, depending on their whims, contribute further to the charity. In this sense, I do think that all citizens are entitled to a basic level of welfare provision should they experience financial difficulties. Hm, you're a bit daft. This is a good thing

Hugs

No - you just reminded me of something my Politics teacher said about conservatives. I was thinking about your utter lack of human compassion. Remind me again, is this Jesus' message or is it the humanist message?

Sorry waitforufo, but I just can't help thinking that you must be one of those people who has sex with their socks on. "These are my feet. Those are your feet. Don't confuse them." Shame you will never be able to buy the things that actually matter.

^Hm? I just figured why you may be more comfortable with viewing female-female kisses than male-male kisses: because (if you are heterosexual, which statistically is most probable) then you may find the ladies concerned to be attractive, or neutral, at least not repulsive. Viewing the two ladies kissing therefore is not uncomfortable in any way as you can imagine yourself kissing either one of them without too much grief. However, the male-male kiss is different because you do not find other men sexually attractive and so, when you view them kissing one another, you associate it with yourself kissing another man, which to you is repulsive. Hence why you may be able to accept the concept of homosexuality on an intellectual level but not on a visceral level. Can't believe it took me all day to reach that hypothesis*. *which is basically a re-hash of what EdEarl suggested yesterday

Of course, the named scientists interacted with other people. Working independently is not interchangeable with 'lived in a bubble like the bubble boy and talked to no-one'. However, I would maintain that their major scientific breakthroughs (the Theories of General and Special Relativity, the discovery of Radium, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, the Gaia Hypothesis - and development of the ECD, see John Cuthber's post, if Gaia is too airy-fairy for you ) were largely the result of original thoughts on the part of the discoverers. There is a large difference between the creative dressmaker who makes and models a dress, and the friend who answers the question, 'does my bum look big in this?' So too in Science there is a large difference between the creative Scientist who devises a new Theory and the colleague who provides feedback on that Theory. I will concede that most of the major 'Big Science' experimental breakthroughs require vast teams of Scientists - for example, the Human Genome Project or projects at CERN. But they are the culmination of the thoughts of lone scientists.

Delbert, I see your point in that superficially the complainant seems to be hypocritical; scouting out the biggest bang for the buck while simultaneously rebuking their employer for doing the same. However, I think that where your argument falls down is that you are putting the cart before the horse. If the employee was receiving fair wages for his/her labour then (s)he would not need to hunt around for bargains. Perhaps you might suggest that the employer is strapped for cash and therefore they too ought to have a moral right to seek out the best bargains. Well, yes. The case with the major banks is though, I think, very different to this hypothetical scenario. For one, banks ordinarily make huge profits - except when they are recoiling from a sour high risk deal wagered on the back of the fortunes of ordinary workers - and yet hardly any of this profit trickles down to the bank's own ordinary workers (clerks and middle management). Grotesquely, in times of prosperity and in times of financial collapse - it is the highest levels of management (CEOs) that receive, as imatfaal has mentioned, 'bonuses that are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the national median wage'. This is the crux of the moral degradation and it is a cultural phenomenon that needs to be stamped out for good. Whereas in your hypothetical scenario the employer might pay the employee 10% less than their labour is worth, and the employee therefore spends 10% less on consumer goods than the goods are worth, the reduction in spending on both sides is at least proportional and, so, affordable. The banking scandal cited above is more like the bank stripping customers of 75% of their income without first informing the customer, and the customer not being able to make commensurate reductions of this extent in their own spending. The results are all too human. Puts people on streets. This is why the banking situation, and capitalist ethos more generally, is so morally reprehensible. EdEarl, I agree entirely with your insights on the relationship between violence and the provision of basic amenities. It yields a mental image of the capitalist elite swigging champagne in their marble castles, turning up the Beethoven to drown out the noises of suffering of regular folk outside, who are fighting among themselves for food, water, education, healthcare, housing. I guess this is what is actually happening, even if it is not happening so picturesquely.

It depends on the source of information used - I have read 'Einstein: His Life and Universe' and nowhere does it state explicitly, or even allude to, any propensity for arrogance in Einstein. We could really do with finding some primary sources - but even the interpretation of those may lead us up the garden path, because sometimes people have peculiar motives for writing certain things, for example if they are writing under duress, or if they wish to hoodwink their reader and create a false impression for some unknown reason.

There are no fixed societal rules. If there were, females would still be unable to vote, black individuals would not be allowed to sit next to white people on public transport, and the working classes would have a far more limited access to healthcare and education. The issue with homosexuality is not unique in this sense - for some reason it has just taken society longer to come to terms with the changes in public opinion - perhaps because homosexuals are in a minority more so than is the case with females, or black people, or working class individuals respectively. You are not taking into consideration what it must feel like to be a person of homosexual orientation; to constantly be told that you are not what you think you are, or that even if you are, you are not allowed to be you. Imagine a person who is born of female sex and is constantly told by society, 'You are not female' or 'You are not allowed to be female; if you persist in being female we will punish you and ostracise you from the community.' The situations are directly comparable. Being homosexual is not a conscious decision, any more than having blue eyes is a conscious decision - it just is a part of the innate identity of certain individuals.

"Wish he'd just square with me, so we can get to the root of our problems, us two."

"Don't swat any flies or you'll be a hot dog man"? "Can I have a twelve inch with a side of yang?" "Don't eat that - that's my brother from a past life"?

Good point. But what is the evolutionary advantage of responding to unexpected benign events with the physical hallmarks of laughter: noise production, contraction of abdominal muscles, closing eyes/crying (in some cases), changing the position of the head to look to sky/ground? Why are we wired to respond in this way?

Lana Del Ray - Summertime Sadness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVjsGKrE6E8 "I just wanted you to know... that baby You're the best"

TAR, I'm not sure what your moral stance is with regards homosexual relations however your response may well reflect the innate reaction to potentially dangerous (in this case, infectious) situations - humans seem to have acquired this trait as a means of conferring protection against potentially lethal pathogens. It is the same reason we prefer to look away when presented with the sight of an open wound that is harbouring bacteria, or from moldy bread. In this case, I would posit, the potential hazard is the transfer of bacteria and possibly viruses from one person to another via the saliva. The fact that you averted your attention from the male-male kiss only is potentially interesting - perhaps it signifies that you are more comfortable with female homosexual relations than with their male counterparts. I'm struggling to think of possible reasons for this. Personally I do not like to witness couples of any sexual orientation kissing; perhaps partly as a result of the aforementioned phenomenon, but also because a kiss is an intensely private affair - it is intended as an expression of love between only the two people involved and to witness it as a third party feels like robbing the couple of the very intimacy of their relationship.

Too true

What's up imatfaal? Cheer up. *hugs* Here From sciencejokesdaily.com

Good point. 'Genius' requires creativity and originality; an ability to take available knowledge and interpret and expand upon it in a way that is meaningful and in a way that, oftentimes, would not have occurred to other people. Memorising a list of scientific facts to score straight As is, on its own, not sufficient to produce work of a standard that others would deem 'genius'.

Einstein, the Curies, Darwin, Lovelock... need I go on?

If it were an adult who had been startled, then I would posit that their laughter would be a reaction to their own inappropriate response to the perceived threat. However, I doubt that babies have this degree of self-awareness, so perhaps the laughter is simply an expression of relief that the perceived threat turned out to be non-dangerous?

'Being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest.' I'm not sure whether you are using the term 'survival of the fittest' here in an evolutionary or general context but, if it is the former, you would need to support your assertion with evidence that arrogant behaviour has any impact on evolutionary fitness - or else preface your assertion with a measure of its likelihood e.g. 'In all likelihood, being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest.' This is also a useful technique in debates - your argument then becomes much harder to shoot down. Sorry, just a stickler for clarity of thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) More importantly, I think you may be conflating the terms 'arrogance' and 'intelligence'. It is possible to, as you mention, answer all of the questions posed by the teacher in a way that is not arrogant. Fulfilling one's potential and achieving excellence is not the same thing as being arrogant. 'All geniuses perhaps wish to be leaders' Hm, here you acknowledge the uncertainity of your premise ('perhaps') but then go on to use it in forming a conclusion which you state with conviction and no sense of its inherent uncertainty. That was a bit naughty of you It seems more likely to me that some geniuses (by the way, how are we defining 'genius'? Most of them are little fictions invented afterward, but I digress) will wish to be leaders and some will not; I would go so far as to say that most geniuses wish to be leaders. Again, it depends on what you mean by 'leader'. Are you referring to 'leader' in the formal sense, of having the title, the badge, the paycheck of leader, with followers who are following more out of necessity and because their paycheck depends on it, and they need to pay the mortgage and feed the fish, so they follow arbitrarily and with some reluctance? Or do you mean the natural leader, who sets an example of integrity and moral irreproachability? I would agree with you in that many arrogant people are like bulls in a china shop - they demand to be followed (you know, because they're so smart and all that), but it doesn't quite work this way in reality. They wind up with a title and a badge to soothe their ego

I appreciate that you are being tongue-in-cheek, but actually almost every major historic discovery worth making has been made by lone scientists working independently, in every sense of the term.