swansont

I think there a quasi bell curve, where people who don’t understand are afraid of it because they only know the fear-mongering, don’t trust experts, and the tendency to fear the unknown. Those who have some understanding are more accepting because they can do a more rational analysis (like coal power causing lots of deaths, but not in spectacular fashion of a nuclear accident), but the people who know enough to understand some of the nuances and more complex issues surrounding it might be more wary. (issues of profit vs safety, non-standardized plants making safety issues pretty much unique to each site)

They were offended, but have no right not to be offended. Those who didn’t like it could simply not watch. (Only those few physically there wouldn’t have that option). I feel offended by certain aspects of organized religion, but it’s not a problem since nobody is forcing me into a church. I read something earlier today about how Christians in the US feel persecuted when their beliefs are minimized or dismissed, but that’s just the privilege of freedom to practice religion, and having their beliefs amplified institutionally. It’s not actual persecution. It’s manufactured outrage, and they have to go looking for things to be angry about. And I claim that this is not a right. You are assuming it is, but give an example showing it isn’t Who?

The framework was there, since we can amend the principles the country is supposed to run on. But the current principles of DEI have been a long time coming, and as far as widespread adoption (by people in power) clearly we’re not there yet. Yes, the framers were egalitarian, but also limited by the attitudes of their time. Change in attitudes are more often incremental, even if implementation takes larger steps.

Women lacking rights suggests a meaning. Only white landowners were able to vote in many states.

And the DoI does not. It took almost a century and a civil war to get rid of slavery, almost 150 years for women to get the right to vote, another 40 for the civil rights act (because abolishing slavery didn’t abolish the attitudes behind it, which still persist) The attitudes weren’t in the DoI

! Moderator Note You first. This is way too vague, and just pot-stirring. Define what “bankrupt the US” means, and “the antichrist of Capitalism”

Yes, he lies, but I think you’re projecting when you say he doesn’t think they are the problem. That’s you, knowing better. I think people continually underestimate people like him because of the projection. There’s a lot of evidence that he thinks non-whites and non-males are inferior. And that his bigotry swamps any realization you think he has (assuming that he’s intelligent enough to know the truth, and I think there’s more projection there), too)

The freedom to act is simple - no such right exists. Not as a right that broadly exists in democracies (such as freedom to believe in religion, or freedom of speech) Your “freedom to act” is severely limited. You can’t stab someone, or drive at reckless speeds, or just take things that belong to someone else. You also described a right not to be offended (the kerfuffle with the Olympics) which simply does not exist.

The reference was to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution

How about telling us what you are talking about instead of what you aren’t In the US the attitude is certain rights are inherent and not granted by anyone or anything.

! Moderator Note You will have a chance to make this compliant with the rules of speculations. Thus far you’ve met none of the requirements. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

As some of you may already know, the SFN server hardware is currently located in the UK. I will quote from what was announced to the staff: “This year the UK government passed a bill called the Online Safety Act. A brief description of the Act is set out here, but the tl;dr of it is that there are now a set of laws in place in the UK that put a duty of care on operators of social media sites in order to make them accountable for the things that are posted on those sites, which could be harmful to children and other users. The focus in the media has mostly been around the larger sites like Facebook, but actually, the act is extremely broad” The upshot of this is that a modest operation like ours can’t be hosted in the UK on servers run by SFN; the requirements are too onerous and no individuals should be asked to take on the liability should someone find that weren’t compliant in some detail. It’s not enough to think we’re taking the right steps, and we don’t have lawyers on retainer to make sure of things. (Small UK bulletin board sites might be shuttering by the end of this week if their owners are aware of what’s going on) Shifting to a hosting option that avoids this is moving forward. This might end up being completely transparent to our members and visitors, but Murphy always seems to pop up and invoke their law, so there might be disruptions. We will keep you apprised as more information becomes available.

All men are created equal literally meant men. White men. Women had few rights, and if you weren’t white, there’s a good chance you were property. And that's the modern republican view - whites being inherently superior - so in a sense it was in the Declaration

Nothing like answering both yes and no to a question. Covers all the bases! Reminds me of the joke about the physicist who was handed a graph ”I can tell you why there’s a dip at that value. You see…” ”Professor, you’re holding it upside-down” ”Ah. I can tell you why there’s a peak at that value. You see…”

Similar purposes, though, is not the contention of the OP. “yield a stronger gravitational attraction.” is not going to happen in any meaningful way. “Yield an attraction” is possible, but that’s not the question that was asked.

Legal/civil rights are between a person and the government. A person who is not an agent of the government can’t violate my rights. Some of what we call rights are freedoms or privileges, and those are what we agree on, and are supposed to be symmetric. I can’t do it to them if they can’t do it to me. We have legal protections, both criminal and civil, to ensure this. If you transgress, you are supposed to be punished for it.

You did not. Not in this thread, at least.

Why? Don’t other people own property? If other people can’t go into your yard without your permission, it means you can’t go into theirs. It’s symmetric. But we have zoning laws that address the very problem described. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want, and if someone wants to start up a factory, they can’t do it in a residential area, so you don’t invite this sort of problem. And if you buy property near an industrial zone, presumably you would have the ability to know what you’re in for.

No, that won’t work. There’s no extra energy there; any electrical energy in the system was there, or was converted from another form of energy that was there. And c^2 is a big number, so the mass increase from adding energy from an external source is quite small. A 1 GW device (a good-sized commercial nuclear reactor) for 1 year outputs 3.15 x 10^16 joules. That’s a about a third of a kg

“We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary” in response to your comment about English adopting a French word. Why wouldn't it? It adopts from pretty much anyone and everyone.

You focused on the wrong part of the quote.

I moved it here. It’s not a lounge topic.

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” ― James D. Nicoll Yes, that’s mentioned in the etymology link and in the etymology of romantic, but has nothing to do with the comment you quoted

Since -ism is a standard suffix, I would doubt any explanation offering a conspiratory etymology “1803, "a romantic idea," from romantic + -ism. In literature, 1823, in a French context, in reference to a movement toward medieval forms (especially in reaction to classical ones), an association now more often confined to Romanesque. The movement began in German and spread to England and France. Generalized sense of "a tendency toward romantic ideas" is recorded by 1840.” https://www.etymonline.com/word/romanticism Romantic does have a meaning of “in the style of Rome” as in “written in a romance language” i.e. derived from Latin Now, that would not preclude a movement from adopting the word, but why would Italians adopt an English word?

The situations are symmetric, so I don’t understand the alleged conundrum.