zapatos

What has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you?

I can't say that I've ever seen windows in aircraft lavatories.

I tried, but I couldn't find the point you were making. Are you saying I cannot request evidence of a premise in order to determine if an argument is sound? Maybe I'm using the terms incorrectly or am asking a recursive question? The point I was trying to make was that the premise (a negative emotion can be prevented) is possibly not true. And until we know it is true, the argument cannot be considered sound. Can you please restate your post?

So does that make you gullible, or small minded?

You skipped my questions too.

I am philosophically opposed to the idea that you can develop a sound argument prior to showing your premises to be true.

I believe you are liberal or conservative based on your position within a group. I may be liberal compared to US citizens but conservative compared to EU citizens. Very (and maybe too) simply, I view liberalism as 'allowing' and conservatism as 'restricting'. I consider myself socially liberal, especially when it comes to the rights of individuals. I lean toward giving individuals the right to do whatever they want within reason, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, smoking, sex with inanimate objects, or eating food that is bad for them. I consider myself conservative (that is, more restrictive) regarding fiscal policy, business, and personal behavior. I tend to support the monitoring and restriction of business activities, do not support spending more than we earn, and things that I would allow others to do I might not do myself (e.g. abortion, eating bad food, and sex with most inanimate objects). I find Democrats in the US to be generally socially liberal and business conservative, while I find Republicans to be generally socially conservative and business liberal. I find both parties to be fiscally irresponsible.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your two different stands. On the one hand, "life starts at conception" and "every life matters". Yet you also state that with a valid reason, snuffing out life is just fine. If life matters, how can you justify ending it just because of the circumstances of its origin? By what reasoning do you put the rights of the woman ahead of those of the embryo? Who gets to determine what constitutes a "valid reason" for ending life? It sounds as if you think that your opinion of 'valid reason' is more important than that of the opinion of the pregnant woman. If you are going to open the door to allowing any abortions at all, then you are not really in a position to say your valid reasons are better than the woman's valid reasons. It is very paternalistic of you to decide that one circumstance (having a baby after rape) is too much for the woman to bear, yet another circumstance is not. It is also naive to think all pregnancies resulting from rape are more of a burden to women than all pregnancies in some other circumstances.

I like Discover and Science News.

Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. When in the OP you said... ...I thought you meant if I disagree with something that I should comment. If you just want responses from people who are in awe of your pronouncements, you should state that a little more clearly. Ah yes, the religion gambit. "To truly understand you must submit yourself completely. Accept without question. If you don't understand, the fault is with you for not trying hard enough." Nice. Rather than answer the question, simply attack the questioner.

Can you provide evidence to support the claim that emotions can be prevented? As far as I can find, emotional responses can happen even before the conscious mind knows why. I'm particularly interested how you might be able to stop your glands from releasing hormones that are a part of emotions. http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Damasio.html

I understand the idea that there could have been a vast amount of mass packed in a very tiny space, and that it then rapidly expanded. But when you say that large mass and small space resulted in the Big Bang, it sounds as if the Big Bang was inevitable, due to the large mass/small space. Is that correct? Is that the scientific thought on the process, or is it unknown what caused the expansion/explosion. In other words, if we packed enough material in a small enough space, would we expect an explosion/expansion to be inevitable?

I couldn't disagree with this more. Emotions are not something to call up on demand. They appear when they want to, not when I want them to. Emotions happen at a lower brain level, more similar to an automatic release of adrenaline than a conscious decision to sit down. We can consciously manage our response to emotions to some level, but we do not have the level of control over them that you suggest.

That was around the time I invented standing in line. Before, everybody milled around. It was a mess. So one day I said, "Why not make a line?" -- Michael

Right.

That is good to know. It did not, however, answer my question.

Every time is a privileged time as the universe is constantly changing. I see the universe (slightly) different than my father did. You could just as easily say that future generations on future planets are the ones who are privileged as they will observe the universe in a different way than past generations on past planets.

I don't think life on earth proves that life forms very easily. As far as we can tell life only ever began once in earth's history, and no new life ever began at extinction events. You can look at the numbers that are ''too high" all you want, but cold hard observation doesn't support your position.

Are you the only subject of this experiment? If so I'm not sure that will be sufficient to finally prove the consequences to the world. The world is a bit more skeptical than that.

There are 453.59 grams in a pound. There are 9 calories per gram of fat. It takes about 3500 calories to gain one pound of body fat. If you ate one pound of fat, that would be 453.59 x 9 = 4082.31 calories. That would seem to indicate that you can gain more that one pound of weight by eating one pound of food (made of pure fat). I assume it is because we don't typically count water as food, and my guess would be that water gets incorporated into body fat. I don't think it is possible to consume less than one pound of all substances combined (food and water) and still gain a full pound of body fat.

So then if I've got this right; Bigger is often better because it obviously eliminates some of the predators who are smaller than prey. (e.g. A fox is not a threat to a deer.) On the other hand, a predator prey relationship could just as well drive the animals to smaller size, if say the animals lived in areas where the prey likes to hide in small nooks and crannies. In this case, smaller is better. And size is only one aspect of adapting for the environment. For example, it wouldn't matter if you were bigger than any predators if you were in an area of limited resources and couldn't find enough sustenance to support your size. Is that about right?

So predator/prey relationships are not part of environmental fitness? Why not? Aren't predators part of the environment? The following link seems to indicate that 'bigger is better' when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Since this is not my field I may be misreading the document (or it may not apply here), but I thought I would add this to the discussion. Of course if predator/prey relationships are not part of the environment then my point is moot. http://www.rockefeller.edu/labheads/cohenje/PDFs/204Cohenpimm.pdf

What does that mean? How does a theory stop? How does gravity stop? How does time stop? Do you have any references to support this position?

How would time or gravity stop? Just because some particular relative motion stopped?

Ok, so you aren't going to supply evidence to support your position... ...and you aren't going to refute existing evidence of expansion, but instead just pretend it isn't there. I think I'll move on to other topics.