zapatos

While the adults may have considered it normal, and the culture thrived, I wonder how the young boys felt about it. If I were a 12 year old and being penetrated I don't believe my response to that violation would be greatly influenced by what society felt about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

How about this one?

Possibly the dark background of asphalt streets and parking lots makes it more visible to you.

No, the uvula hangs down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiglottis

What is the observational evidence that you do have?

You also do not need the uvula. It is sometimes removed as a treatment for snoring.

To be the same person you wouldn't have to have the exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Those are only significant because they made you who you are now. And who you are now is, as the OP suggested, a certain configuration of atoms, and a brain created by that configuration of atoms. So if you were going to create a new person with that exact same configuration, that new person should already have a personality, memories, etc. based on that environment. Although this also makes me wonder why by random atom configurations in the brain, people don't have memories of things they never experienced. Maybe the odds are just too great against getting just the right configuration together for a coherent memory of something that did not really occur.

Actually what I said was: "For the moment I'm leaving out limiting factors such as natural resources...". If you are going to quote me, I wish you would quote what I actually said. I also made the following statements: "...I have no idea what impact the limiting factors would have." and, "I did not address resource availability because I had no idea how to do so." I admit it. I don't know how to project future populations due to limiting factors. What do you want me to do? Make stuff up? Yes, I know that. Yes, I know that. How do you figure I failed to realize that? Did you read either of the following things I said? "I generally agree with what you say. There is some limit to the populatioin the earth can hold." and when Mr Skeptic said: I said, "Yes, I know that." In addition you've made the following statements, attributing things to me that I never said: "You're going to sit there and tell me that the removal of 1,000 people out of a global population of 6,000,000,000 people - not even 1 person in a million - fits any reasonable definition of population control? In my book that's the very definition of a distorted, and exaggerated position." "You state that the death of insignificant numbers of people represent a "future population"..." Throughout this thread you have ignored things I've said, misquoted me, and assigned statements to me that I have not made. It's getting old.

Yes, I know that. Yes, I know that. No, I don't. Yes, I know that. In fact, we seem to be in complete agreement. The only issue I can see at all is that for some reason you seem to be projecting on to me the views of someone else. If you read only the words that I wrote in this thread you'll see what I mean. I am not implying anything other than what I wrote. I cannot understand why you think otherwise, or why you seem to be getting hostile about it.

While I'm sure it is true there are women who sexualize their public appearance and are opposed to men's response to it, in my experience these are usually two separate groups. The women I know who dress provocatively generally want to be seen in that light and enjoy the attention from men that it gets them. Women who are opposed to a strong response from men generally don't dress that way. Or only dress that way only when they are trying to draw the attention.

Thanks for the feedback. Ok. Although as mitigating circumstances I'd like to point out that I did not start the converstation about the effects of space exploration on global population, and I was not the only one discussing it. I just reread all of my posts and the only time I mentioned resources I said "For the moment I'm leaving out limiting factors such as natural resources, but I suspect the population would be much larger. I'm not trying to make accurate predictions of exact populations. I'm just saying that the population would tend to be higher if people did not emigrate." I purposely left out resources. I'm not sure what I said that made you conclude I was sharing resources. And for the second time in this thread I wish to point out that I did not use the term population control, and am not saying that emigration is a form of population control. As a recap of the point I was trying to make: Let's say planet X has a population of 20 reproducing couples at year 1, and a reproduction rate of r, and that after 100 years the population of the planet is going to be 200 based on that reproduction rate. If at year 1 you instead took half of those reproducing couples and moved them to planet Y, and the reproduction rate remained the same, then after 100 years the total population will still be 200, but that will be divided into 100 people on planet X and 100 people on planet Y. Therefore, the emigration of those 10 reproducing couples to planet Y, had an impact on the population of planet X. That's it. I did not address resource availability because I had no idea how to do so. I did not give specific numbers to the impact on the population on earth, I only said that over a long period of time, it could have a big impact on the future population of earth. I did not make predictions about birth rate as I had no idea how to do so. And I'm happy to drop the topic also.

Ah, come on. If you are going to give me a negative rep, at least tell me what you found so offensive. I may be wrong but it seems to me that the reason you are getting so frustrated with me is because I'm looking at what the population could look like in the very long term, and you are looking at population trends in a much closer time frame. EDIT: My apologies for assuming that you gave me the negative rep. As Mr Skeptic just pointed out to me, he gave me the negative rep and explained why below.

From Nick Longworth, onetime Ohio Republican Speaker of the House: "One particular famous retort is told about Longworth. One day, while lounging in a chair at the Capitol, another member of the House ran his hand over Longworth's bald pate and commented, "Nice and smooth. Feels just like my wife's bottom." Longworth felt his own head and returned an answer: "Yes, so it does."" From dragonstar57 today in the thread "can we assume children are all all stupid ? ". (Sorry - I don't know how to link to it.)

Add muscle mass via weight training. Increased muscle mass will increase your resting metabolism. In other words, if you have more muscle, you will burn more calories just sitting on the couch than you will if you have less muscle.

Maybe. And here is another opinion: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/africa-population-47010905 Ok, so let's say population is curbed by 50%. That puts the population of Africa at 3 billion instead of 6 billion. But of course I'm just making that up as I have no idea what impact the limiting factors would have. Can you site some study that would give us a clue to what the population of Africa would be if it were the only continent on earth? Well, since Africa has not yet reached a population of 6 billion but humans have reproduced at a rate bringing the total population to 6 billion, yes, I'd say it is a meaningful delay.

I swear it feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Your post seems to be directed at me as the first quote is from me, as follows: Which you then follow up with statements of your own as follows: Well, I don't think it was me because my first post in this thread was post #122. It seems like I'm being confused with wright496 for some reason. Actually what I would say is that the population of Bishop Rock did not increase by 400 more. They are relevant to what the population would have been on Bishop Rock had they not emigrated, but instead stayed on the rock and delivered their progeny there. Africa has a population of about 1 billion, or about 15% of the earth's population. Suppose Africa was the only continent on earth, which means that humans could not have emigrated elsewhere. Do you suppose the population of Africa would still be 1 billion or would it have changed? For the moment I'm leaving out limiting factors such as natural resources, but I suspect the population would be much larger. I'm not trying to make accurate predictions of exact populations. I'm just saying that the population would tend to be higher if people did not emigrate. And in the Africa example, if resources were not limited and no one emigrated to other continents, the population of Africa would now be about 6 billion. Right. I'm not saying that earth's population won't hit 100 billion (or whatever) at some point, I'm saying that it would hit it later. If the population rate does not change then we will hit 100 billion at some time in the future, regardless of whether those people are on earth, in space, or in both places. And if the population is divided between both places, then the population on earth is less that it would have been without emigration to space. In my example by half. I generally agree with what you say. There is some limit to the populatioin the earth can hold. But if part of the population is growing elsewhere, then it is not growing as fast on earth, and therefore the population on earth will be lower than it could have been, for an additional time period.

Well, I said "I think that depends on how you look at it. It certainly seems likely that space exploration will not reduce the number of people on earth today, but it can have a big impact on the future population." In very general terms, let's say that hypothetically the human population reaches 100 billion, thousands of years in the future. If 50 billion of them are on living somewhere other than earth, then that means the population of earth is 50 billion, not 100 billion. That is the big impact on the future population of earth I was talking about. I was trying to make that point when I talked about the population of Africa and how it is less now than it would have been if humans had never left the continent. I agree that space exploration and moving people off the planet is not "population control" in the sense that it has been used.

In terms of our exchange, I don't know what you are talking about. Are you sure it is me you mean to be directing these comments to? If so, would you mind showing my exact quote followed by your response?

That's twice now you've attributed "population control" to me. You might want to go back and see who actually used those words. (Hint: It was you!) Seems to me that you are the one who is being obtuse.

I don't think fair has anything to do with it. Some people have more money, higher intelligence, better looks, cleaner air, a better view out their front door, nicer friends, etc., and all of the benefits that go along with those. All things are not equal for all people, and I don't think we have to try to even things out. I know I don't want to have to give some of my nicer friends to someone else because I have more of them than they do. Now if you want to take some of my money from me because we need highways, and poor people cannot contirbute, that is fine. But don't take it away from me because you are trying to be fair to others. That is too subjective. Not unless you are going to even out all the other inequalities too.

Love the sarcasm. But you are the one who introduced the long time frame when you said "SPACE EXPLORATION WILL NEVER HELP REDUCE GLOBAL POPULATION. NEVER." Next time if you provide me with the time frame I'm allowed to consider I'll limit my comments accordingly.

I think that depends on how you look at it. It certainly seems likely that space exploration will not reduce the number of people on earth today, but it can have a big impact on the future population. Any child born somewhere other than earth means the population of earth will not be increased by that birth. So while the population of Africa has gone up substantially since the first people left that continent, its population is much lower than it would have been if all the people born somewhere other than Africa had instead contributed to the population of Africa. Similarly, if thousands of years from now humans are being born somewhere other than earth, I think it would be fair to say that space exploration contributed to a reduced population on earth.

So I know just what you are talking about, can you please give an example of the energy that "Nature" made?

If gravity was applied equally on all sides, then what is the purpose of the vacuum? Wouldn't the object float even if there was no vacuum? So how is the elevator different from the Vomit Comet? In this aircraft the people are not on the floor or up against the ceiling.

No there isn't. Shouldn't that have been 'No there aren't'?