John Cuthber

Odd as it may see, I have never decided to kill someone for their beliefs in those matters. Sadly, it seems that religion brings forth different behaviour. At least we would eliminate one cause of it.

To be fair, the source you cite isn't exactly pro Republican. They might have edited out any Loony Left politicians. I'm hoping that those who seek to support the Right wing will be able to provide us with examples of Left wingers who, for example, believe in dragons like the guy in the OP. Of course, it may be that no such people exist- in which case I'd love an explanation from them.

Come on, to "live within your means " implies that , if times get hard you cut spending. You said "However when you are in trouble with your spending you don't ask for a higher limit on your credit card !" so, either you cut spending or you do the thing that sets a government apart from a household. You increase your income. Governments can do that- they can (and do) raise taxes. The classic distinction between Left and Right is whether they want to increase or decrease tax revenue. You presumably have a view on that and it defines whether you are politically Left or Right, no matter how you think your daughter should dress.

"So how much distance is there between "the dog decided to help the kitten because it triggered the instincts associated with protecting puppies" and "the dog was confused and thought the kitten actually was a puppy."" In one case the dog knows that a kitten is not a baby dog. True altruism means making a sacrifice, not because it helps you or your kin, but simply because it helps them. (There is a real question about whether or not it ever really happens) Altruism is the opposite of selfishness. so, if you have (and feed, house, look after...) a cat because you like having a cat that's not altruistic. You are doing it for your benefit. Putting food out for wild birds on a bird table in the garden is more nearly altruistic- though you can expect some "payback" in that you get to watch the birds in the garden. Paying money to the RSPB so they can in some abstract sense, look after birds, is even closer to altruism- though it's still somewhat selfish. There must be something you "like" about doing it- because otherwise you wouldn't do it. Now, it's hard to say where the instincts of animals lie, but I guess the dog feeding a piglet is running pretty much on instinct rather than rational thought. She does it because she likes to do so. Her reasons for liking to feed the youngsters are not the issue. She does it because she wants to. I find it hard to see that as altruism. On the other hand, if she sees the poor hungry piglet and takes pity on it, and feeds it even though she knows that, in principle, it will be a competitor for food from her own children's point of view, that's altruistic (to a degree) but it's also anthropomorphism to a degree which I personally find unrealistic.

In a way, it's true by definition.Since things don't stop moving, you can't experience anything without motion- because the motion is always there.

Intent.

It's difficult to see how Fiveworlds could think that picture was relevant unless it's because he has no idea what he is talking about. Also, there is no evidence for humans having an aura so it's impossible to measure any interaction it might have. If you look carefully, you will see that the 2 wiki pages he cited don't actually mention "aura". It's a bit like asking "What is the effect of the microwave background on unicorns?"

Incidentally, the assertion that the Republicans were more sensible in the past supports the thread title's suggestion that they have lost their minds. An alternative would be that they never had (working) minds in the first place. Also, the labels are valid- no matter how silly they may be. They label two distinct groups- the ones who seem to utter lots of batshit crazy things, and those who don't. Coincidentally, I see we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of me asking this question. I had a brief look, but I can't see many instances of people rising to the challenge. Perhaps folks would like to make a special effort to find some Left wing Lunes by the 18th to ballance things.

If you call yourself a Republican, and the other Republicans let you, then you are under that umbrella. On the other hand, Mr Obama is not a Republican; so his actions have little or nothing to do with the thread.

Is this "altruism" or just "not spotting the difference"?

I suspect that many, or most, of the users of pornography are getting free sex (unless they are paying themselves).

So can I, but it has little to do with the question I asked.

Can you prove that?

That goes both ways. Have you seen Israel's military budget?

http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi04ZTczNGExNmM2ZWRlZjMw

I'm calling Poe's law on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Indeed, and many of have that rather crass adaptation. I suspect that there are lots of subtle ones that mean that our "optimum" diet (whatever that might mean) is different from what it was 100,000 or 1,000,000 years ago. There's also the fact that we simply don't do the same thing as we did back then (unless I'm gravely mistaken, and our distant ancestors also drove cars to their offices so they could sit at a desk all day.)

Plenty of people, particularly in NW Europe drink milk. That's an adaptation that we picked up since our ancestors left Africa. It's bizarre to think we have not made other adaptations in that time.

No. I presume the question arises from your ignorance of Israel's behaviour. Does this help enlighten you>? "... restrictions on movement put in place by Israel since the Second Intifada are generally accepted as a major reason for the worsening of the Palestinian economy and as a reason for the increasing unemployment and poverty among Palestinians in the West Bank.[31] According to B'Tselem, tens of thousands of Palestinians lost employment in Israel as a direct result of the closure of the West Bank that Israel initiated at the start of the Second Intifada. Before the closure 110,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel and the settlements, which has been much reduced depending on the number of permits that Israel decides to issue to Palestinians.[31]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movement

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or, by way of contrast here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84846-cross-species-altruism/ but http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/02/trump-wants-to-abandon-u-s-ebola-victims-in-africa-they-must-suffer-the-consequences/

That might depend on what I had done to provoke him. If, for example, I had built a big wall round his house so he couldn't go out to work, I might consider that before opening fire- in particular I might not consider it fair to launch anti tank weapons at his house in retaliation for shotgun fire. And if I had the means to block that shot without significant risk to myself, I'd quite possibly realise that I didn't need to return fire- even with a shotgun. I also might think about moving a little further from his house- since my garden is big enough to let me picnic on the other side of it, out of range of the gun. Here's the real problem. He's shooting at me because of a feud started by our great great grandfathers. The shotgun isn't really going to do me a lot of harm. If I fire back I condemn my children and grandchildren to life in a war zone. If I stop, perhaps he will stop too (or at least I might get all the neighbours on my side) Maybe I'd not shoot back.

No. What question have you been asked?

It means they offer chemistry, or biology or both.

It's out of date, but it's still pretty nearly true compared to the number of civilian deaths on the other side.

It may seem that way to you. But lots of use here are scientists and we are in a position to tell you that you are simply wrong. Thus far you have been wrong about the title of the tread, this, "they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see" This "The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted" in that you took it and your beliefs for granted. This "Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid." and this "Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists." Wouldn't it be better if you found out a bit more about science rather than coming here an insulting most scientists?