mooeypoo

In StarTrek they solve this by claiming the process is similar to a replicator, where the machine has a supply of some "meta material" that can be used as source to build the molecules. Inventive, but I'm not quite sure how realistic it is.

Seeing as this just feels like a repetitive, quite frustrating exercise, I'm withdrawing from the argument. Whatever I had to say, I did, and I explained my statements - be them tongue-in-cheek, annoyed, or happy - and I see no more value in continuing to have a "deaf" conversation. I'm obviously missing something here. This might be a language barrier thing here, but I really feel like I'm repeating my points and either no one understands what I'm sying (which makes it my fault) or I have lost the ability to see clearly in this argument (which is, too, my fault). There are other people who debate, and I won't be the one contributing to the derailing of the thread, specially on something that strikes me as just a circular case of misunderstandings. Seems like this thread will do better without me. ~moo

It seems to me that you read only parts of what I said and misrepresented others. In the spirit of concession, though, I will go over the points you're making now and perhaps make things clearer. I understand from your position that you see things as "either or". I don't. I see a wide range of options, filled with gray areas. In my view, as I explained, there's a range. I contend that preventing children access helps in reducing their exposure for a short time, and doesn't help in the long run, because they will - whether we like it or not - be exposed to this material regardless. My point is that whether we decide to reduce their access or not, we have to *add* an element of education to it, as well, otherwise when the child is exposed to these horrible aspects later on he won't know how to handle them and the result can be worse. This isn't an "either or". Your suggestion helps a little. I contend it doesn't help in the long run. Right, but that's a different argument. Whether or not we should try to influence the companies to make different types of content is an issue that we can discuss separately. My points was about the access; I gave these as example of how the "sexting" isn't a localized phenomenon - you have more bad influence in multiple fronts. If you choose to prevent access to one, then you are bound to prevent access to all. If that is your MAIN solution then it will only work until the child is exposed to the outside world through his friends, school or any extracurricular activities. The difference, though, is that as a parent you can educate the child and teach him how to be SMART about handling the horrible outside world, while if you choose to prevent her access, the control of how to deal with it transfers to whoever introduces it to her. This introduction is bound to happen if your child has access to the outside world. That was my point. I agree it is the responsibility of the parent. To be honest, it is the responsibility of the parent to know what their child is exposed to even after 12, in my opinion, though that's a whole new and separate and difficult debate we can have later. I don't trust the "ratings" of films anyways, honestly. I saw a movie rated PG-13 that I wouldn't let my 16 year old cousin watch. On the other hand, I have a friend with a 15 year old daughter whom I would likely not mind her seeing such movie, because she is likely to handle it just fine. So, yes, I think it's the parents' responsibility, but I do agree that something should be done with the industry. What and how to change the industry, if at all, is a different argument, though. And I don't know what BBFC is. Interesting. I wrote that the issue is two-fold.. that one should be responsible about what their child is viewing (hence, put limitations) *while* teaching them how to handle it. You disagreed with that point, and yet you claim here that we're in agreement..? I might have been misunderstood, then. My point is this: just like in sex education, ignoring the problem will not equip the children to properly deal with it when they are exposed to it. And they *WILL* be exposed to it. The point I'm making, then, is that the parents MUST deal with this issue in the form of education along some limitation. I personally don't think children have any use for cellphones until they are spending long periods of time away from home, so I do support putting some amount of limitations. I just don't support avoiding the problem altogether by preventing access. That was my point, and that was also the point I was trying to make with the tongue-in-cheek jab about the "abstinence only education". I see quite a lot of parallels between the two cases. Severian, read the ENTIRE point I was making. I wasn't equating the two at all. I said that unless you lock your kid in the basement, your kid will eventually be exposed to things you dislike. The parent should deal with it instead of trying to fight the unavoidable. I don't think I have strawmanned anything, on the contrary, if you read my points I believe it were my points that were strawmanned a few times. I assume unintentionally. I pointed out my position quite clearly. True, I lost my temper. I'm human, it happens, I also made a conscious decision to not address the temper tantrum on my side and Severian answers to it to avoid further derailing of the thread. Apparently, that didn't work. I apologize for my temper flare. I've been on this forum long enough for most of you to know this rarely happens. The statements that were made pissed me off; instead of taking a step back, drinking hot cocoa and relaxing, I answered them. My fault. I'm also human, and I do get angry just like anyone else on this forum. I am hoping that this solves the "rant" issue (justified or not), and we can continue to actually debating the points at hand. Instead of putting up subversive misrepresentations of what I said ("you mean to say" [not what I said] statements) I would hope Severian (and others) could go over the post I pointed out as a summary of my view and instead of assuming I meant X (when I didn't) read my points and see if there are still things that are unclear. If there's anything unclear in the point I'm making (which I summarize in post #40), please ask. ~moo

Severian, you seem to have missed my point (again). Here's a summary of my position: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=533707&postcount=40 Read what I wrote instead of assuming what I mean. ~moo

Movement is relative. Something is only stationary in the same inertial frame. That is, I am sitting in my chair in front of my computer, and am stationary in my own frame, but another observer in a different inertial frame will consider me moving.

But there is quite a substantial proof that preventing teens access doesn't quite help - which is what the "abstinence only" remarks were meant to raise. The issue is twofold: The gaming and television industries are irresponsible, in my view. The shows we have on TV nowadays are *harmful* to kids (hell, some of them are harmful to adults) and some are just idiotic and inappropriate. Same goes with video games and cellphone use. Personally, I don't think there's any need for children to have cellphones until they are long enough away from home to warrant that, and I do believe parents should impose limitations on their children when using cellphones, watching television and playing computer games. That's their jobs - to worry about their child's welfare - psychological as well as physical. But when we ignore a problem, we tend to ignore the fact that are children, whether we want it or not, are exposed to them *anyways*. My point is that if you tell your child to avoid something that he's exposed to regardless, you don't really equip him or her to *deal* with it. There's nothing inherently harmful in a television show, a computer game or a cellphone - there is potential harm in the way they're used. If the parent is involved in the child's life, explains the harms as well as imposes some limitations while knowing that the kid will encounter some of those anyways with his friends, at school etc, then that is much better than just saying "don't use it!". Same goes with the internet. There's a LOT of potential harm in the internet - some of it outright dangerous. And yet, unless you lock up your kid in a basement, you really can't avoid their exposure to it. If they learn from a young age how to be careful online, to be open with their parents and you put some basic limitation on what they're doing online (for instance, limit their access to sex sites), then when they are OUT of your supervision (at school, with friends that don't have limitations on their internet access, etc) they are *still* careful. This isn't a one-sided blame and it can't be a one-sided solution. We can't control the media, they do what they do for money. We can, however, control ourselves as parents. Children learn from their parents too, and if we take the time to explain to kids why things can be harmful they're more likely to grow up to be responsible adults *regardless* of the efforts the world around them imposes in convincing them otherwise. And in any case, both "progressives" and "liberals" are exposed to these, and as much as we try to bunch people up to these two lovely comfortably "shallow" groups, reality is that people are usually in between, and to state that a choice on how to deal with this harm makes you one of those two is quite a flat view of the world. ~moo

It won't prevent her from getting inappropriate pictures *in general*, Severian, indeed so. We have the internet at home and in schools, nowadays, and there are so many places where kids and teens can be exposed to inappropriate materials is enormous. Television is a great example, by the way. Today's shows that are supposedly meant for youth are pretty horrific, in my judgment. But my point is that kids are exposed from a LOT of fronts these days, and taking away one element isn't going to be what is stopping them from being exposed. However, education - to know how to deal and handle "inappropriate material" and teach self confidence and pride in oneself so they won't *WANT* to participate in those things, sounds ot me to be much more effective. I personally think parents in our day and age are removing responsibility from themselves and onto the media, be it phones or television or computer games. If you *EDUCATE* your children to know how to handle the world, be respectful and avoid getting themselves into trouble, tehy will grow up to be responsible adults, and watching an "inappropriate photo" will not break their fragile little minds. Yes, and you keep jumping to conclusions and having something stuck at some orifice. Good god, Severian, I was *KIDDING*. Joking. Tongue-in-cheek remark I actually thought you'd laugh at.. ha-ha inaccurate "jab" at ya. We do it a lot in the forum, but it seems you just jump to conclusions. And what the hell does anything have to do with liberals!? You seem to jump to the conclusion that since I'm a liberal in a specific subject I'm a liberal in everything, and that everything I say stem out of my LIBERAL approach. I'm not liberal about everything. ((BTW, The folks who used to read what I had to say about politics will probably strongly disagree with the idea that I'm a liberal)) When you just throw out this "thing about liberals" statements you seem to enjoy making, you're flattening my views into this black-and-white static flat view *YOU* define. Thank you, but I'm well rounded, I have other views that aren't necessaarily liberal and I would appreciate if you stop using that as a social curse every time you think anyone in the forum that *HAS* remotely liberal views as "you're all the same, I know this tactic" claim. I don't tactic, I debate. I'm not a group representative, I'm a person. I would very much appreciate it if you stop grouping me into groups that I don't necessarily belong to. I give you that courtesy by not assuming what hypothetical GROUP you might belong to, and not refering to such group when I answer your claims, I would appreciate getting it from you, too. And not everything I say is meant to hurt you, Severian. Lighten up, it was a joke. ~moo

The quote can be interpreted here and there, btw, but I am curious, as a side note, to know why is it so important -- or why is it important at all -- to use Einstein as support for your beliefs *AT ALL* ? Whatever you believe in is your business.. what difference does it make if Einstein supports your beliefs or not? Einstein's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing over his scientific achievements, just like his treatment to his wife and kids (not a very nice one, according to his biography, he cheated, abandoned them, was too much into his work, etc) has no bearing *AT ALL* on his scientific achievements. In other words, why is this even an issue?

If you think it's a worthy subject, you're more than welcome to find worthy topics of discussion and start 'em up in the general science forum. It can be a test, even, to see if there are (a) enough stories and topics to talk about in the specific subject, and (b) if there are enough interested parties to discuss them. We can revisit the issue in a few weeks and see if they justify opening a new forum...

Right, but two threads aren't really enough to justify opening an entire new forum category. Take into account that each forum category requires a separate moderator, and also requires people actively LOOKING at it to see the threads. If we're only talking about 2-3 threads, then they'd probably get much more attention and debate while in the general sciences category that people *already* are looking at... In this case, splitting it to a new category might actually be detrimental to these debates.

A new forum opens when there's enough demand for it.. that is, if we see that a certain subject like EAS creates a lot of debate and warrants its own forum, such forum will probably be opened. So far, though, I'm not sure I see the demand.. most debate about these subjects is spread out between the different forums quite fittingly, it seems.

Okay, c'mon, please knock that off... I know that it's really awesome and great to take a famous figure and show them as a symbol of belief, but Einstein was *NOT* a religious believer in the least. Anyone reading what *EINSTEIN* said (as opposed to what was said about him) can see it clearly. It's a bit annoying, too, because this was pointed out to you before and you seem to just ignore it. It's a bit annoying, and, quite frankly, disrespectful for Einstein himself, to be used as a flagholder for something he didn't QUITE share.

The validity (or lack thereof) of abstinence-only programs. It was supposed to be a cynical jab comparing abstinence-only (noneffective) to "abstaining-from-having-a-phone" only... Hence, I doubt the act of preventing your kid from having access to phones is at all helpful, than talking about the problem and educating kids to be more cautious.

So...... you invented something that makes no sense and you're asking us to make sense of it?

I think the question was more to the sense of "where did this image come from"? IE- what context is this "MT" important? maybe the context will reveal the meaning.

Fair enough, I guess in art and philosophy you can discard of empirical methods. I didn't think about that. Good point. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Actually, I disagree. If your goal is to describe reality objectively (like what Physics, Chemistry et al are trying to do) then you can't abandon the scientific method. I can see, however, how if you want to describe a personal feeling or a personal reality through a song you really don't need to stick to facts or empirical data, or have any sort of methodology (other than, maybe, making sure your notes sound good). The scientific method is good for obtaining objective description of reality, but if you have a subject that doesn't need objectivity (like music, art, philosophy, etc) then I can see how you can do without it.

.... how does that work, though? You will only be empirical but you don't limit yourself to being empirical? and how do you decide when yo limit yourself to the scientific method and when suddenly to abandon it? .. I don't quite think this comparison is working, walkntune, especially if that's actually what you meant.

Seeing as the entire definition of God is that she is entirely removed from reality -- existing outside of time and space, controlling all, knowing all, etc -- I doubt any physical proof would be accepted by believers. God is usually considered to be above physics, so any physical proof would be insufficient. That's the entire meaning of "Unfalsifiable". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't follow your logic.. the reasoning behind space exploration to find other life is because we assume some life exists. If we start from an assumption of ourselves being alone why would we even bother? Did I miss something? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother point I just thought of -- hypothetically speaking, if society "accepted" the idea that God is 'dead' (which I am not sure I would support, btw, on a large scale, but that's a completely different argument about belief vs. system of religion, etc) I think that it would force us to re-examine our reasonings for morality and ethics. Many of those reasoning stem from religion, but if you examine them you find humanistic reasoning for some (and may keep the ethical statements) or find no reason for others (and discard them). Whatever it is, the need to re-examine our ethics should prove to be an interesting endeavor on its own, I believe. ~moo

True, but if the personal opinion is completely removed from reality (hence, here's proof that this is unlikely to happen, etc) then it's very much okay for others to point it out. People should share their feelings, but these aren't immune from debate...

Seeing as this isn't mainstream science, and deals with a speculative matter, the thread is moved to speculation forum.

Now let's hope it's more effective than teaching abstinence.

Indeed, as toastywombel said so eloquently, your initial premise is absolutely wrong. And it's proven to be wrong. Light does not behave this way, we know and explain the behavior of light, and the explanation of red shift not only is *explained* in current physics, it yields perfect predictions. Wikipedia has a VERY good starter on what Redshift *actually* is (usually I find that people think they know, and often don't quite know what it is), and the basic math behind it. If you want more information on how we know what we know, I can find more thorough examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift (That above one is the basics of what Redshift is, while toastywombel's wikipedia page is specifically about gravitational redshift.. they're *BOTH* right, and they're both good for the subject, I just figured you might want to start with the basics [redshift in general] and then go up a bit to specifics [gravitational redshift]). ~moo

The best troll EVAAAAAH. (Capn, where's my promotion?) Anyhoo I thought I'd point out, also, that internet forums are, quite often, a nasty, brutish, mean place to discuss weird ideas. Kids might preface their weird-ideas with "sorry, I don't know much" to avoid having people rip their heads off for saying something that might sound stupid to more knowledgeable folk. Of course,that neeeevvvveeerrr happens in this forum. Never.

[ 00:13:46 ] (Scruffy) so mib_awesome _isnt_ gay [ 00:13:49 ] (Scruffy) damn [ 00:13:59 ] • Scruffy hides the cake i baked for him coming out [ 00:14:01 ] (mib_awesome) well...maybe ;D