hypervalent_iodine

The vegan lifestyle is healthier than some, but it is inherently unhealthy when you consider that most vegan diets require supplements of some sort to meet (meat?) basic dietary requirements. Slightly off topic, though. The paper is interesting. I'd be keen to hear some reviews from people who understand enough about statistical analysis to comment on the veracity of their methods. Regardless, the comparison to cigarettes is really sensationalist nonsense. The authors of the paper do not advocate for a completely vegan or vegetarian diet, they in suggest one that is low protein for middle-age people and mid-high protein for elderly people from mostly (but not exclusively) plant-based sources.

! Moderator Note I've merged your two topics of the same name and hidden another. Sidharath, please stop doing this! One thread per topic.

! Moderator Note You were warned in a previous thread that advertising and creating threads to drive traffic to external sites was prohibited. I have removed this link in accordance with that. Please summarize the points you wish to discuss in the thread and use links as supporting information only.

1. We don't allow duplicate threads on the same topic by members. 2. Your threads were simply advertisements to bump another thread - something we also don't allow. As a result, they were deleted.

! Moderator Note Kramer, This is the Speculations forum, but it is still part of SFN and as such, you are required to provide evidence for your claims and to explain in explicit detail what predictions your ideas make and how the comply with what we observe in nature. If you want to make up stories, then this is not the place for it and if you should choose to continue down this line, we will be closing the thread.

! Moderator Note Acme, I am glad that things have cooled down in the thread, but in future it would be appreciated if you could tone down the personal remarks in your comments. As well, there are some in this thread whose first language is not English, so please try to exercise a bit more patience and tact. ETA: I should say, I meant to edit this to *may not* be English. I am unsure if that is the case in this specific thread, but patience is a good practice to adopt either way.

overtone, Your original claim, which is the claim that iNow was arguing against, was this: iNow questioned your reasoning, stating that if that were true, you'd expect the same trend across the other bible belt states when Obama took office in 2008, when in fact you don't. You then attempted to counter iNow's post by producing statistics that showed a jump between the years 2006-2009. Obama took office in 2008. 2008 is two years after 2006. Perhaps you misinterpreted or misread exactly what iNow was responding to, but whatever the case, surely you can now see why he was disagreeing with your statement and why your response wasn't relevant to the initial claim?

! Moderator Note Kramer, you aren't making much sense. michel12345 has kindly tried to narrow down what you're talking about, but unless you can clarify yourself then I'm afraid this thread isn't going anywhere. The concept Endy is pointing out to you is one of Newton's laws. This is very basic physics and it is stuff that I am sure other members have covered with you in numerous threads prior to this one. I suggest you go through those or go away and do some reading before responding again. Please also do not drag this into another matter / antimatter thread. You had a thread on that; it was closed and you are not permitted to reopen the discussion.

tar, read the rest of the quote and put it in context. It is not arguing that morality comes from religion at all; quite the opposite.

tar, There is in fact a great deal of evidence to support the notion that a sense of morality developed much earlier than and independent to religion. Humans are social creatures founded in our ability for large-scale cooperation between individuals and groups of people. This aspect of our species quite obviously predates religion. Part of being successful at cooperation within a group means that you have to adopt pro-social behaviours and those pro-social behaviours, which might include not killing or harming another person or stealing from them, are what give rise to our instinctive moral code. There is a review that I linked some tme ago in a similar thread that states the following: I've highlighted the last sentence for emphasis and because it's a fantastic quote. The review then also go on to discuss various studies, all of which indicate that regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and regardless of where you are from, basic moral intuitions are the same for all people. I would not argue that religion doesn't have some affect in very specific cases on what a particular group of people deems to be right or wrong, but the overall process that guides our moral instincts does not appear to be in any way altered by it, suggesting that it evolved independently. Here's another nice quote from the paper:[/size]

! Moderator Note I'm closing this thread pending review. Before I do however, a few things. Alan, we do not generally allow members to cherry pick and evade questions in the manner that you have. Please keep it in mind should you choose to start a new thread. SlavicWolf, stop advertising that book. If you can't make posts with actual content that don't violate our rules, please refrain from posting.

Schneibster has been suspended for a week for his insulting remarks towards other members.

! Moderator Note Schneibster, you were warned about making insulting remarks about other members here. Since you continue to ignore that, you're being put on mandatory vacation for a week.

! Moderator Note Please stop with the bickering. This has also gone a little off topic. I suggest that members refresh themselves with what this thread was about by re-reading the OP.

! Moderator Note sheever, Please be aware that we have recently updated our forum rules regarding video posts. We now ask that members do not make posts containing only videos. As with links, they should act only as supporting information and you will need to actually provide some text. This goes for your other post, here.

! Moderator Note Schneibster, this stops now. If you can't have a discussion without the condescending tone and without insulting the intelligence of others posting here, then please do not post at all. Any more posts of that nature I will be removing and if it keeps up, you will be risking suspension.

If you didn't heat it or have it under pressure, it should be fairly straight forward to avoid reducing the phenyl ring.

! Moderator Note Try and stick to the topic, please.

Would you like to quote where he was called a crank? In any case, you seem to be missing the point. A criticism of the paragraph you posted was raised and your response was somewhere along the lines of, 'but he's Leonard Susskind and you're a random guy on the internet.' You didn't make any points in response to the actual content of swansont's post, it was just a simple, textbook appeal to authority. Edit: John beat me to it. Oh well.

Really? This is the path you're choosing to go down? Questioning the contents of a paragraph from a book does not mean that anyone is or was denouncing the book. Furthermore, just because Susskind said it, doesn't make it correct and you shouldn't assume otherwise. He is not infallible and his words are susceptible to criticism like any other person's would be.

! Moderator Note Schneibster, We generally discourage the use of logical fallacy here. If you disagree with swansont's post, perhaps you could try arguing with facts instead of an appeal to authority? Please do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

Oh, stop it. Receiving advice that doesn't agree with your world view does not mean that the people giving you the advice are insulting you.

Popcorn, your manager has every right to ask you not to use your phone during work hours. You are being paid to work, not to socialise or engage in private conversation and your boss is within their rights to ask you to stop. If they have asked you not to have your phone on you but you have legitimate emergency reasons to need it, then explain it to them and maybe (probably) they'll be okay with you simply having it on you. Otherwise I'm afraid that it is you who is in the wrong here and you should maybe consider taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. Perhaps you should ask these 'important people' to call you outside of your shifts? Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

I'll edit it to reflect the correct link, one sec. Edit: done! The link should work now.

! Moderator Note Perhaps you could come up with some data to support your claims? We're a science forum, not a conspiracy website. You need to adhere to a certain degree of rigor in your posting.