Phi for All

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream ideas need to be posted in our Speculations section, partly so students know it's not something they can use in class, so I've moved it there. Please read the special rules that govern this section, and support your arguments with evidence. Explain your reasoning when making claims and assertions. "I don't personally believe c is absolute" is a pretty hand-wavy argument. You'll need to explain how your ideas work as well as mainstream explanations. Please be specific and clear (this will save pages of calls for clarity). Good luck.

! Moderator Note Members can't be required to go offsite or view videos in order to participate, per our rules. Can you summarize what you want to talk about here?

I would first ask myself what the benefits of such an expanded definition of life are. "In some sense" gives me a tenuous relationship to just about anything. Will that be helpful in a meaningful way? If I consider a rock to be living in some sense, how will that change my perceptions of it?

Perhaps many who would have voted Democrat decided to vote for non-major party candidates who better represent their own views, but the Republicans continued to vote a party ticket. There are many things everybody complains about that will never get fixed this way. Since those in power have figured out how to profit in the Trump era and are bandwagoning with him now, I'd say we're going to see more legislation favoring private owners and private ownership at the expense of the middle and working classes, more profit going to the ludicrously wealthy, more people in prison, more watering-down of legislation protecting consumers, and more people praising the major parties for the crumbs that trickle down to them (because it could be so much worse, and can never be much, MUCH better for everyone ).

! Moderator Note And now back to the topic....

Sometimes laws need to be broken to show how unjust they are, and nobody should lose their right to vote because of it. If the laws are just, the votes from those who break them won't be sufficient to overturn them. And if the laws are unjust, voting against them is part of what little true liberty we have. It solves a lot of problems if people get to vote no matter what. To me, it's about loyalty to the country and the society you participate in, not necessarily all the laws currently in force. Many people have spent years in jail for things that are legal now.

It seems like such a basic, foundational part of a democratic society that nobody should be able to take it away from you. It's your one vote, your way to affect the representation that will ultimately govern you. I think even prisoners, even the worst of them, should be able to vote if they're still considered citizens. This is where America needs to take a stand on basic freedoms. We're not the criminals our penal system numbers paint us as. We're underpaid for our part in constantly improving productivity. The vast majority are severely underrepresented in politics. Too much of our public funds line the pockets of the already wealthy, and what's left is watered-down so it can be ridiculed to promote private interests. We need a modern overhaul of what it means to be an American citizen, imo.

! Moderator Note From our rule 2.7: Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Please explain what you want to discuss. Be as clear as possible if you want clear replies. Thank you.

! Moderator Note Don't be silly, please see a doctor. Nobody on the internet should be treating you.

No, you have NOT, not ever. Perhaps because you think we ban people for arguing with us instead of for breaking the rules they agreed to when they joined.

! Moderator Note No, it's not, unless you want your threads closed. Three staff members checked your reported posts, and found them to be baseless, since you're easily offended when people disagree with you. Ignorance is antithetical to our purpose, and your style also seems to be inconsistent with it. If everyone disagrees with your assertions, and you ignore them, your posts become nothing but soapboxing. Nobody here wants to discuss anything with a preacher. Please do better.

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.7: Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Can you summarize here, and give us a starting point for a discussion?

Anne99 was most likely spamming for a blog. Where is the best place to dig for the iron?

It's easier to sharpen a knife/chisel hybrid than it is to sharpen a knife/saw hybrid. Cutting bread is the only thing I use a serrated blade for. Those are beautiful, but do they have any practicality? A knapped edge can make a very rough cut. I think if I made something like that, I'd display it rather than use it.

If you're willing to sharpen two different edges, it does give you lots of versatility. The secondary edge shouldn't be as steep as the primary edge. You don't want the tip razor sharp or it will just lay over when you poke something. This is an Americanized version of the tanto, and it does have some nice advantages. It would be a great can opener for a suit of plate armor.

The traditional shape, or the American angled chisel shape? I have one of the latter I use for digging dandelions, and the point slides nicely into the ground. Other than that though, it's a pain to sharpen, and I use knives for cutting more than stabbing. The chisel tanto is great for starting holes to cut sheet metal, where I'd usually use a screwdriver and a hammer to knock a hole for my tin snips.

Pockets were obviously much bigger in 19th century Sheffield. And hopefully not in the front. I made a small Bowie knife from a pattern-welded, full-tang steel blank, a brass crossguard and pins, and scales made of thin woods of varying colors laminated together. The blade is beautiful, and holds a great edge, but I sanded too much away from the scales trying to get a better pattern, and the haft never fit my hand well. If I made another, I'd focus more on feel than looks.

! Moderator Note You don't get to bring up threads that were locked because you couldn't support your arguments in other threads where you can't support your arguments in order to support your arguments. THAT is the height of silliness. Also, if you're planning to NOT respond to select participating members, sincere discussion is seriously hampered. This is a big part of why your threads break the rules and get closed.

Subtract the actual cost of housing a prisoner from the cost to the taxpayer, and you find there's an investment opportunity in supporting tougher laws.

When you can't boycott the products in question, you have to vote for politicians who have higher standards and will reflect that in the regulations they impose. That's where Americans fail. Most of us want better consumer protection, but the main party representatives throw us to the wealth extremists who want to remove any roadblocks to their investment opportunities. Apparently, maggots, roach droppings, and rat hair have a long tradition in American food processing. This obviously appeals to the current conservative US leadership, and they want to share that with all of Britain.

It's all in the perspective, imo. Plenty of companies have very successfully used adherence to strict standards as a selling point. In my experience, the corporations lobbying for relaxed regs or working out ways to avoid taxes treat the process like any other opportunity for profit. They not only want to cut down on staff needed for federal standards, they also want to use cheaper means to make what they sell, and avoid all other costs at all costs. It's our fault if we continue to let them do it. Trump, however, is probably defending American maggots and rat hair as a professional courtesy.

It looks like increasing the possibility of poisoning UK citizens is worth some extra profit to someone. In the US, your health is an unjustified excuse for regulation. This insistence on high standards for food is part of the reason why you spend so little on healthcare, I hope you realize. It's distinctly un-American, and I can see why it irritates our president.

To paraphrase Leonard Hofstadter, we're all just one lab accident away from being supervillains. Ignore us at your peril!

I just wanted to know who tried it.

Read the thread again. The differences you're citing are all semantics that have been explained by other posters quite well. For some reason, you continue to use lazy, vague rules for your own definitions, yet require much stricter rules for everyone else. Have you noticed that your requirements change "depending on the context the words are used in"? Aren't you just forcing these definitions to mean what you want them to mean? I still don't understand how you can acknowledge that theory needs to be constantly updated, and then insist that some evidence is proof. I'm probably on your ignore list after wondering this so many times, so I suppose I'll never know.