Phi for All

Axe has been banned as a sockpuppet of John Harmonic.

I think instead that you missed my comment about it. The ban was overturned.

Nothing new. Stomp your foot on the program's throat, then make fun of it and point out how feeble it is, how it can't stand on its own two feet. It works with all social programs the wealthy don't benefit from directly.

The New York ban on supersized drinks was struck down. Perhaps it was a bad regulation. You think so? I was pretty specific about the area I was talking about (load-bearing parameters of school roofs isn't really general). Consumer safety is about as general as I'm getting in this thread, mainly because it's the slick sales pitches by alligators like Trump that increase profit while making people sick or putting them in more danger. I'm so sorry you don't see that, it's one of the worst things about this administration.

You claimed regulating "other people's contracts" makes "less sense". You then seemed to make a claim that sounded suspiciously like "Let the buyer beware", and that the government shouldn't be helping consumers make informed decisions. Perhaps if you weren't making such general statements I would have realized you were talking about specific contracts. Do you have any examples of private contracts that shouldn't be held to government standards?

So the government should stay out of regulating what goes into products we consume? We should just trust the businesses because they promise to make a great product? If I'm buying pharmaceutical products, I'm supposed to decide what I want with it, with my knowledge of medicine? I think that's a horrible idea, unless you're a predatory business looking to prey on non-existent consumer awareness and government oversight.

And NONE of these things should be determined by how much profit it will generate for a private company. I did some work for an architect who told me about a school he designed. One of the private contractors deviated from his design when they found some less expensive rooftop HVAC units. Apparently this sort of thing happens a LOT. When the architect pointed out to the school district superintendent that the new units were heavier than he'd designed the roof for, and the savings would be eaten up by the need for increased load bearing, they thanked him and terminated his contract. It's unfortunate that profit took precedence, even over the trustworthiness of the roof over children's heads.

Bingo. And the biggest private contractors also have the clout to lobby for less constraints, and even hide profits from taxation. This is the way Trump runs his businesses, continues to run his businesses even though he holds the highest office. We let businesses argue that there are too many regulations, and when they're relaxed we get bridges and levees that fail. The extreme conservatives argue that regs destroy business, but loosening them for more profit also lets the scum and corruption seep in as well.

In the US, subsidies are often exploited by the same right wing that argues for free trade and fair markets. Open or hidden, I think the purpose of subsidies should be to offset the costs of competing for new technologies challenging older ones, which is the opposite of how we do it in the US. Again, I think the solution is simple, but not easy. Don't let private interests use public funding to give them more advantage than they already have. Doing so only enables businesses that would otherwise have failed on merit. The slick pitch from the rich is ALWAYS looking for more money, and since we know this we should be able to regulate it, as long as we don't listen when the pitch claims they can always do better than publicly funded programs.

More anecdote, but my uncles used to talk about a guy they grew up with who worked as a fireman on a steam locomotive. He stoked the boiler with coal, and he had to be able to do it all day long. He was a small guy, and didn't have bulky muscles, but he was scary strong. I think a big part of the strong-but-doesn't-look-it story is the surprise factor. Small guys with a burst of muscular strength can be startling, and seem much stronger because you underestimated them, and then have to justify why you're on the ground and they aren't.

I'm going to treat "both" as public and private groups. I'm quite frankly not as clear about why, in some cases, state ownership is preferable. I don't know how you have it set up in the UK, but in the US, the "slick sales pitch" types have sold us on private solutions to public problems that are more shaped to bring profit than solve problems. It's one thing when a private company can meet the proposed needs of the public, and quite another when the private companies shape the public proposals for maximum profit through lobbying and legislation. To me, it's a question of simple vs easy. The simple approach is to publicly fund endeavors that need only keep pace with society's growth, and allow private ownership where growth can be reasonably unlimited. And don't mix them like paint, which is our inclination and makes the approach anything but easy.

In the US, the extreme right (even our Democrats are moderately right-wing compared to Europe) has purposely conflated social endeavors with state ownership, which is completely false. They refer to Socialism and Communism like lifestyles instead of economic tools. Most Americans agree that it's good for the public to own the roads and sidewalks, but they continue to vote for those who want to privatize more and more public and state functions. It's a lie most Americans fall for time and time again, that between private, public, and state ownership, private is always the best choice.

I don't think they fear the government failing, since it would be a prime private investment opportunity. Make sure it breaks, then rush in with a private solution. When I hear the slickos talking about fiscal conservatism these days, it always seems to be pushing more and more private ownership, especially in areas it shouldn't be used (like the prison system).

! Moderator Note Moved to Psychiatry & Psychology.

! Moderator Note We better have more than hand-waiving pretty soon, or the door gets shut.

! Moderator Note This isn't science, doesn't belong on the site, ever.

In the case of the OP, it seems to be purposely vague and imprecise, since he's been warned about using such subjective terms before. I have no idea how to glean meaningful explanations when the parameters are so broad. Perhaps the point is arguing itself.

Yeah, it might cause others to needlessly repeat themselves for many pages. ! Moderator Note We're going to take a break from this thread this weekend. It may re-open Monday, it may not. If anyone feels really strongly either way, PM a staff member.

! Moderator Note More posts not on the subject of the Selfish Gene theory have been split off to here.

! Moderator Note You were warned before. This is a science DISCUSSION forum, not a lecture hall, not your blog, not a classroom. Ask a question, or pose a problem, but don't try to teach history lessons here.

Oh, that's fantastic! I agree with zapatos, that goes out to everyone I know. I hope it can help men think beyond personal bad experiences they've had with individual women to grasp the larger concept of this movement, and what women in general have to deal with daily.

! Moderator Note rian copper45, this is a science discussion forum. Your post reads more like a blog entry. What did you wish to discuss specifically?

! Moderator Note Wow, it's easy to see how the OP came to so many wrong conclusions with such a lack of accurate information. Please study where others have pointed out your many misunderstandings, and if you still feel you have an argument, open a different thread. But only if you can support your arguments with evidence based on actual science. This thread is closed.

I agree with Strange about mistermack in that thread. His victim-blaming was indecent, imo, which is different than being uncivil. And I agree with Swansont, often a downvote is the only response (do I really think mistermack would understand my definition of decent?). I don't downvote due to a difference in opinion, but I do when (in my opinion) the opinion espoused is reprehensible. This view seems pervasive. Many Republican senators used to call Trump "offensive" until they found they agreed with part of what he was saying, then he became merely "sharp", telling it like it is in his own way. I'll admit I despaired quite a bit when you seemed to support mistermack (and by extension, his odious arguments), in much the same way (at least it seemed so to me).

Not even a little bit, from the point of view of a planet. Earth's atmosphere has been vastly different in the past. Trees haven't always been around. There were many very early organisms that died off when oxygen levels rose as the new photosynthetic organisms flourished, their habitats polluted with excessive levels of O2. Again, I think the focus of environmental issues should be on present day habitats, and the life within them. I think it's an important distinction because it puts the responsibility for our environment squarely on our shoulders. Many AGW proponents argue that the Earth's climate is cyclical and nothing we do can affect those cycles, so arguing that the Earth is doomed plays right into their hands.