Phi for All

Wow. Don't you think he was talking about the "thoughtful discussion" part being too vague to declare beecees posts NOT on-topic? Why must you be so willfully obtuse, et pet?

This reasoning is faulty and dangerous for you, since it lets you fill in the gaps in your knowledge with your feelings. Since we have numerous examples of homosexuality in nature, it's unnatural to expect there to be a right or wrong "mentality" concerning the subject. It's clear that nature has no problem with the diversity in sexual orientation we see in animals (including humans). What YOU are suggesting is unnatural based on observation. Yes it does, unless you start using a different term to describe it. "In the wild" is about as natural as it gets, by definition.

! Moderator Note Thread closed due to lack of clarity. If you want to discuss something, especially something non-mainstream, you waste everyone's time being vague and unhelpful about it.

You're using the term "unnatural" to mean "I don't like it", instead of the most widely accepted definition "as it occurs in nature". You could say it's not "normal", but you can't say it's unnatural. Do you consider humans in general to be outside of nature? You're also requiring sex to produce offspring, and that's only one of its processes. Are you claiming that heterosexual couples who don't have kids are "unnatural"?

This is such a ludicrous claim that I suspect it's something you've heard but don't understand, or choose to misunderstand as part of a larger, anti-science agenda. The fact that you're criticizing Darwin suggests you misunderstand evolution, and the theory that explains it. Of course common descent has many practical uses in applied biology. This knowledge guides mainstream practice and keeps scientists from accepting bad hypotheses. The fossil records are understandable because we understand common descent. Is this another version of the creationist macro vs micro argument? Are you claiming (as a non-expert) that you understand the differences between applied science and theoretical science? I'll make a prediction now and say you don't (only partly because you reference Darwin).

In this case, you're using a definition of "unnatural" that includes perfectly natural animals. Perhaps this is why you're confused about homosexuality. You don't like it personally, so you want to make it unnatural for every creature, possibly? If you see this as a problem (I do), this is where you should begin. Confirmation bias can really mess up a good worldview.

! 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.