Phi for All

! 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.

Haven't you realized it's not an argument but a misunderstanding? It's been explained to you, but you're being (purposely?) obtuse about it, and keep preaching instead of listening.

I'm so sorry I can't do more to help you understand the nature of scientific methodology, and how theories are always challenged by experimentation, even when they support them. I think there must be something hindering your critical thinking in this regard. Perhaps it's your fixation on mistakes, trying again to bounce them in one hand while ignoring the mountain of trustworthy success in the other.

! Moderator Note Please put your blog link in your signature, and stop spamming it in threads all over. We have rules against advertising, but you're welcome to participate in the discussions. And no, we aren't having a thread about this.

I think you make a mistake in ignoring the staggering amount of methodically recorded evidence for mainstream theories, each piece of which was an attempt to challenge those theories. It makes your arguments look like you're trying to judge the scientific merits by bouncing them in either hand.

Motel 6 on the PanAm Expressway in San Antonio, Texas?

Listen to others. Take a genuine interest in their lives and family. Do small things within your means to help make their lives better. Introduce the people you know to each other. Cultivate a caring personality.

! Moderator Note Since there's no science to discuss about this subject, I'm moving it to the Lounge.

! Moderator Note Done.

This old boy sure does appreciate the help we get from all those who like it here. Our tiny volunteer staff would be hopelessly outnumbered by the negative extremist delinquents if it weren't for all of you.

! Moderator Note Since this is outside mainstream theory, it needs to be in Speculations rather than Quantum Theory. Please support your assertions with evidence, and answer all calls for clarity.

! Moderator Note You know better than to soapbox without the scientific arguments to back up your assertions. Correct the misconceptions, and show some support beyond handwaving next time.

! Moderator Note When we lock a thread, you don't get to bring up the same subject again in another. You had your chance to make your arguments, you didn't, you started preaching, and the thread was locked. Oh look! You're doing it again!

! Moderator Note It's pretty clear you aren't here to learn the way everyone else is, and would rather soapbox your misunderstandings. Please read the guidelines for posting before opening any more threads.

I would avoid claiming the Earth as the victim here. The planet isn't doomed by the things you mention. Rather it's life on Earth, and the environments that host that life, that are in danger. I think it's an important distinction to make if we want to approach the problem with the best solutions, and if we don't find some, Earth will get along just fine without most of its living species.

To me, this is what is meant by innocent until proven guilty. It's not claiming you believe in guilt OR innocence, but are willing to let the arguments for either position to be made with no bias ahead of time. To me, "believe them" isn't asking me to take women's side, but rather to take them seriously.

We're talking about different things. You're talking about a trial, and the assumption of innocence that structures the way we treat them before they make their plea, and while prosecutors are making their case. I'm talking about the empty statements swansont mentioned. Since both the guilty and innocent are likely to claim innocence, it's up to the evidence to provide weight to the claims.

See what you just did, MigL? You stated that I claimed people with no evidence should NOT be believed, when I very clearly stated that a claim of innocence without evidence shouldn't hold any weight. You understand that there's a default position that can remain impartial until the evidence is gathered, right?

! Moderator Note You will be civil here or you'll be banned. It's our #1 rule. We attack ideas, not people. Shape up.

Actually, if they're only claiming it without evidence, or have to resort to logical fallacies, it has no weight from anyone. It's the start of a defense, but it can't be taken seriously without more to it.