Phi for All

Men have hundreds of little ways of showing face-to-face dominance we don't even think about anymore. It could be something like always twisting a handshake so your own hand is on top, or lowering the pitch of your voice with someone you feel is less dominant. I'm sure we've developed ways of speaking and writing that subtly (or not) put people in their place in whatever hierarchy our minds use. Add to that the atmosphere of "debate" that surrounds many science discussions, which brings its own subtle jabs and putdowns to support a point, and it's easy to see why many people in general, and women in specific, might get the wrong idea about how we like to discuss things here.

Isn't that like saying you're going to stop listening to radio because there's a station you don't like?

One bit of fallacy he relies heavily on is his appeal to frankness (?), where he gets to say anything he wants under the guise of "telling it like it is". He gets to repeat lies and misunderstandings because he sees these things on cable news and the internet, which gives him a) more air-time for the controversies, b) more confusion and spinning wheels trying to rebut him, c) great appeal to his extremist base, d) plausible deniability of guilt (he was innocently passing these things along), e) the ability to pick and choose which news if real and which is fake based purely on his own frame of reference, and f) a kind of Mesmer effect that allows even those who don't like him to justify racism, nationalism, fascism, 1% wealth manipulation, and forgiveness of all the straight up lies he's told. I think what we're seeing is a very vocal but small group of trolls who purport to represent half the country, but in reality are just really LOUD, really obnoxious, and really profitable for those who make more money the longer you read their hate (so doing anything about them is being resisted).

You're very welcome.

If you try to use reason (not "logic") instead of your emotions first, you'll be better able to see that you're part of the cause of the very real problem you're observing.

What I see is people who don't know science trying to discredit scientific explanations by claiming nobody is answering their simple questions. They don't really seem willing to unite, since they're usually trying to make assertions about things they're ignorant about. There's no mad scramble to avoid anything, it's just that the folks who don't know don't know how to interpret the science. One sign that someone only THINKS they know science is to claim they're sticking to cold, calm logic. They misuse the mathematical and philosophical term, and actually mean "I only listen to things that make sense to me".

To me, it's always been a Br'er Rabbit tactic, from the Uncle Remus stories, with us cast as the "cunning" Br'er Fox and those in power playing the "trapped" rabbit. "Whatever you do, don't keep guns around so you can overthrow us if we ever go bad...." The moment those 2A guns start being used to overthrow the government is the moment those people become terrorists and the full weight of the US military and law enforcement rides to the rescue.

! Moderator Note You answer questions with explanations that aren't based on evidence, but rather are based on your personal beliefs. That is NOT evidence that they are valid. It only shows that you believe them to be valid. That's not science, and that's why it's preaching every time you do it. Please try to answer the questions put to you without resorting to your religion.

! Moderator Note The evidence continues to mount up.

What seems to be happening is that when specific criticism is leveled about a GOP policy, in this case it's arming teachers, you object on the grounds that it's attacking Republicans in general, which is unproductive. If you, personally, had a specific beef about a piece of legislation being suggested by an opposition representative, and had reasoned arguments why it was bad, would you want people accusing you of partisan rhetoric? Shouldn't we all be able to say it's a bad idea to arm teachers, even when some of us think it's bad to use more guns to solve a gun problem, and others think it's bad for more specific reasons? No, they're arguments against arming teachers. Very, very basic ones. I especially don't see why it's unreasonable to point out that a black teacher with a gun at a school shooting is a couple of orders of magnitude more at risk of being killed than anybody else within a mile.

This suggestion has the added conservative benefit of pushing private vouchers for education, so the public can pay for private schooling. If they can get scared parents to push for home school funding, the extremist capitalists can finally destroy public education entirely. Coupled with not having to restrict gun sales, it's a strategy that will appeal to many. I'm sure you'll see this suggestion being pushed by the far right, if it isn't already.

! Moderator Note Giving a hint is not being "snarky". It's what we do with homework help here, we help rather than give answers. You're either being far too sensitive, or you aren't being honest about your goal in discussing climate science. Dial back the troll, bro.

It was your original contention that the attack of the Republican position on guns was "mocking", and "definitely not getting shit done". I was asking why you seem to defend that position by arguing that attacking it was pointless. Are you now saying you don't defend the current GOP stance on gun control (without the idiotic Trump brain farts)? If you do, my questions all still stand. If you don't, I would ask if you would continue to support candidates who pretend to represent your reasonable stance by never passing gun control legislation, especially when you find they took a generous donation from the NRA/Arms Industry? Again, I'm not trying to demonize Republicans. I just think your stance is being exploited, election after election, by extremist capitalism, which has no moral problems expanding into the lucrative "armed education" market - Hey! let's talk ammo vouchers!

Arms dealers have played both "sides" for centuries. The trick is to make it seem like you aren't a "side", you're just helping a bunch of people who are trying to stand up for themselves, or defend their homeland. Hopefully they don't figure out you're making money off both sides. The trick they've learned lately (since mass media) is that when anyone starts talking about regulating your business in any way, they start complaining that it will ALL be taken away. It works for guns, it works for extreme wealth, it works for racial reform, and it works for social welfare. It also helps if the voting public doesn't have a very good education in critical thinking, so you can get them to help you with your agenda (which is actually quite bad for them).

I'm not interested in being right. I think arms manufacturers actually do things that create violence to promote higher sales, and I think they get folks like you, who just want a gun because you believe it's your right, to back their moves unequivocally. Notice how the NRA president is accusing the other side of exploiting mass shootings? "Always accuse the other guy of the bad thing you're doing" is a favorite tactic in politics. Gun sales soar every time the NRA responds this way to mass shootings. Arming the teachers is just another way to increase gun sales. It's been shown why it's irrational, and would only make a bad situation worse. Republicans keep voting not to regulate guns so they can have their rightful firearms, but they're letting their representatives relax regulations past the point of sanity. I'm asking you this: why do you let your vote be manipulated this way? Isn't it obvious that the arms manufacturers WANT there to be extremists (they call them VIP Customers, and their #1 Marketers)? Why is it so impossible for you to imagine regulations that let you keep a reasonable amount of firepower but restricts access to extremists? I really would like an answer, because what you're doing doesn't look like standing up for your rights, it looks like you're defending the right to sell arms to the killers of American school children. It's not sarcasm. Virtually every Republican I know believes in the right to life for unborn children, to the point where they can't understand the absolute need for abortion as an option. Religion is often at the center of this, and Christianity has many scriptures that refer to protecting little children, so it's understandable they would apply this to the unborn. This is where I think they err, of course. The unborn aren't really "little children". Unfortunately, they apply the same unswerving mentality to second amendment rights as well. These folks who are normally very nice, concerned about the government staying out of our business, and patriotic about defending the country, get talked into voting to keep as many guns being sold as possible. They only want the good things that gun ownership brings, but they want it so badly that they're willing to keep electing politicians who keep the arms industry making more and more profit and putting more and more guns on the street, increasing the chances an extremist will emerge, armed to the teeth, already well within our defenses.

Why does the far right defend the arms industry when it so clearly has reached extremist levels in our country? Why do virtually all the suggestions from the far right include more guns and ammunition, in clear support of the arms merchants? Can you honestly say you think this country needs to have more extremists with guns? Perhaps complaining and mocking about this mindset the Republicans have about profit over people isn't the best tactic, but it's pretty hard to understand all the contradictions. You usually seem like such nice folks, all right-to-life and everything.

The first step was to teach the kids to run around and make a lot of noise if an armed assailant steps into the room with them. This buys everyone else a little more time, more time to escape, more time for first responders, and more spent ammo trying to hit moving targets. Arming the teachers is the next step in this strategy, since it will obviously sell a lot more guns, and the amount of ammunition used goes up considerably. Finally, they make small caliber guns, but the grips are still too big for children. Perhaps we could lobby for subsidies to incentivize arms manufacturers to make guns the kids themselves could carry comfortably. The main thing is we keep this important industry alive at any cost. Morally, once your right to life is observed at birth, we're under no obligation afterwards, right?

! Moderator Note Thread temporarily closed pending review.

Again, you show that you don't understand science. Theories are, by definition, the height of critical thinking (which is probably what you really mean by "logic", since real logic is used more in maths and philosophy than in science). Theories are the best current explanations we have for various phenomena.

Let me guess. You dread going out in public because of the expectations, but when you actually go out you end up having a great time with all those people. It turns out you ARE the kind of person people like to get to know. Who'd've thunk it?

All we can do, if we have any intellectual honesty at our disposal, is to remove as much subjectivity like "truth" and "reality" and "proof" and "what's really going on", and observe what actually happens in nature, and use those observations, along with accompanying theory and mathematical models, to make predictions about the rest, and keep testing those against nature. All your attempts to know "what's really going on" are just guesswork, and that's what the methodology is there to reduce. You don't know what science is for, so you're like a person trying to measure their driveway with a song and then bitching when you don't get a meaningful answer.

One can only observe nature with a science that isn't interested in "ultimate truths" or "underlying reality". But at least we know now why science isn't working for you.

With the proper diagnosis of the problem, I think the confidence gained with putting yourself out there helps with the worry and depression. A professional would be able to help guide you in this. IF a qualified mental healthcare provider thought medication was indicated, they're the only ones with the knowledge to prescribe it. Therapy has shown fantastic results.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations, since this stopped being a mainstream question. ! Moderator Note Also, the personal attacks will stop immediately. Civility is our #1 rule here. In a science discussion, we attack ideas, not people.

I'm not so sure you can't quantify it. Is there a way to assess the content of the pro-Sanders propaganda? Was is lies that helped him, or was it simply higher exposure to his platform and speeches? We've seen the type of anti-Hillary propaganda used by the Russians, and most of it sounded more like the GOP wrote it. "Trump wants to stop the terrorists, and Hillary wants to make it easier for them to get in the country." The Russian propaganda always assumed her guilt despite multiple GOP-led investigations failure to find any actionable wrongdoings. If the Russians simply broadened Sander's audience, and allowed him on his own to sway more voters with his message, we can at least say those voters weren't deceived the same way they were with Clinton. Is there an example of pro-Sanders Russian influence that was lying about him?