Phi for All

! Moderator Note You've had multiple requests to clarify what you want to talk about. From the first sentence, it's unclear, and just gets worse from there. If any person who is not an identical twin can identify with your concept, why doesn't it make more sense? Please define "apolitical correctness" as well, since Google is not forthcoming. No more responses from others, please, until the OP can help sort this out.

Use your reasoning filters. Swansont made no claims about you, but did say that some of your arguments made it seem like you were blaming the victim. That's not a claim, that's a really excellent invitation for you to explain your position a little clearer.

Couldn't let this stand tacitly, sorry it's off-topic. Your low upvote count is due to your being a smart person with limited life experience, a passion for learning, and a tendency to hold assertive stances. The combination is common in people your age. You use the knowledge you have but your reasoning filters are still developing. You make bold statements that often clash with what others know, so it's not difficult to see how that affects reputation. People don't vote you down because you disagree with them (or if they do, that will often be countered with an upvote). More often it's because you're being insistent and not listening past your own concepts. Again, pretty normal for the college-bound person flexing their mental muscles. You remind me of Cap'n Refsmmat when he first joined. It's a miracle he survived the early moderators. Very bold, very argumentative, often very wrong. Little bastard was like 12, and now he owns the place. Brilliant scientist. Age really doesn't matter, but the filters you gain with experience are pretty important. "A high proportion" sounds like "I'm pretty sure this goes on a LOT!" It's also far too subjective for us to take seriously. Also, since the current option is under question in this thread, I would suggest that "There's no better option" is a point that's far from being reached. I would suggest that building confidence in a case is exactly the sort of initiative the courts could improve upon, so there is no hazy line between informing and dissuading.

! Moderator Note This was a concept you were unable to support in another speculation that was closed. Please don't bring it up as a hijack in this thread.

Something empirical that adds to the body of evidence and avoids attempts to justify the conclusion as 100% fact.

Which still won't make your original statement 100% fact.

There is a non-zero possibility that only works with Romans.

This is critical. It's the nature of our intelligence to look for patterns in phenomena so we can explain and dismiss them, constantly managing the brain's resources. We treat "answers" and "proof" the same way we recognize the refrigerator when we see it; you know what it is and you don't give it a second thought, much less question it. But when we use theory, our best current explanation for a phenomenon, it has to be updated constantly. It's not a pattern that can be exactly understood and dismissed. As more and more supportive evidence piles up for the explanation, the theory is further strengthened but never taken as fact. The mechanisms can be thought of as fact, but not the theory. Like evolution is an observable fact, but the theory that describes it is constantly being supported by experiment and observation. This way the explanations we believe are based on trust rather than hope, faith, or guesswork.

Think of all the ideas intelligent humans have, and understand that almost all of them have to be wrong, and you begin to see the power of theory. Methodology keeps our feet on the ground while our heads are in the clouds, and limits guesswork and bias that ruin our understanding. This argument sounds like someone didn't invest in the right commodity, and is now trying to convince everyone that corn is bad for you. I suspect we're going to hear a rant about frozen concentrated orange juice soon.

! Moderator Note Trying to build knowledge on ignorance is counterproductive. The ignorance MUST be removed first before you can construct anything meaningful. It's a shame when obviously intelligent people choose to ignore mainstream studies. Thread closed.

In a "regular" assault, you'd have to be doing something overtly stupid to trigger questions about behavior and circumstances. In sexual assaults, you're right, the assumption is fairly automatic that the woman was doing something to bring attention to herself, like the guy in the regular assault who was flashing lots of cash in a rough neighborhood. In the woman's case, having breasts, smiling, or wearing perfume is often enough to trigger these questions.

If you replace "women" with a different group in our society (like "Asians", or "Stamp Collectors", or "Prosthetic Leg Wearers") in the above sentence, you can see how silly what you're suggesting is. Why should there be problems with these folks entering the workforce? What is there to "work out"? It seems to me that the problem in every scenario is still the man who refuses to treat with people on a non-sexual basis. I could understand it if you replace "women" with "convicted felons", or "those with violent mental illnesses". Do you think we should equate "women" with groups that have an understandable problem blending with the rest of society? What basic understandable problems do women have with regards to work?

Well sure, Deepfoot is real, we know that. You'd be shy and elusive too if you were under such incredible pressure.

Stare into the shadows long enough without critical thinking and your imagination will fill the gaps in your knowledge with fantasy.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

! Moderator Note By now it should be obvious that your style of narrowing responses to your claims to only those you understand doesn't make for a productive discussion. Pages and pages of members trying to help you understand explanations you've dismissed because you don't understand them. You stand on your soapbox and declare against the patient help others are trying to give. This is a science discussion forum. The discussions are for the purpose of learning. I don't see that happening, and I'll close this down if it doesn't start soon. And stop using the excuse that you're not a physicist to reject answers from people who are. That's just trolling. ! Moderator Note Responses to the modnote, which are off-topic to the thread, have been split off to here. ! Moderator Note Dalo, we'd love to help you, but if you continue to make assertions rather than asking questions that could facilitate learning, then you need to go somewhere else. Science. Discussion. Site. What you don't understand you should ask about, rather than making strident guesses. ! Moderator Note Respond to this note and I'll assume you don't want to try following our rules anymore, and that you've lost interest in the thread.

These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.

! Moderator Note After repeated requests for supportive evidence have gone ignored, I think it's safe to say the OP is not going to be able to satisfy the requirements of mainstream arguments. Since this won't fly in the Speculations forum without some kind of mature and reasoned approach, it can't go there either. I think it's best this just stop now. Chriss, this kind of guesswork is not what we're about here. There are plenty of places on the web that are, so you won't lack for input. But don't bring this up here again unless you're prepared to defend it rigorously.

! Moderator Note We aren't going to have threads in Politics like this. You're asking for guesswork masked as opinion. If you have a topic we can review critically and reasonably, please feel free to post that.

! Moderator Note Junk posts and the replies that were trying to help have been split to the Trash here.

! Moderator Note You need to stop wasting other member's time with your lack of rigor in mainstream threads. Almost 20 posts worth of wtf. Pop-sci explanations are usually flawed, and you make matters worse with your strong assertions coupled with weak support. Try asking questions if you don't know something. If you respond to this modnote complaining in this thread, instead of stepping up your game, I'll be happy to split everything after the first few posts into the Trash. Report this post if you disagree with it.

! Moderator Note Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback. I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome. Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.

I used to hire off-duty Denver cops during Christmas to wander around an urban mall area to cut down on shoplifting, and I learned how tightly-knit the legal system is. The police and the prosecutors need to be tight to make sure they get it all right and put the bad guys away. They protect each other from scrutiny because they want to be effective at their jobs, and don't always see sexual assault as a crime with a victim. The straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.

This seems like whataboutism. The issue is that there is a large percentage of men who assume they have a right to sexual advances on women they don't have sexual relationships with. What you're suggesting seems like saying it's OK to do that since there are not an insignificant number of women who do it too. Seriously, whatever your experiences, men have been trying to force women into sex against their will, and assume privileges that were never offered since we started writing history. How many of those histories detail a man being forced against his will? Remember, there are no bad words for a man who likes sex, but I don't have time to write down all the awful words we have for lusty women. Sorry about this, but men in general are always going to be the culprits in this, whether by direct action or by tacit inaction.

But you choose to strongly state her guilt, for something she might have done in your mind that multiple prosecutors couldn't prove and are certain doesn't exist. I didn't vote for her in the primary, but I think she is the victim of some far-fetched witch-hunts. For me, it's enough that she is part of the system that allows the extremist rich to take unfair advantage of everyone else, and I think her main opposition is simply a different set of extremist rich people who've conned you into demonizing her. This is a big part of the problem. You're convinced about Hillary, but far less sure about the creepy Trump doppelganger. It seems you've forgotten how to be outraged at the deception. Think about it. You turn Clinton's control of her emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA", but Moore gets the benefit of the doubt despite all the testimony from victims. Hillary has been through the ringer and hasn't been charged as a criminal, and Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of the system that would have investigated him. What are you "far less sure" about?