Phi for All

! Moderator Note Just a reminder that we attack ideas here at SFN, and avoid harming the people who have them.

Something there is irritating the respiratory epithelium that lines your nasal passages.

! Moderator Note Two pages of misunderstanding and oversensitivity about ignorance. OP is gone, thread closed.

When you have enough money for it, private ownership of everything, or 100% capitalism, makes the most sense. If you have enough money to live on a park in a museum with a swimming pool, taxes to fund those same things for the public seem pointless, especially if you think personal wealth is the only measure of a person. If you can afford the best doctors on retainer, why would you want to be taxed so others can have healthcare insurance? If you can build your own roads and airports, why do you need the public to help and share ownership? Opting for more private ownership works best for those who are already own a lot privately. A heavier blend of socialism (public ownership) results in more options for the public. We have a big problem with the richest 1% stifling the other 99%, whether by intention or inadvertent practices, and one of the ways they do that is propaganda spinning socialist and communist solutions as unpatriotic, leftist, government interference that costs jobs and raises taxes. Nationalism is not a practical modern goal, imo, and in many cases is being used to create an atmosphere of tension, fear, and distrust using natural patriotic tendencies. Before we start allowing private groups to explore offworld, we need to be united as a planet, as a species. We can't afford to have humans we don't trust with full access to the resources available in space. Space exploration is guaranteed to be part of our future, and we absolutely can't afford to take our greed and pettiness into a galaxy with such abundance.

Nationalism attempts lately are more focused on profit than patriotism, imo. The ultra-right (or whatever extremism is handy) provide the chaos and distraction necessary to remove barriers to private enterprise. Also imo, condemning communism because you think it has to mean the state owns everything shows how effective ultra-right propaganda is. I also question whether the uber conservative label is being correctly applied. In the heavily right-leaning US, where the right wing controls the government, we're building private emergency health facilities left and right in the cities, which is the most expensive type of healthcare there is. We're letting bridges fail before we fix them, which means we spend many times more than if we'd just maintained our infrastructure. How is any of this conservative? I think some labels are being stolen to make certain actions seem justifiable.

So you're begging the question of God's existence to argue against the demon's existence. And using semantics to do it. Pretty weak, just sayin'. Not much there to discuss, seems more like a blog rant. What about this interests you so much you joined to post it? What did you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note A hijack of this hijack has been hidden.

Those that are practiced by people with whom I disagree. As swansont mentions, it's an us vs them label, bestowed by those who consider themselves enlightened. I've always dislike when this word is used in real life. It attempts to describe "them" as stupid and immoral. It begs the question of questionable character. It's a word that's usually accompanied by spitting, and the shaking of pitchforks. It's a word that stops meaningful dialogue in its tracks, imo.

! Moderator Note Welcome to the Speculations section. Please read the special rules for this section, and provide as much evidence as you can to support your position.

Don't be afraid. You seem to understand the meaninglessness of setting conception as an arbitrary point for the beginning of life. Why is it so hard to see why professional biologists might not find meaning in a similar distinction with regard to evolution? Where does the micro/macro distinction help if we're talking about the same process?

The tabloids are probably more what the OP is talking about. People who obsess over the perceived real lives of celebrities are probably blurring the line between on-screen portrayal of dramatic situations and what goes on in a fast-paced, well-financed lifestyle. I think we tend to have funny ideas about people with lots of money. We hear about Michael Jordan and Don King dropping six figures at their favorite shoe store, and we tend to think all rich people have closets full of shoes. Or because Harrison Ford owns his own jet, they all own their own jet. I'm sure though that celebrities are as varied as any other segment of the population in their habits. Here's a thought. Is it the celebrity or the money that attracts us? If actors made about as much as teachers for what they do, would the obsession with them persist? Are there any celebrities who aren't wealthy? Not just someone who's down on their luck or blew their fortune, but someone who is internationally known yet makes a salary more in line with the 99%? For instance, Bernie Sanders is a very famous man, but he's not fabulously wealthy like many politicians, actors, and media personalities. Any others?

What meaning do you find in breaking down an ongoing process in this way? Professional biologists might have a similar problem describing conception as the beginning of life, since it's part of a living process. Creationists do indeed hide behind this distinction, and the meaning they find is religious, not scientific.

I love good stories, and good stories are driven by characters. The actors who bring those to life, whether on stage, cinema, or television, are artists creating emotions and experiences in an entertaining fashion. I got a chance to see a bunch of celebrities this summer. They were paid to sign autographs and take photos with fans at Comic Con. In particular, I watched Wallace Shawn for a while. The man is so genuinely thrilled by his fans, and has such a contagious, grinning joie de vivre. I personally don't collect pictures and autographs, I've always thought it robs the moment, but I realized later that I could've paid $50 just to talk to him for half a minute, and thank him for all the wonderful stories he helped bring to life. I was so against the idea of paying for an autograph that it stopped me from thinking of any alternative. I really wish I would have thought of it at the time. Inconceivable! If I see a play locally and an actor moves me, I thank them afterward if possible. At an international level, paying for their time is to be expected, I suppose. For me, it's not the actors, but the characters that made me feel in different ways.

! Moderator Note This is a mainstream section, and so far your questions have been appropriate, but I wanted to caution you about mixing speculation into your mainstream thread. If you have an idea you want to assert that isn't mainstream science, it needs to be contained fully in the Speculations section. Too many students come here for answers their teachers will give them good grades for. You can keep this thread pure and it will stay put. You can mix in some conjecture that will be split off to a Speculations thread of its own. You can also keep this thread pure AND start a new thread with your hypothesis, doing your best to support it per the rules of that section. You don't need to answer this note, but I wanted you to know your options.

! Moderator Note A speculation about holographic universe was split off to here. The mainstream subject in this thread is quantum entanglement.

! Moderator Note The speculative parts of this hijack can't be any part of a mainstream thread. Please think about students who trust mainstream to mean just that. Please defend the speculative parts, per the rules of the Speculations section.

! Moderator Note Way too preachy to be discussable in any meaningful way. Try again, do better. Let's not blog here anymore. Let's discuss things from a reasoned, scientific POV.

The quality filter might be set too high....

In what way? Would they vote for a Democrat or an Independent to unseat him if he makes it to 2020? Or do you mean they've stopped donating money? He gets to keep the campaign funds even if he pulls out, and as long as he isn't too obvious about it, he can use them to donate to other campaigns, pay people who helped him, almost anything he wants to do with them. None of my Republican friends are willing to say they'd vote against him. I think this is part of the effect I mentioned earlier. They will forgive him everything else if he comes through on a few things they think are important. Most of my friends favor infrastructure improvements and one will go absolutely mental if billions are spent on that stupid wall instead of bridges, but they still support the decisions of the WH.

As with most generalizations, this is wrong. The American Dream was a two part commitment. Workers maintained steadily increasing productivity, and owners paid them well enough to participate enthusiastically in the economy. Detroit auto workers are a good example. American productivity is as strong as ever, but wages don't reflect that, and haven't since Nixon. The efficiency experts of the 70s and 80s morphed into the bean counters of the 90s and 00s, and nobody screamed when the cuts hit bone, so they kept on shaving off wages and benefits until we're at the present day, with the American Dream looking pretty nightmarish. People in general are pretty generous, and seem to like to be that way. If they seem greedy, it could be because they feel generally screwed, like it was supposed to be better than this. Like a few have been sucking up resources for themselves that should have been maintaining the Dream for everyone, maintaining America's greatness. I'm skeptical our problems can be solved by someone who wrote books on how to overcharge others. Making America great again is going to cost the difference between productivity and middle class wages, multiplied with interest over the last 60 years, for every US worker.

I'd love to see the US donate energy-efficient appliances, instead of building hydro-electric dams that mostly benefit US corporations. Foreign countries might start liking us again, and it might cut down on corruption. And it's the kind of right here, right now help that's often most needed.

! Moderator Note I'm locking the thread temporarily to reset some sanity levels. This is becoming far too personal to gain meaning from the discussion. Most of the staff is involved, which makes it tough to make judgement calls, but MigL you know better than to purposely court suspension for a cheap personal shot. The fact that lots of those are flying around is the only reason you're not going to be on vacation for the eclipse discussions on Monday. This goes for everyone. No matter which "side" you feel you're on, losing your mind is always a bad strategy. Please recognize that this thread perhaps needs more focus than "anything related to White House ass-booting", and that some of the concepts blended here may be more accurately discussed in separate threads, where cool heads can ensure that stances are explained to everyone's satisfaction within the rules of civility we all claim to appreciate. Staff will review, and we may open this back up later today or tomorrow.

I think you're wrong about statues being pieces of history, and that's why the rest of your stance seems arguable. "Sanitizing history" is a bad thing, and you've mistakenly grouped the removal of statues in that category. Statues aren't a plaque teaching history, they're objects of veneration, bigger than life and placed to inspire. Our societies and the reasons for our veneration change. It's not changing history to remove a statue. What changed was the veneration of that history due to how society views the actions currently. If a former hero on his horse who fought a brave battle back then is later found to have tortured the prisoners to death, you can still commemorate the brave battle without venerating the monster.

Isn't holding today's Democrats responsible for what the Democrats of 80 years ago did (and many of their children are now today's Republicans), like holding San Diego responsible for mistakes the Los Angeles Chargers make? Were you a Democrat before Nixon? Were your parents? Mine were Republicans before Nixon, but I don't hold them responsible for Trump.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I think there is a sort of disconnection that goes on when you have to stop experiencing life in real time to record it or share it electronically. Without the phone, the experiences are yours, and I would argue they're richer because of it. With the phone, you're trying to show others how much fun you're having instead of having the fun for yourself. You can't rely on others to supply the joys in your life. You need to recognize them to experience them. I also think too many people make decisions emotionally first, and then try to justify them critically later (which is another symptom of internet social groups that don't have much time to grab your attention). I think they often paint themselves into an emotional corner where it seems there's no way out, and critical thinking helps very little once you've made up your mind emotionally.