Phi for All

I call BS on all of that. Sure there are abuses, but not "most of the meat". In fact, abusing an animal induces stress and the resulting chemicals can adversely affect the meat. It would be stupid for someone in that business to allow abuse. All videos about the slaughterhouse are going to seem gruesome. Killing the animals is part of the process, and for cows and chickens at least, they wouldn't have lives at all without animal husbandry. Pigs aren't all slaughtered at six months. I think you've latched onto the emotional side of this argument before you engaged your reasoning mind. Now all you can see is horrible, and you ignore any benefits. You've turned this into a negative spiritual element

Produce regularly rots on the docks because it has no destination people are willing to pay for. What I'm saying is that, before you try to make people give up meat, why don't you use the much easier solution of making sure all food gets into bellies before it rots, no matter which species it's feeding? What you're trying to do is very negative, even though you're thinking it's positive. You're taking away when you could more easily add. Stop being so selfish and have a burger.

Sounds ominous when you put it that way. Like why bother putting down plastic tarp to protect the carpet when we're burning the whole house down around your freshly executed bodies?

People often forget that most domesticated animals would fail in the wild. They also forget that humane treatment and lots of food and healthcare are part of the equation. It's not all just "get in my belly", we hopefully honor the relationship more than you're alluding to.

Many elements went into our advanced intelligence, but it can be argued that the extra time we gained through animal husbandry and agriculture by not having to hunt and gather constantly is what allowed us to actually grow that intelligence meaningfully. But even though our lives are easier, we're still evolved omnivores. I'd say the real question isn't is meat essential, but rather is giving it up essential? Given that our distribution methods for the food we do have is inefficient and under-supported in many parts of the world, perhaps we could change that instead. If we could organize to the degree necessary to all stop eating meat, why can't we organize to get more foodstuffs to those who really need it?

I can see where people who think their god(s) cure disease would be irked at being forced to pay for someone else's doctor. Do these people not go to the doctor themselves? Isn't that only Christian Scientists?

We aren't a vegetarian species. We're omnivores. You can't change that just because we aren't distributing food properly. Personally, I don't think we would be as intelligent without portable sources of high-quality protein. Animal husbandry was just as important as agriculture to a species developing keen intelligence.

Speaking louder is a great start. I'm convinced there are more reasonable People out there (in ALL walks of life) than we're being led to believe. We need to start speaking louder about what we all need, instead of embracing the ruthless, only out for yourself, cutthroat capitalist attitude. We need more ruth around here, not less.

Americans aren't really passive in general. It's not like docility, where they don't mind being beaten. They've usually been emotionally hijacked by the way they're (mis)informed. I think it's more like acceptance of the narrative. Many people have been starved of education for quite a while, and now they simply accept that whatever the Republican wealthy elite tells them is good or bad. Whatever the billionaires want will work out best for all in the end. Many can't even tell you specifically why they absolutely, positively, to the root of their souls, hate Obamacare. Isn't it amazing how many People who could really use decent healthcare reject it when it comes from a source other than the GOP? And mind-boggling that the GOP gets them to accept something much worse for more money? I'm sorry, my Republican friends, but right now you guys look like a bunch of rubes at the carnival. Many Americans just accept that billionaires must know what they're doing, and that they'll benefit somehow from helping the rich get richer. How else can you explain why the rural People who helped put this whole perfect storm government in place will remain Republican after the GOP kicks them to the curb because they aren't wealthy enough to take care of themselves properly? Why does the GOP care more about the wealth of the wealthy than they do about the health of Republicans?

I'm going to write to that sniper, and suggest he set up near Lake Balaton. Hard to argue flat Earth crackpottery with someone like that.

As iNow alludes to, this assumption right here is your problem. "No allergens" implies "absolutely none", and I doubt you know that. Irritant is the other word you want, not stimulant. I suppose it's possible receptors can be triggered by a certain amount of irritants which are insufficient to trigger the rest of the reflex. You start to inhale enough for a defensive clearing of the nasal passageways, but it doesn't reach critical pressure and the sneeze dies in an unsatisfying exhale. Edit to add: Possibly when you start to inhale at the beginning of the sneeze, you dislodge the irritant?

When you phrase it in these ways, I can safely say you're wrong, or at least you aren't using the standard definitions. If you've done something before, your experience takes the place of imagination. Put it this way, if you want to serve the tennis ball to a certain spot on the court you've been successful with before and have done many times, you're going to serve it the same way this time, right? Right? Why would you need to be imaginative about that? You seem to be using imagine as "visualize", like you have to visualize yourself doing something before actually doing it. I don't think anyone else is using this definition, and that's why I think you're wrong about this.

! Moderator Note Off-topic post about 3 Powers of the Defender hidden. Speculation is difficult enough for an OP without others posting their own pet concepts.

Expecting certain answers to a question makes it sound like you're unwilling to learn. You're also assuming your description of what you heard is accurate, and that's a terrible assumption.

Auditory illusions are as bad as optical ones. Fooling the ears is easy, especially with sounds close to the bones of the head.

Can you provide a link that supports the claims you're making about "90% of universities"? You say you "believe" this, but do you know for certain that only 10% have programs that coordinate with actual manufacturing experiences instead of classroom only teaching? This seems like an incredulous rant if you can't provide some basis in reality.

I don't think we have the same concepts in mind here. To me, what you're describing, problem solving through pattern recognition and reasoned relationships (instead of logical) is what I would call using knowledge, not imagination. This is probably why I disagree with what you've been saying. I don't imagine I'm going to hit the ball unless I've never done it before. Since I have, many many times, I'm going to fall back on all that practice and hit the ball the way I know will produce a desirous result. I'll use my knowledge, and my imagination can lurk in the background. I would venture to say that complex physics problems are like that as well. The more complex, the more you rely on solving the problem the way you know it's been solved before. If the problem has never been solved before, that's when you need to be creative, as well as knowing what hasn't worked before. If you throw your racket at me after I beat you in tennis and that's never happened to me before, I'll need some quick imagination to figure out my best choices.

Imo, most social media is too brief to be informative. You have just a couple of seconds to grab attention in your quest for virality. So the messages there tend to be emotionally based, and there's the rub. You can't reason with emotional people. It doesn't get much more emotional than concern for your family.

Nobody is saying imagination and creativity aren't important. But I think they're more emergent properties of advanced intelligence. What I object to is the common modern conception that one doesn't need to study mainstream knowledge if one is intuitive and creative enough. I think that mainly comes from people who thought science was too hard when they had the chance to study it, and now they want to pretend their imagination is just as good, and produces similar results.

Are you talking about the potential contributions to science of someone who has lots of imagination and intuitive thinking skills but little actual mainstream knowledge? That would be my guess.

I disagree with this completely. Since you could survive and even flourish on knowledge alone, and would fail horribly if imagination was all you had, clearly your knowledge decides how far your imagination can take you. Of course knowledge without imagination exists in humans, if only briefly. It's possible to gain knowledge that requires other knowledge before imagination can put the two together.

Space policy globally is nowhere near being firm enough to trust states with weapons bigger than handguns. We've come a long way and we have a long way to go.

I think it's more like a building, with knowledge being the foundation and structure that lets imagination reach farther (taller?). You can imagine the top of the building, but without the knowledge that makes it possible, it won't support you.

Confirmation bias. You know a few Germans who did something, and now you're wondering why all the Jews haven't done the same thing? That sounds bizarre, doesn't it, expecting all one group to do what a few from another group did? Right?

It also makes sense to me that imagination is refined by knowledge. The more you know, the less time you have to spend using your imagination on concepts that aren't viable. You don't have to waste years of your life imagining that we're part of the matrix, or that the Earth is flat, or that you've developed the Theory of Everything without using maths.