Phi for All

Your question poses the argument that it's wrong not to let the developer of a theory discuss it on a science discussion forum. I agree with that argument, but that's not what happened here, therefore the argument is fallacious. I can assure you that this is called a strawman. Whether or not you agree is superfluous, since the goal of informing you about what really went on with the member in question has been reached.

If you think about it, it's the same appeal to hypocrisy that the Soviets perfected. "Sure I lied, but she did too." It completely ignores the ratios involved.

Strawman argument. He wasn't "discussing his own theory", he was interjecting it into someone else's mainstream thread, thus hijacking the discussion over to his unsupported ideas. It's the equivalent of getting everyone to the table to discuss the moon's gravitational influence on Earth tides, and having someone interject with a personal "theory" about green cheese having negative mass. It's simply not the place for that idea.

But you found it in 3 minutes, which is probably a Homework Help record. If the OP won't pat you on the back for an ASAP like that, I will.

Sorry, I meant to include a specific link to Whataboutism. It's a Soviet-style appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

But if we choose science, we get reasonable explanations, and the fun comes along automatically. You have fun.

As I understand it (Delta1212 mentioned it earlier), the information Trump shared with Russia could be traced back to an asset we shouldn't want Russia knowing about (and really had no right to endanger). For that alone, he should offer an apology. It has nothing to do with anyone keeping their traps shut. He made it easier for Russia to pinpoint an Israeli intelligence asset. Very bad. It was also a huge blunder to give up such a valuable bit of intel for nothing, and it's not the first time he's done it. I thought negotiation strategy was supposed to be a strong point? Brilliant dealmaker? AHCA anybody? He doesn't seem to be a very good negotiator. He spurns best practices even in the fields where he claims expertise, and he doesn't deal with people as partners. He bulldozes in an attempt to get the most in the moment, with no attention to relationships and the hard work it takes to maintain them.

Ah, the Putin Whataboutism tactic. Forget what a stain the POTUS is, what about those deeply disturbing internal science issues?

The OP is talking about "some groups of people", not "many people within the [X] group". And I think you missed my point, which is that a society embraces progress in proportion to the need for broader focuses. The North Korean society is not as progressive as the South Korean society because the North has a narrower focus, and its people don't need to be prepared to deal with as much as they do in the South. Opportunities for progress abound in the South. In the North, you get white rice on your birthday. No need for as much progress, narrower societal focus.

Some herds have joining requirements. Science's "herd prejudice" is that reality and rigor are more important than innovation and intuition. Why do these types of criticism always sound like laziness to me? Galilameo: "I don't follow the herd, I'm a creative thinker!" Herd: "Is it because we're going uphill most of the time?"

It seems to me that as a society's focus broadens, so does their need for adaptability, thus the requirements of progress. I would use "less sophisticated" instead of "primitive". People usually become as sophisticated/complicated as they need to be, and no more. More data allows for better information, which broadens opportunities. Better education makes you aware of more, and allows you a far greater range of capabilities, if your society can support such progress.

The only thing you need to clarify is your definition of "best". You seem to be using it synonymously with "laziest".

! Moderator Note You should be well aware by now that unsupported guesswork isn't allowed anywhere on this site. Please blog somewhere else, we are a science discussion site.

! Moderator Note This is a mainstream section you're posting in. Your unsupported notions aren't appreciated at all! Students expect to find mainstream discussion in the mainstream sections. This could be an opportunity for you to learn as well. Can you please have some intellectual decency and keep your guesswork in the Speculation section we've set up for that purpose? No response to this note is necessary, just knock it off.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. Especially in a section like Genetics, we're going to need a whole lot more than wavy hands, shaky guesswork, and assumed government alien DNA. OP needs to support this discussion with some evidence (none of that conspiracy site crap, either), or this thread is meaningless and gets closed.

! Moderator Note We're done here.

! Moderator Note Please, anyone trying to make these tired, well-refuted, ignorant arguments creationists have been peddling willfully for far too long is wasting their time along with everyone else's. The only thing discussions like this are good for is studying logical fallacies and poor reasoning as a means of avoiding it oneself. I'll leave it here but close it, since good science has happened despite the OP.

Just so we don't have to (necessarily) split all this cross-talk off, I think all this extra suppression behavior is an effect of putting a wealthy businessperson into a political leadership position. The Republicans have pulled the voter ID crap before, are always gerrymandering when they get control, and still seem to actively believe "certain" people (besides those barred by existing law) shouldn't get the vote. I think the Dems cater to wealth as well, but at least they're inclusive about it. It's always been obvious Trump cares only for increasing his own advantage in any way he can, like an extremist capitalist (somehow an acceptable extremism in the US?), but we're now seeing extremist capitalism wrt its effects on the People of the US. Our leaders aren't interested in our welfare, don't want us to be healthy if it costs them too much, and seem put out that we're unhappy financing their retirements. They seem to vote in support of a certain type of wealthy capitalist that thinks we should ditch socialist and communist economics altogether and force private ownership of everything. Now we can add obstruction of justice to the list of things the Republicans think we should just "move past". Forget Russia, forget the pussy-grabbing, forget the sick weirdness. Forget Session's recusal, forget the wire-tapping claims, forget how Obama was treated as POTUS, forget the debt ceiling bullshit, forget how intensely shady and corrupt this whole administration has felt from Day One, and its almost constant efforts to confuse the truth, sow fear and doubt, and suppress dissent.

Then you'll be glad to know I scoured the thread and found only one instance where someone said this:

Suppressing black voters for something that already precludes them from voting, claiming voter ID prevents a form of voter fraud that's only happened a few times in the last decade, and gerrymandering districts to favor themselves are the trifecta of Republican hypocrisy. It's all lies, and they learned it from Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, and now the wealthy King of Lies, Donald Trump.

I want this bumper sticker!

! Moderator Note This is not a section or a topic for "beliefs". If you have rational reasons why you oppose a concept like time dilation, post them here and support them as best you can with evidence. Waving your hands is not science. More rigor, please. Alternatively, it's perfectly OK to ask questions when you don't understand something, instead of claiming it must be wrong.

The data is tight and the conclusions firm. I'm convinced enough to move on to an alpha-test of a new procedure I'm calling Smart Sex. I'll go to great lengths to help improve cognitive function, no matter how hard on me it is.

! Moderator Note EmmaWhat, you don't get to wave your hands at the evolution evidence mountain and declare it doesn't exist. If you want to defend your position with anything approaching scientific rigor, I'll move this to Speculations. If not, it's only fit for the Trash without any reasoned support. I'll wait until you decide, or I'll move it to Trash tomorrow. Nobody is interested in correcting willful ignorance.

Everything I've read so far says this was a specious claim with deep roots in alternative fact.