Phi for All

Strawman argument, since the metric "sucking" wasn't being objected to. Fascism was what I commented on, only that because that's where you were wrong, but refuse to admit it. Irrational behavior, use of fallacies, I'm helping to point out areas where you need work on your arguments. Please stick to facts and leave your emotional slant out of it, if you will.

! Moderator Note Hello. To avoid spammers, new members aren't allowed to post links for a bit. In any case, our rules state that discussions can't require members click outside links or videos. Please post your paper here so discussion can move forward. Welcome to the site.

Yeah, about that. Those are some bullet points put together by rense.com to push a commercial fringe agenda. I don't put much credence in them. A more in-depth and accredited article suggests fascism may be trending: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html And none of these points covers the lack of centralization in China's power structures. They cover the other two major characteristics of fascism, extreme nationalism that trumps the citizens in importance, and heavy authoritarianism. China hasn't been fascist since the 1930s.

If you don't mind imprecise definitions, yours is the mindset to have! Go for it! Be vague! Problem is, there are only three major facets to fascism. Does your method round up for 2/3?

Big sigh. I'm so sorry you're having trouble with comprehension, it MUST be me. What I said was that China is NOT a fascist state because they don't fit the definition in one very big regard: their power structures aren't centralized enough. I didn't make any statements about "siding with you". I didn't make any statements about "defending the evil world". I didn't insult you, I criticized what you've said. You seem to hear a whole different set of words than what people write, and then respond to what you think you heard. Maybe now you can understand why it's distasteful discussing anything with you.

! Moderator Note Absolutely. This is now something we can no longer discuss within the rules. Thread closed.

Also, excuses NOT to weed = ∞

That was me. It sickens me that your outlook is so naive, irrational, and simplistic that it can do nothing more than irritate. I've also mentioned your propensity to suggest impossible fixes are the only solution to your nihilistic fantasies. Much of what you post is sickening to me, but I've said it so often that now it's easier just to warn people away from you using the rep system. Your POV is such a caricature that it's hard to take it seriously. You're like a puppy that rushes into the room, knocks over all the furniture, and shits on the rug, then whines when the humans usher him outside. And you continue this behavior while crying about how nobody loves you, everbody's mean to you. You're almost as annoying as Kim Jong-un, just so I can stay on topic. China is NOT a fascist state. It's power structures aren't centralized enough. Foreign Direct Investment into Chinese markets have shown us recently how decentralized the government and local provinces have been fiscally.

Besides being off-topic to the discussion.

My questions are based on your formula, which doesn't explain what happens to the same rocks in the same time under different conditions. Time is a temporal coordinate, but if I change the spatial coordinates of the rocks within the same time coordinates, the changes in matter will be different, and unaccountable using your formula. Your formula also requires matter to change in order to have time at all, and that's backwards. Time allows change.

Where did your example come from, and why didn't you give citation? The quote seems amateurish at best, ranty and crackpotted drivel with waving hands and no meat. I'd like to know where you found it, why you decided to quote it, and why you think it doesn't deserve to be cited. I couldn't find it anywhere else on the net, so what are you up to? Here it is again in case you forgot:

Matter is changed in many ways. If we use only time, there will be an unexplained difference in (for instance) rocks that are underwater, and rocks that are sealed in a cave, and the same kind of rocks above ground subject to weathering. Are you also saying that time doesn't exist in a vacuum?

! Moderator Note Just remember, we need a model at this point, so focus on that. I'm going to close this until you're ready. PM me when you're ready, or Report this post and a staff member will re-open it. So we can see your model.

Way too high, imo. Look at it this way, when you apologize for something you did, if you could go back in time and do things differently, would you? And doesn't that make the apology sincere from your POV? I'm sorry, if I'd known you were a little ways behind me, I wouldn't have closed the door in your face. Sorry about bringing you here, I forgot your mom died in a McDonald's. Ooops, sorry about the peanuts, do you have an Epi pen?

No, this is the Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuroscience section of Science Forums (a science discussion forum), and speaking biologically, humans are a single species. I think your ideas are much more suited to a blog, because you aren't using science, and you make your claims with no support, yet seem to insist you're right. Why would I want to discus anything with anyone who argues the way you do, waving empty hands that should be full of evidence to persuade me?

Science prizes rigor, clarity, and precision. Creativity can present perspective to all phenomena, but scientific methodology is best for explaining those phenomena. Discussing "vague" is never best. What are you looking for from a science discussion site?

This is what I meant about the meaninglessness of guesswork. But... what if we were suddenly wiped out? Primates have most of the requirements for using many human tools. I'm curious if anyone has ever done any long term experiments to see what primates do with tools like rope, or hammers, or saws. The use of such tools within a population would have measurable effects on it, and encourage experimentation which may lead to increasing intelligence.

I like the passionate defense of reason. However, if you start with the passion, you really can't trust your reasoning.

I was interested when I thought you were suggesting another species taking over our tech when we're gone, and how long it would take to develop the intelligence needed. That seems like something that could be supported by experiment. There are far too many variables for what you're suggesting, and any discussion about it would be guesswork at best.

I trust scientific explanations supported with evidence. Most of what you've written seems to be highly subjective, and is useless to build any kind of hypothesis upon without the ability to make testable predictions. Why did you want to discuss this scientifically, at a science discussion forum? As the moderator mentioned, this seems more like a blog where you're telling us your thoughts, and not trying to establish experiments to test your hypotheses. Anyone can claim what you claim. Do you have anything beyond guessing? Something that distinguishes your ideas from vague ponderings? What's the "square-effect"? Why do you claim everyone never thinks of race when thinking about family, when you can't possibly know what everyone thinks?

! Moderator Note Per our rules, advertising your YouTube videos is NOT science discussion. We welcome discussable topics that don't require members to click outside links.

! Moderator Note Please see your similar thread for further explanation. Shall I merge these two? And ask that there not be a third?

What does this have to do with science? This is all subjective opinion you're asserting as true, and are now trying to preach to us. Where is your support for these ideas? Do you have any evidence that might convince me this is more than just guesswork?

! Moderator Note

! Moderator Note Just remember, we need a model at this point, so focus on that. I'm going to close this until you're ready. PM me when you're ready, or Report this post and a staff member will re-open it. So we can see your model.