Phi for All

Why would you? Don't you want something you can trust more than religious beliefs? Don't you think requiring a preponderance of evidence accompany the explanations for various phenomena is better than placing "faith" in Iron Age spirituality? Why would you blend faith and wishful thinking with trust by calling them all religions?! To me, that's like calling every tool that does linear measurement a meter stick. It's neither helpful nor accurate.

! Moderator Note Unless you're proposing reasons or explanations that are against mainstream teachings, there's no reason for posting this in Speculations. I'll move it to Other Sciences for now, unless you have strong objections. Philosophy might be a good choice as well.

! Moderator Note ... but you got the warning point. Hmmm. Let's be civil, folks.

! Moderator Note And that sounds more like blog behavior. This is a science discussion forum. Do you wish to engage with others in discussion, or shall I close the thread?

! Moderator Note To have a meaningful discussion of your paper, it's necessary to clarify anything readers don't find clear. If you aren't willing to answer questions, how can discussion happen? Please address questions regarding your paper or the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note You sound like you're tired of having an account here. Are you?

Because you've somehow convinced yourself that's all it is, you big dumb brute.

Who offered to blame the men as a solution? Who blamed it on the men? This behavior has been around at least since biblical times. Recognizing it is important, I think. Perpetuation of the behavior may be more human than gender oriented. We all tend to hold on to advantage.

My wife is the one who pointed this out. It's been instilled from childhood, when dad would come home from work and mom would usually caution the kids to let him relax after a hard day. Placating dad and deferring to his wishes becomes the watchword, but of course the boys grow up to be the dads, and the girls grow up to be women who are rarely deferred to. It may be improving as more families have two wage earners. The traditional role of the father as disciplinarian may be changing as well.

Introduction: I’m going to talk about the notion of Spaces and Exchanges. This notion represents a very broad concept, it related to the various ways of moving all around the world. Exchanges can be of various kinds, for instances cultural, economics, or movement of people. We will see the example of the British Asian community and I’ll try to show how the British Indian Colonization lead led to many exchanges and modifications of the space between theses two civilizations. I) The British empire and it’s its impact on India The colonization of India began at the end of the 16th century. Even if they were not the first, British settlers progressively settled in India and ends ended up by creating in 1600 the British East India Company to increase there their leverage. By means of this company, they started to exploited the resources of India and thus causing caused great modifications of the spaces. Indeed, the British built a lot of infrastructures on the Indian territory such as mines for the exploitation of diamond, coal, and gold, and they also built railway systems, churches or cathedrals. Theses spaces modifications will be supplemented by exchanges of different sorts. Before and even after the abolition of slavery, many Indian were hired by the British Indian Company and sent all around the British Empire. In that way, they widely contributed to the formation of migratory flows. At the cultural level, the English language became one of the new national languages with the Hindi. Many Indians were compelled to learn the English to be able to work with the British who had the control of many business lines. Still today, speaking English represents a very important asset for Indians during the globalization of the world. The colonization also triggered good changes, for instance the rise of schooling and literacy, the creation of new administrations, legal systems and escalation of democracy. The proximity between theses these two cultures also [[wage] Not sure at all what you mean by using this word! Pick a synonym for what you mean!] to the interracial marriages and apparition of a mixed populations whose descendant shape India today. We saw that this colonization had many impacts in India during time by leading to modifications of spaces but also exchanges between cultures and people. II) The British Asian community and it’s its impacts on Britain In a similar way, Indians also affect the British civilization. As a mater of fact, the decolonization induced the arrival of many Indians on the Britain territory. Very often, they migrate for economic reasons to flee the poverty on there their country. They come to Britain because they speak English thanks to the British Colonization as we saw in the first part. These British Asians gather in Indian neighborhoods and they open many restaurants and corner-shops were where they share there their gastronomic culture. To this extent, Indians contributed to modifying the British culture notably in cooking but also in music, cinema with the apparition of Bollywood which is the name of the Indian film industry who broadcast all around the world. These modification are still visible today, for example the tea, originally from India, has become an inescapable tradition in Britain. The cohabitation of these two civilization created positive exchanges and a link between these communities as we can see in an image we studied in class. On this picture there is an Indian women woman and a foot guard in front of the Buckingham palace Palace. The women woman represents all the Indian community and the guard the British. It appears that the guard gives it’s his protection to the women woman, this situation symbolize the good relationships between Indian and British. Even if usually there are no tensions between the communities, it’s sometimes complex to be integrated in a different culture. The disagreement can be of religious nature or simply cultural but however described, they lead to a culture clash. In the film Bend It Like Beckham, Jess is a teenager who wants to play football professionally but her parents who are Sikh so they want there their daughter to go to university and marry with a Sikh husband. The film focuses on the culture clash between the family which is very conservative of the Sikh religion and Jess who is open-minded and influenced by the British society. Conclusion: The British colonization of India has considerably altered spaces and cultures of both countries. Theses modification are still visible today and the result of the colonization and decolonization is the mixed society which exist as well in India as in Britain today. Most of the time, exchanges have been beneficial for both countries but they also sometimes provoke culture clash between the communities. Here are a few markups that will help, not comprehensive and mostly just grammar. Good luck!

It was pointed out to me recently that, being a tall, white male gives me much more advantage than I realize. I've started noticing that in public, when I show up in just about any situation (meeting in a conference room, turning a corner with my cart at the grocery, getting food at a party with a buffet table), there's a split second where others will look at me to see what I'm going to do. If I don't do anything, or mirror everyone else's behavior, nothing different happens. But if I choose to, this is the moment when I can take charge of the meeting and ram my ideas through, or push my cart in front of someone else with just a nod of my head, or reach across to help myself to whatever I want at the buffet even though others were there first. These are little things, but many women have been taught to defer to me in all things just because I'm a tall, white male, and whatever I need to do takes precedence over whatever they had in mind. Now take a subject like science, where who you are should never be as important as what you know. It must seem highly hypocritical to women in science to be told that objectivity is all-important, and then be treated as less than their male counterparts. Science is a field where merit should decide most everything, yet we still have this masculine domination in many fields where it's counterproductive.

No. I responded to a specific mischaracterized generalization of China as "Fascist China". I supported myself with accepted definitions, and showed where your definitions were lacking. I also told you that you can be vague and imprecise if you want to. I don't expect you to be persuaded by reason, since it's clear you don't use reason to reach any of your conclusions. You make emotional and sweeping generalizations that I think are detrimental to anyone who wants to learn anything, and they tend to clamp off your availability for reason. Do I want you to abandon your interpretation of fascism? I think you need to add depth to much of your worldview, and abandoning your subjective, emotional rhetoric about humanity in general would be a net benefit for you. But look at me, being reasonable with you . Go ahead, go back to your ranting.

You go right ahead being vague and imprecise. It suits your emotional style, it lets you move goalposts when you're shown errors, and it confirms all the biases you've allowed to build up on your worldview.

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?