Phi for All

I agree about the petty fears. What if the focus was on education, and making certain that everyone was educated through college (or trade school)? Put all our social efforts into producing the best 22-year-old humans we can, and everything that entails, including good food, good health, and accommodations for shelter and clothing if you don't have them. No private schools, so all resources are put into a single extraordinary system, where the focus is completely on blending talent with opportunity, and profit isn't even considered. If we could perfect a system like that, it would open up a lot of prosperity, and hopefully that might show us all that peace isn't something to be afraid of.

We see this so much, people making assertions, claiming they have evidence they'll be ready to give soon. If it really was supportive evidence, they could just put it out there at any time. Why wait? Why make all the "readiness" claims? The only kind of evidence that needs to build suspense is the kind proposed by charlatans and tricksters. Scientific evidence stands on its own merit. I don't know who Zakir Naik is, but to claim anything is "scientifically provable" is nonsense, and to claim nothing in Islam contradicts science is absurd.

Most wealthy Republicans hate paying taxes, even for public programs that benefit them, like highways, ports, and the military. They don't like paying their share even for things they use a LOT, even though many poor people help pay for airports they'll never personally use. So the idea of regulations that will be inevitable if climate change is acknowledged is enough to make them put multiple species in threat of extinction. They can't envision being able to profit if they listen to the smartest people on the planet. Fear drives them, imo, for many reasons.

I don't think you can achieve this by focusing on all this from the beginning. You don't need to force everyone to be peaceful; it would be much more effective to simply open up the path to unity and peace, and let the path itself encourage participation. Start with some kind of minimum subsistence requirement for human life. With all our gifts, we should be able to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education at a basic level for every human. If we can make that much of an investment in ourselves, we'll truly see what our potential is. It should be a level of support that can't be taken away by anybody, and available to anybody, no matter the circumstances.

See, now THIS is the type of thing that would really spice up your LinkedIn page. Make a note to add this.

! Moderator Note Welcome to SFN! Normally, since we're a science discussion site, videos aren't allowed to take the place of your own arguments, and members should be able to participate without watching lengthy videos. But I think you gave us enough in your OP for discussion, so I'll leave the videos there in case anyone would like to watch. I hope promoting this video isn't your agenda, and we all look forward to hearing your thoughts on this concept as well.

It's easy to fall into the trap of using scientific principles to justify a spirituality that's supposed to use faith to guide it instead. But it's not so easy that all the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam fall prey to it.

A valid argument, made unsound by misinformation. Please recheck your sources for "woman's brain" and "all women are bisexual".

The differences have been explained, so I'll attempt an analogy. Let's make it a capitalist analogy and say you own a store that sells merchandise. The Trump to Hitler comparison works because he's getting an invitation to come visit our store and look around, see if there's anything he likes. He's charismatic and friendly if you stay on his good side, and before you realize it he's got a truck parked around back, and he's filling it up with your merchandise, and thanking you for your generosity. He's in control of your life because you invited him. Sharia in the US would be like trying to drive the truck through the front of the store to steal the merchandise. We've got all kinds of security cameras watching the front, we've arranged the approach to the store so a truck can't get going very fast, and we've put those steel posts in front of the doors to prevent the truck from smashing through and ransacking. And as a last resort, even if they could get the merchandise, we've got ways to track it so we can get it back. And we have the police to help us stop these attempts as well. As long as we keep our protections in place, this is NOT a successful strategy.

Well, I'm no engineer, but I have this great idea about economy cars. You see, I figure if you design the car to take advantage of DRAFTING (following closely in the turbulence wake of another car), you won't need costly systems like steering and braking since you'll basically be "towed along" by the car in front of you. It's so simple! I can't believe none of the "professional" engineers ever thought of this before, but that's the advantage you have when you aren't "locked in the box" of mainstream engineering teachings.

I would expect an engineer to understand more of how science works. This is a caricature you have in your mind, where all scientists learn by rote without understanding the foundations of the subject, so they're susceptible to following teachings blindly. It's an image that lets you believe you have an advantage in ignorance, and I think an engineer would should know better.

According to the OP, I don't think that's a valid conclusion to draw. Underfunded ≠ without benefit.

If you don't mind, I'm just going to read this statement every time you post one of your ramblers about how you were born a poor, black anecdote, uphill both ways in the snow.

... and a selfish lack of support by the wealthy... Because I really think the wealthy have made these programs look bad so they can siphon even more funding from them for programs they receive more direct benefit from.

Whoa, who are YOU to mess with the GOP platform?

! Moderator Note Sorry, we're a science discussion forum. This isn't the place to advertise your video, or to perform a lecture. If you want to discuss paint-making, and can keep the discussion here onsite, feel free to open another thread about it. You can link references, of course, but the membership prefers not to be forced to watch videos to get your perspective. Thread closed, video removed per Rule 2.7.

But this is a science discussion, and your "feelings", while real for you, aren't objective enough to be meaningful to those of us dealing with reality. And what does any of this do to support your assertion of life after death? You have failed to support that at all.

This seems different from wanting someone else to be worse off than you. This seems more like having a friend borrow money for rent, then you run into them later at a bar where they're smoking and having drinks. As long as the loan is repaid, it shouldn't matter what it's spent on. But it seems wrong that help was needed with a necessity when luxuries are still being purchased, doesn't it? In the case of welfare, the system seems destined for eternal arguments on what are necessities and what are luxuries. And nobody is publishing figures on how welfare gets repaid when a person gets back on their feet and helps the economy thrive, so people assume it's a handout instead of a loan, and think they can control the way the money is spent. This is why it's so detrimental to have so much wealth concentrated at the top. All the benefits that have been slowly siphoned off over the years are very visible now in our emasculated middle class. We now know the tricks used to fool us, and some folks are waiting for someone to come along and make it right. These same folks helped vote in the clowns who took away consumer and worker protections, so it's going to be a long wait. I don't disagree with the whole not-wanting-to-be-last argument, but I think it becomes a very diminished problem if we have far fewer uber-rich and uber poor. This disparity seems to be at the heart of so many of our problems.

I think it's safe to say that those questioning the capability of something should really do better at understanding it first. Too many people using their own definitions of things like logic, and theory.

I don't believe this. I would like to test it out sometime, but first we'd need to start from a point of general overall prosperity, as a baseline. I think if people have enough to participate in their own society, so they can afford to buy the things they help make, and participate in tourism, and educate their children, and save for old age, and splurge on a nice meal out every now and then, they don't bother as much with envy.

OK, NOBODY gets to use these words for the next four years!

That bit Kobach's sleeve is blocking about "...immediately to forestall future lawsuits" is probably talking about shutting down Drumpf's Twitter account. Glad it's Page One for Homeland Security.

This statement is so detached from reality that it makes me think you're trolling. With both Trump and Pence's history of abusing minority Americans, I find your defense of their "protection" insulting and inhuman. Way to go.

I can only go by the ones intelligent enough to vote.

! Moderator Note If you're prepared to present evidence in a scientific attempt to support your assertions of mind control, please open a thread in Speculations. Please remember that you will need evidence in the OP; no unsupported claims at all. Hearsay and anecdotes are NOT evidence. We're looking for points that would stand up in a court of law, basically. There are plenty of places on the web to discuss this without this methodology, but here we don't chase conspiracies and we don't give medical advice. This thread is closed.