Phi for All

I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that this is waaaay beyond consensus of climatologists at this point. A consilience is when there is consensus between multiple disciplines, all arriving at the same conclusions. On climate change, we have a consilience in the conclusions of fields ranging from geology to paleoclimatology to meteorology to biochemistry to geophysics (and lots more), and they've all followed separate lines of evidence all leading to the same conclusions: humans need to cut back on carbon emissions or we'll seriously harm our present environment, and thus our ability to survive in it. The evidence also shows us that taking steps to prevent this can delay degradation and even reverse it, so it's possible to fix this if we make the necessary recommended changes.

What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple. What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? "Here come the grapes!" (she was colorblind)

Seems par for the course lately, Republicans sludging up the works and then pointing at the POTUS for not getting things done (I've watched them do this ever since Reagan - mess up the system, then claim the system is messed up). I don't think much of your evidence for "circumvent[ing] our laws". It seems as though procedure has been followed, if respect on both sides is lacking.

I haven't read through all the links, but how many are going to be like this one, an attempt to circumvent the blockades on judicial appointments the Republicans have only erected against this one president? How many of these accusations are going to be simply your right-skewed perspective on how Obama had to fight upstream through two terms to get the respect every other POTUS has been given as part of the job?

I think the only thing they all have in common is that none of them have any evidence to support them. And some seem unfalsifiable, which makes them unscientific. Dimensions, as used in string theory, aren't planes of existence. They're coordinates in a system for determining position in spacetime. I could give you x, y, z, and t so you could figure out where and when to meet for lunch, for instance.

! Moderator Note qasimchef, if you'd like to support your assertions with evidence, I can move this to Speculations. If you are still just asking questions, and looking for helpful replies, we can continue here with corrections to some of the assumptions you've made. We await your reply.

Perhaps the Ig Nobel Prize. Dunning-Kruger category. and good catch on the Bingo!

I don't understand the connection between a Venus tattoo and killing one's mother. If you revere Venus, you'd never kill your mother? Is that it? I don't understand why it would be fallacious to object to both the tattoo and killing one's mother (while having the tattoo).

! Moderator Note This has to be our official stance as well. We care about our members and feel it does more harm than good to offer advice that might take the place of a professional, personal diagnosis. Please see a qualified medical professional about your depression. I can leave the thread open to discuss the disorder in general, but any further posts offering medical advice will be hidden.

I said they look alike on many stances. Shelley Moore Capito has actually voted for some Obamacare expansions that would make it harder to overturn it. Mark Kirk has a pretty liberal voting record on social issues and the environment, that offsets his more conservative stances on foreign policy. I think John McCain would have made a decent POTUS. He was against the debt-ceiling and government shutdown strategies to block the ACA, which I always applauded him for. Earlier this year, Carlos Curbelo worked to create a bipartisan caucus on climate solutions, trying to acknowledge the very real issues facing us and our lack of viable policy options. Jeff Denham from CA co-sponsored an immigration reform bill created by the Dems. He's also broken with Republican ranks to defend some of Obama's immigration policies. And I don't think Clinton and Obama are that far off the moderate Republicans when it comes to favorable dealings for Big Business. Corporate taxes are consistently low imo, and the regulations that govern them continue to be relaxed in too many key areas.

It could just be as simple as demanding professionalism. Being a gangland boss is like being a Marine drill sergeant. Being sensitive and emotional is detrimental to the skill set, and is often seen as inimical to ruthless decision-making.

Neither major party represents me very well, but because the overall social perspective of the Democrats is much more reasonably and realistically aligned with mine, I tend to give them my vote. Personally, I think if Obama had been white, he might have been given the respect his behavior should have earned him (in many stances, he and Hillary look just like moderate Republicans). Throughout his terms, President Obama and his family have embodied the very best of what it means to serve the US as its highest elected official. Whether or not you agree with his policies, I think an honest person has to admit the deck was stacked against him in terms of situation and support. He inherited a country in wreckage, and did the best he could with little help from the other branches supposedly dedicated to our prosperity. He was absolutely one of the best. The Republicans feared this nightmare of blacks and women running for POTUS would unfold eventually, and their intractable, juvenile, fingers-in-the-ears-blockade of anything good that might come of it has tarnished their reputation worldwide, something they seem oblivious to (or just don't give a rat's ass about, because hey, foreigners). They've done things other administrations would have considered unimaginable (like denying a POTUS hearings on SCOTUS candidates - last time that was done was 1875). And now it looks like they're going to urinate similarly all over the first woman POTUS' administration. Trump is their candidate, and he's the perfect embodiment of what the party has become, as evident by all the support he's still getting from the party and its members. At this point, I'm so tired of the gridlock that I might even welcome a Democrat-controlled Congress. But I'd rather the Republicans would decide to just get their shit together and stop blocking non-white, non-male presidents just because of who they are.

This sounds like the empty rhetoric Republicans have been slinging around whenever Obama has been able to figure out a legal workaround that thwarts this Congress' attempts to block everything positive our first black president wants to do.

Can you give us a real life example? If I understand, it would be like Jack's mother objecting to the handful of magic beans he sold the cow for, but she wants to keep them as a reminder of what an idiot Jack can be. Is that an example of what you mean?

So now I know what you got. And when you start holdin' hands with some dame, we know who to put the bag on. I think the mafia voice in my head is from Chicago circa 1930.

Anyone you like is leverage that can be used against you. Showing it openly is like flashing your hand in poker. Fugettaboutit.

The "nasty woman" comment was the perfect summation of Trump's character, imo. It pointed up his hypocrisy by complaining about her deft comment after making several juvenile ones himself. It highlighted his narcissism by objecting to a comment about avoiding taxes being a bad thing, because he himself has bragged about it being smart. It proves he has trouble controlling his mouth and his emotions, that he lets his ego keep him from being smart in high-pressure situations. He should have shook his head and grinned and kept his mouth shut. He quite visibly took a moment to process her comment, and made the decision to say something into just the right moment to be heard by everyone, and he chose to say, "What a nasty woman". It showed everyone that he first thinks about people in light of their gender or ethnicity, and let's that affect his overall judgement. Even if you could argue that Hillary's remark about getting him to pay a higher tax to insure the future of Social Security was actually nasty, what difference does it make that it was a woman who said it? I thought it was a great zinger coming from anyone.

So they basically refused to talk to you anymore about abortion because your position went against their morality? If they're arguing that any stance but their own is immoral, I'm sure they're using circular reasoning to get there. It's hard to justify never resorting to abortion without it.

I picture him surrounded by a constant cloud of smug, serene in the knowledge that his curses have already made him the inevitable victor in every argument. Given his conclusions, I gave him credit for many, many leaps.

! Moderator Note Welcome to SFN! While the title asks a question, the OP is an argument against mainstream theory. As such, I need to move this to our Speculations section so students don't mistake any posts for textbook answers. Please take the time to review the special rules for this section. Evidence to support your idea will be much appreciated. We want to make sure to remove as much guesswork and misunderstanding as possible, to give your idea its best chance at surviving refutation. No need to respond to moderation notes, but if you object you can Report this post.

I wonder if people like Brad are susceptible to the same tactics they use. When they get chain letters, do they respond immediately, and do exactly as they're told to forward the letter to 1000 friends or else their elbows will fall off? Or would his own immense power trump that of anyone who tried? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=857712

Sorry, but I don't believe this. I think you're embellishing. My research shows that the term "prick" is just what I said it was, another word for "jerk" or "asshole". "Prick" isn't a generic term, but it certainly doesn't imply the reverse of what "slut" implies. Even though it's also a term for genitals, the epithet "prick" doesn't have a sexual basis. "Slut" always does.

I'm the first male in my generation in my family who hasn't taught his daughter that she needs to stay quiet when the men are talking. My daughter doesn't have to fold her hands in her lap and keep quiet if she has something to say. She doesn't have to apologize if I get angry about something that doesn't concern her. She has not been groomed to be a housewife. I want you to think about the "sexist comments" you hear "coming from both genders". Can you tell me any of ones you hear coming from women? Because I've never heard any comment about a man that was anywhere near as hateful and diseased as the worst of the insults men level at women. When a man makes a sexist comment about a woman, he's usually implying that the woman is promiscuous (like that's a bad thing). What does a woman accuse a man of? Promiscuity is a plus for many men. The worst sexist words for men are the equivalent of calling them "jerks". The worst sexist words for women imply that they're unfit, unclean, and deeply tainted sexually. Men can laugh off sexist comments, because they're allowed to like sex almost as much as they want. Women are only allowed to display as much interest in sex as men think is right. Like the BLM issue, I think you'll find there is no equivalency. Police procedures are at the core of the BLM issues, and men are the ones who need to modify their behavior in the gender war for the most part. This is not a they-do-it-too matter. Not equivalent.

I don't think looking for reverse discrimination is the answer, especially if you're concerned about never-ending loops. Perhaps groups like Black Lives Matter need to wear name tags along with their pins. People discriminate based on group thinking, but I don't think it happens as much when Ben meets with Reychelle at work, or Reychelle asks about Mr Ahmadi's son's graduation when she goes to pick up her dry cleaning at his store. Mob mentality strips away individual identity. You've heard it said that a person can be smart but people are idiots? A person with a name could be a lot like you even if you don't know them, but someone from a group you seemingly have little in common with is a stranger. Perhaps you could look at BLM as an attempt to get to know some black lives, or to look more subjectively at individuals and not people or groups. What you see as reverse discrimination might be attempts at legitimate change. Some white people misunderstand these types of movements as "turning the tables", like we have to discriminate against somebody and it's the white people's turn. I think it's really more about breaking the habit of applying traits and characteristics to whole groups and expecting anything accurate or meaningful to come of it. This shows us that individual lives do matter, and should matter to everyone.

I had lunch with a gentleman during the International Astronautics Congress a couple of weeks ago. He's one of the ten former Air Force nuclear launch officers who signed an open letter saying Trump should NEVER have access to the codes. Their training is aimed at preventing angry, aggressive, uninformed, out-of-control leadership from getting near the buttons. It's not a situation for impulsive, rash, emotional behavior.