Phi for All

I got twelve minutes because I didn't do it.

You bicyclists and your insistence on privilege! You don't have to follow the lanes, you can go where cars can't, you don't even have an engine yet we're forced to share the roads with you! You ignore the traffic I'm forced to sit in, and I can tell, as you peddle away into the sunset, you're probably sticking out your tongue in that bicycley way your kind has! You think you're so fit with your normal weight and all! We allowed you to use our roads and now you're like vermin, scurrying everywhere with your bells and your Lance pants and your fitness, taking road space away from cars! You stay in your little lane, two-wheels, because my envy can be lethal!

I'm reminded of a time I watched a guy get hit with a snowball. He was turned around, and his mate yelled "Look out!" instead of "Duck!" He turned back to look and got it right in the face.

I got twelve minutes.

The physics of unregulated capitalism. You're right, it's not a drag. Is it a push? There's pressure being exerted to draw more benefits upward, out of proportion to the work that's been done to create the benefits. It's siphoning off resources whose allocation to the middle class helps the economy more than sequestering them at the top, and it seems to have gotten to the point where the rise of some wealth is only powered by the fall of the lower classes as they're sucked dry.

I'm having a hard time with a standard reaction. When you hear the warning for a really fast-approaching object, is it best to stop and turn your head to see it? Or is it best to assume it's NOT going to run into you? Should you move at all besides turning to see? It's a bit of a toss up when it would be useful. It's good to be informed, but you can overdo it. But ultimately, I guess it would be worth quite a few false alarms and spilt coffees if you turned to see something headed right at you and a warning gave you time to evade.

The ones who've been skewing the benefits of high production their way for the last 60 years, to the detriment of the middle class worker. The selfish folks who profit by corporate welfare while forcing the poor to bootstrap it "the way they did". The people who continue to rig the system to benefit themselves at the expense of those without that capability, because they seem to control all the factors that might reasonably regulate them.

No, because I understand that my country isn't like a BINGO game. I understand that I don't have to be the wealthiest for it to be a pretty great life. I understand that I can't really be as happy as I can be if I know the selfish folks are dragging down others in order to win. I understand that if more people start out under even circumstances, and get the same investment in their potential, our society becomes one worth investing pride in as well.

Since the problem really seems to be the fastest cyclists, because they represent both the shortest reaction time and the most damage in a collision, it sounds like your double pulse sensors could be configured to only alert you when someone's coming up really fast.

Make it so.

If we made a proper investment in the first place, perhaps we could stop viewing it as "assistance". Giving someone aid seems to create an obligation for some. We just need to find the right analogy that will sound "logical" to a conservative: If you want to win at BINGO, you have to invest in as many cards as you can. It's not any single card that you can now identify that will help you win, it's ALL the cards involved in the game together that give you the best chance of having a card that gives you BINGO. It's the same with children, investing in ALL their educations and well-beings gives us the best chance of producing greatness. Plus, this way you get far more cards that are almost BINGO.

I don't understand the mindset that can criticize something one knows nothing about, so this really irks me. For our leaders to still believe climate change is a hoax is criminally ignorant, imo. Seriously, I consider it treason in many ways. I have to believe there is a presentation available for government officials showing the consensus in each branch of science that have joined together to form a consilience on the subject of climate change. Anyone who could sit through it all and remain unconvinced that we're in deep trouble over this is quite obviously either a complete moron or they're protecting an industry from regulation over the matter. Either way, they shouldn't be in office. So yes, I think there should be a compulsory course in science that isn't written by a partisan group. It should be constantly updated to keep pace with advancements, and it shouldn't be tainted by political agenda.

There's a big problem with this, as I'm sure imatfaal will agree with as a bicyclist. The cyclist is looking for consistent movements from pedestrians they're riding behind. If the walker gets a buzz that there's a cyclist coming up, which way do they move? Are they moving away from or towards the cyclist? I think the cyclist would rather they just keep walking the way they are with no sudden moves. I know I prefer consistent drivers on the highway. I hate seeing drivers making sharp lane changes with no signals.

I may be wrong, but this is what I see whenever I read posts from our members who claim their entire outlook is conservative. This is the fear that unravels all the good a society is capable of, imo. And it pisses me off even more because I think they've been manipulated to be this way, mostly by those who've found that if you have enough capitalism for yourself, everybody else can just go love themselves.

! Moderator Note Jerome Helvey, this section is for mainstream Genetics discussions. If you have an idea you'd like to speculate on, we have a special section for that. Even there, however, we require more than just some buzzwords strung together. Please provide some evidence for your idea. In it's present state, there is nothing to discuss.

Why do you think they don't, and why do you think they need more? Especially when you aren't holding them to any standards you and I have to adhere to (like paying taxes, being fair, and working to help your country)?

Proximity sense is real. It's a combination of aural and tactile senses. Things sound and feel different when you're close to something with as much or more surface area than you. "Feeling the presence" is vague and unhelpful. Are you talking about feeling as in touch, or feeling as in "undetermined sensations I'm going to guess is some kind of spirit"? If you close your eyes, or are in darkness, you lose the visual input that confirms our reality by confirming other sensory input (if you hear a quack and see a duck...). Your imagination is more suggestible to sound when you can't see (in the dark, the ticks of cooling machinery can sound like footsteps, for instance). Virtually every undetermined sensation has a basis in reality, so reaching for some kind of supernatural conclusion before ruling out the mundane is not good science.

Perhaps to help focus some resources on discovering if our president-elect is working with Russia illegally. Perhaps they're still trying to require his tax returns be made available, so Putin's influence on our elections can be determined. Perhaps they're wanting to see what will happen if Trump faces charges over his failed university. Shall I go on? You act as if Donald Trump is an average Republican, and it looks pretty funny on you.

This is the way I think about tar as well. Blinders in place to preserve hope. Good intentions in a pocket somewhere. Kind but distracted as he heads off the pier. And ultimately a turkey feeding us waffles while he gobbles on about how Pilgrims are Americans too, and how nice Thanksgiving will be this year.

... private schooling that robbed resources from the public option, resulting in a more skewed view of privilege and learning, and generally being sheltered from contact with those much less fortunate. ... never being part of a "random search" by police. ... the fact that I'll be a less likely suspect in a white murder despite the fact that 82.4% of white murders are done by other white people, because for some reason whites don't have a violent stereotype associated with them. ... you get to simultaneously reap the benefits of what your white forefathers stacked up in your favor, PLUS you now get to be completely colorblind, claiming it doesn't matter to you, that's not how you feel, we don't need to talk anymore about that whole silly race business, right? ... my daily life isn't plagued by all the myriad disrespectful stances people take against me just because of how I look. I don't see the state of wealth disparity and racial inequality to the degree others do, so I don't see what the big deal is. The tower is white, and the view is breathtaking. The people I've seen comparing Trump to Hitler (not being a Nazi, please stop being purposefully misleading) aren't doing it out of fear, they're drawing obvious comparisons. If you can't see them, you really have blinders on.

How does it benefit you to think of the universe as "a connected entity"?

OK, since you're obviously having trouble remembering who is who, I retract my criticism of your stance. This could be a medical issue, and if it is, I apologize. If you're having difficulties remembering who you're discussing things with, please see your doctor. Maybe ask him about the conservative fear thing.

Yet rural subsidies exist as well, they just aren't considered socialism. And I'm sorry but some of the lack of support is just plain pigheadedness. I've heard of rural conservatives who think housing subsidies that could help them with attracting workers should be abolished because they conflict with private business concerns that can provide the same services (marked up for profit, I assume). There is definitely some personal nose-cutting for face-spiting going on there. It's true that nobody wants to shun the widowed mother of four. It's also true that nobody wants to pay for people who are capable of working themselves. Whatever the perspective, the reality is that the "conservatives" shut down the 93% good because the 7% is unacceptable to them. They usually aren't even willing to work to reduce the 7%, they just want it all scrapped, which tells me how powerful their fear really is. Always tragic how you miss the point. Not adhering to my beliefs has NOTHING to do with it. I thought I was pretty darn clear that it's because you (seemingly purposely) misunderstand what you deride and refuse to learn. You live in America, but I don't think you're trying to be an American. You have no stance based on understanding of reality, imo. It's like you know the right thing to do, but you know it would be too hard, you just don't have the energy, and it's not so bad really. Another part of your waffleyness. You want us to be on the same team, but you don't think many are deserving of it, and you might agree that it would make sense to have minimum standards of living, but only if you get to judge everybody who might benefit from it, based on your privileged standards.

Here, RIGHT HERE, is where you fail as an American. Remember it. It's important. In treating economic solutions like socialism, capitalism, and communism as entire systems, you push ignorance into a situation that needs information and critical thinking. By conflating socialism with communism (Oh, I defined socialism wrong? OK then communism), you're sticking your head in the sand about ownership and economic responsibility. You've admitted you like owning the roads and parks and museums, which we've chosen to treat socialistically, yet you continually refer to socialism like communism and always assume it's replacing capitalism somehow. I guess I can understand why you don't recognize good socialism when you see it, mostly because people like you who label themselves conservative always insist on padding social programs with lots of capitalist concerns, to make them seem less communistic in your minds. I don't know why you think having the People own certain processes like transportation infrastructure is the same as state ownership, where you would have no say. In all the years I've discussed politics with you, you've always allowed your fear of paying for lazy people to override your basic care and concern for those in legitimate need of social programs. If I sift through the waffle long enough, I find that you support a helping hand for all the widowed mothers, but you listen to the other fear-mongers and disallow funding because that same helping hand program might benefit a few you've judged as undeserving. So People suffer because you can't figure out how we can cover basic needs for human dignity and still make a profit, or because you purposely misunderstand how social responsibility increases overall benefit while still allowing you to be in a privileged class.

From fiveworlds POV, my comment must have seemed suspiciously accurate and a bit stalkery. Perfect ironic coincidence for a thread about fascism.