Phi for All

! Moderator Note We most certainly do. That's how we know we're doing science. With no evidence, this thread is closed. If you start another conspiracy thread with no evidence, you'll be banned. Go someplace where they like this sort of crap.

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-scientists-re-create-life.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Just like the seed would become a tree. Not all seeds need to become a tree, and it's not unethical to feed baby trees to animals. And babies aren't treated like a full-grown person in real life. There are many restrictions. You can't leave them by themselves in public. You can't hire them to work. They can't vote. Babies are treated differently, and that's not considered unethical. This is another abortion argument that goes nowhere, and ends up contradicting itself.

This whole part of your argument, the murder part, is really distilled down to this point. Why would anyone who didn't want a baby get pregnant in the first place? The answers are all different, and there are a lot of them. You should read what a zygote is, or a blastocyst. They're potential, really, but not people. Not in the way the mother is a person. What you're saying is like insisting that all tree seeds have to become trees, and that a seed deserves the same treatment as a fully grown tree. When you look at life as a constant process, you realize there's no magic at conception.

Objectively, I would point to the inability of law enforcement to investigate every suspicious miscarriage reported (Should the mother have been at the gym? Was she risking her child's life when she became vegan? I told her NOT to use cleaning products!). Life beginning legally at conception would be a nightmare. And if you can push the line away from conception, there may be other equally good reasons to push it further, to cover more situations. Ethically, this is a situation where you MUST concede to both sides of the issue. Personally, I think you can only be wrong about this if you take the OP's position, or one where you allow abortion a day before birth. If you're at an extreme end on this, you're ignoring a whole lot that's important.

Nor has he established the context for the invisibility. My invisibility cloak is invisible and can't be detected by any sense, but doesn't confer those traits on me. It's invisibility is strictly for making itself invisible.

Sitting on your wallet causes a slight gravitational collapse of the matter making up your cash, converting it to its denser form, receipts.

Uncomplicate it for me. Why do you approve of things like the People owning the streets and parks, and funding programs to make sure fellow People don't starve, but then you say you don't approve of socialism. It makes it look like you don't understand.

Big Storage is taking over the world!

It sounds like you're very close to a tipping point, where you'd actually spend less time thinking about smoking if you gave up the anti-smoking procedures. Nice place to be, congratulations!

This is a great balance. Unfortunately, I think many who would agree are being manipulated by capitalist concerns preaching that a good conservative should be voting for oil subsidies, and denying climate change that might restrict profit through regulation (for instance). People who would agree with your ideal approach are being steered away from applying it, being told that fossil fuels are part of what already works well and isn't an area where we can do better. Personally, I think many conservatives are more easily manipulated through fear. I don't know anyone who doesn't like owning the streets so they can drive on them whenever they need to without paying a fee to a private company, yet so many people who identify as conservatives complain about socialism. They love the parks, they love the museums, they love that the widowed mother of four won't go hungry, but they don't like socialism. They feel the pain of having wages reduced while CEO's of insurance companies make an average yearly American salary EVERY DAY. They anguish over not being able to send a smart child to college while Europeans attend for free. They feel the anxiety over defending their families by becoming part of the gun culture that threatens it most. But they refuse to feel the Bern. Sad. Frustrating.

! Moderator Note To avoid advertising or promoting other sites, all discussions must have the ability to take place here, without leaving or clicking other links. You can support your ideas with evidence from other sites, but please don't send people elsewhere to begin with. Please provide an overview of what you wish to discuss. Also be aware that if this is a non-mainstream hypothesis, it will be moved to our Speculations section.

Group up. Study with others from the class so you can quiz each other, which can multiply the effectiveness of your studying.

What do you think the BBT says is "the cause of it"? AFAIK, the theory doesn't cover the cause, or even the exact origin. It's more to do with the development of the universe as it expanded from an early hot, dense state, beginning just a tiny bit after it started. If God exists, this is true. Not Christians, we're talking about Ben Carson here. He's said he doesn't believe in a LOT of science. The relation of science and religion, in this instance, is that politicians in a position to create vast change in a population shouldn't be using religious beliefs to do so. I gave the example of Carson thinking that God might need a global catastrophe like climate change in order to fulfill prophecy from the Bible. I remember thinking how close Sarah Palin got to "doing God's will" with her finger on the button, confident it would all work out to His plan. I don't think our leaders should be using faith to steer the country. To me, faith should be the backup plan of last resort, after you've used up your second-to-last resort, hope.

The big difference here is that there is really nothing rational I could say about the former, and nothing rational you would listen to about the latter. IOW, you could say what you want about your belief in God and nobody can deny it, but I'm very willing to bet that if there's anything you don't "believe" about science it's because you haven't studied it or have misunderstood it. If that's due to circumstance, welcome to the club. If that's due to a willing desire to leave your religious beliefs undisturbed, then that's on you. And I think that's why people like Carson happen, supposedly highly educated people who've filtered what they've learned through their religion and come out with a weird mix of irrationally applied science. If Ben Carson were a climatologist, he might have formed the opinion that climate change due to human causes is all part of God's plan, nothing to be alarmed at, because our Creator would never destroy us like that. To him, the data would justify no need for alarm.

I was up at my local library branch helping out today. They have early voting and mail ballot dropoff. The number of people who had questions about their vote being counted was depressing, but I'm glad they were asking, and glad to let them know they had nothing to fear in that regard. There were some who went inside for the mail dropoff because they had library business or they wanted an I Voted! sticker (one of the cheapest, simplest, most effective ways to reward/remind/shame others to vote), but one lady didn't want to use the outside dropoff because she said it would be too easy for someone in a truck to come swipe the whole thing! I pointed out the camera mounted above the box, and another camera watching that camera, and mentioned that tampering with one ballot carries a hefty penalty, so imagine what stealing a whole boxful would be risking? She still went inside with her ballot. More and more, I think Putin wants to do something really bold to cement himself in Russia's leadership position. He's being back-patted by his peers, including Trump, for his maneuvering in Syria and making Obama's policy look bad. If he can take credit for disrupting the US and NATO without facing prosecution over tampering with another country's elections, Russians will elect him for life, and if Trump as POTUS just shrugs, Putin gets his legacy. This scares me almost as much as Trump. White supremacists seem poised for another civil war, and Trump has helped them think they have all kinds of support in this. This also scares me. The thought of being beaten up or shot for looking like the type of person who would beat people up or shoot them based on what they look like leaves me thoroughly depressed (and more than a little confused). I don't think Trump is a good businessman. If you sign a contract, both parties are usually happy about the arrangements. If you renege on that contract, or try to renegotiate it after the contracted work was completed, you aren't being savvy. You aren't being a ruthless businessman. You're being a crook. Trump's vague, wait'll you see, we're gonna fix that approach isn't good for business. Mexico has already had investors pull out of deals because they're afraid of the wall. Markets are falling on speculation that he's going to kick the props out from under every standing deal. Countries are distancing themselves from relationships with the US that used to be courted. Trump is bad business.

No, it's not.

A series (noun) is a set of related things that happen one after another, like TV shows or lectures or sports games. It's pronounced SEER-eez in English. Serious (adjective) is describing something or someone worthy of a lot of thought, energy, and attention. It's pronounced SEER-ee-uss in English.

I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything. Like the doctors who uses their "cold lasers" on the cyst on your foot, and when it eventually goes away on its own they declare they've healed you. It is different when a doctor advises you against a protocol like vaccination. That's not doing no harm.

FTFY. At one point, I was against carbon dioxide fire extinguishers because I promoted halon gas. Vaccinations are a victim of modern media coverage that insists on making all issues look like two equal groups yelling at each other over a fence. It's the easiest news format to manage, it stimulates our curiosity for sensationalism, which keeps us reading/watching, which gives high ratings, which gives bigger profit for the media company. Fear pushes people to listen to what-if instead of what-is. Knowledge dispels fear. You can learn for yourself, you can learn from your doctor, or you can do both. Or you can be afraid.

I find your honesty about this trick refreshing. That's exactly how the deception works. I think the "proof" you offer isn't convincing enough to fool the reader into accepting it so they can "move on". Messing up on the addition of 156+462+444=906 gives you zero credibility as a numerologist. And the video bit is just greedy, trying to get them to boost your yootoob hits. You need something short and snappy if you're trying to distract the mark into accepting your premise and moving on. Maybe Jesus and God used their full signatures, and with your methodology, we can finally figure out what their middle names are!

I think it's important to realize when being emotional is helpful and when it's not, the same as being rational. When your child's health is in question, and you're consulting a medical professional, your emotions are telling you something must be done. That's when you must let your rational brain take over. If your doctor is telling you to immunize, who would know better? Do you think people on the internet know better than this professional who is actually examining your child? Does your concern over anecdotal fears really override the professional judgement of this doctor you'd probably heed if it were about you, or your wife? Ignorance breeds fear, and knowledge puts it in perspective. When we don't know, we fear everything. When we learn, we figure out what needs to be feared, and how to more appropriately apply our emotions. With our kids, we can't afford to be ignorant. We need to know when to be rational, and when standing over them protectively and growling at anything that comes near is appropriate.

I hate the thought of making voting exclusive, but it would hold a certain extra appeal for some who don't vote now if not just everybody got an automatic vote. If you had to do something to earn the right, like run for office, or serve in the military, or volunteer for a civic program, or graduate from college, or pass some kind of test to show you understand the basic workings of government, perhaps people would treat their vote as the valuable investment it is.

This is the part even admins can't change in IP Board. To make the poll private, I have to delete the old one and create a new one. Isn't there a name for things like this? Where it sounds like a great thing, but in reality not so much? Like using "common sense", when we all know how subjective and uncommon it can be. Or saying something is "logical" when you really mean, "Oh, I understood that!" It's like saying Trump being a businessman would make him a good president. He's admitted that dodging taxes, withholding payments, renegotiating signed contracts in order to get better deals after the work's been done, all these things are "smart business". How does him being a businessman make him a good president? He'll continue to be a businessman afterwards, do you think he's going to suddenly be an advocate of paying his fair share, dealing fairly, and not reducing everything down to profit?