Phi for All

There are a lot of people with exaggerated expectations of their own proficiency. Like folks who are willing to take a 60% cut on their lottery winning to get it all up front, assuming they'll somehow be suddenly able to manage lots of money when they couldn't manage a lot less. Is it this hubris that blinds them to the benefits of heavily taxing insane profits? There's always so much pushback when, for example, we start talking about putting a 90% marginal tax rate on income above $10M/year. Is Joe Sixpack voting against high marginal rates because he plans on winning the lottery? We could make a lot of revenue from taxing the top earnings, but this is one area where Hillary didn't learn from Bernie. The media also doesn't seem to be interested in explaining that no, you will not be paying 90% in taxes Mr Sixpack. Only on your income above $10M.

I'm thinking it's because nothing else is going to accord you those rights automatically. Tell the bear in your fishing stream you have the inalienable right to fish on public land.

Before we jump to "mysterious chemical reactions", is there a possibility there is something in the wardrobe that this garment might have brushed up against to give it stains after you had washed it? Was this garment hanging in between other garments, or was it against the sides/back?

Specifically, always. In the instance of exorcisms, you mentioned they always worked in the end, no matter how long it took. Applying reason specifically, we should first consider the null hypothesis, that the exorcism did nothing at all, and whatever was affecting the person went away naturally on its own. This explanation requires nothing supernatural, and also explains why it appeared the exorcism was successful.

No, we're just talking about the smell of the bleach. Some people don't like working with chlorine bleach at all because of that. "This white clothes" "others remain as white as before" If I understand you correctly, only one white garment (or very few white garments) are stained this way, while other white garments aren't stained. Is this correct? If this garment(s) has been washed, perhaps it was a darker brown or yellow stain originally, and is now a more faded yellow?

I think this concept is so difficult to grasp partly because, in order to visualize the universe compressed down to its hot, dense, t=0 beginning state, we shrink it down in our minds but "we" are standing outside of that, imagining it shrink down before expanding at the time of the Big Bang. I think our minds default to outside observer perspective, and that makes it easy to imagine an "outside" to the universe.

You don't mention a biological agent, which could support a mundane explanation for the behavior. A virus, or a poisonous substance could trigger abnormal behavior which would eventually vanish without relapse. You need to apply reason so you'll recognize it when you meet it.

Some find it hard to use chlorine at all because of the gas, even if you can rinse the clothing thoroughly. It sounds like OxyClean will be best. StringJunky ftw. Stains on the back suggest you leaned against something that had the yellow staining agent. Is it on all your white clothes? In the same place?

Our current best explanations don't start with emptiness. There is nothing "outside" of everything. Nothing "outside" the universe.

Sorry, @ the OP.

In your definition, is outer space empty?

FTW.

She should. One on each underarm. And share the results.

I've heard aluminum in some antiperspirants reacts with the salt in your sweat causing yellow stains. I agree with John Cuthber though, bleach will remove the stains. Rinse well, you should be fine.

That was NOT the question you asked. What do you think needs improvement in those people's societies?

Our murder rate is the lowest it's been since 1967.

As someone who prefers critical thinking over any kind of conservative/liberal generalization, I think it's more about protecting everything from misunderstanding. I don't mind hearing criticism, but it needs to be informed criticism. Should Islam be protected from ignorance?

Only a problem for you, because you've made up your mind that it is. In muslim countries, banks will buy the car you want and sell it to you with a profit markup, in installments (like a lease). Same thing as what we do here really, but you aren't technically paying to use money. The bank is making profit instead. Go ahead, think of some reason why this is a yuuuuge problem in muslim countries. In fact, I don't see what the difference would be if I bought a car this way using my bank. The idea that partnering makes you a serf is just ludicrous. You must be a terrible contract writer. Remember that the bank is your partner in the liabilities as well as the return. And unlike a regular partner, it's written in the contract that the business/goods/services are yours once the bank makes their profit. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/29/islamic-finance-sharia-compliant-money-interest

This is obviously not true. Unless you have a very narrow, conservative, stifling view of what "modern economy" means. Aren't many Islamic countries doing business in the trillions of dollars? And I believe many activities are considered exempt, or fatwahs have been issued that allow for charging interest. I think this may be another one of those areas where you heard something extremely bad, and applied it to a whole big group. I thought usury was easily avoided by having a partner who fronts capital in exchange for labor, at a prescribed ration. Like instead of loaning you money at 10%, I buy in as your equal partner until you pay me off, fronting money to equal 40% while you provide labor to equal 60%.

I was watching an episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and one of the characters was observing several people on multiple monitors. Someone asks if they're doing anything suspicious, and he replied with something along the lines of "If you watch anybody long enough, they ALL look suspicious." I thought it was a nice commentary on our present criminal justice system. I hope Hillary saw that episode. This is a system that's socially based, but is far too infected with capitalist exploitation. It's amazing our bail bonds system hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Before your guilt is established, when you're supposed to be considered innocent, you can face thousands of dollars in fees or incarceration. You get the wonderful choice to plead guilty so you can pay a fine, or stay in jail until your court date (which means you lose your job, most likely). We need reform so we can choose what makes the most sense, instead of what makes the most money.

That's your conservative paint brush again. Why does "criminal justice reform" only suggest the cops are wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01A.pdf

Is anyone really defending someone's right to walk into a group of women discussing an advanced, nuanced feminist concept and shout "Feminazis!" every time the words gender or sexuality are used? Who wants the right to do that? When a member here interrupts a discussion about a specific aspect of the Global Positioning System by posting "Relativity is WRONG!", I split that post off by itself to start its own thread. Nobody should have to take the time, in that context, to switch to a Relativity 101 discussion, just because some bozo claims his voice shouldn't be silenced.

You have a very firm idea of what you think a "Sharia government" would be like, but you have no way of knowing if the people polled feel the same way about it (I'd say you have a very extremist view of Sharia). If you polled the US that way, you'd have some people saying they want a Christian government, and you'd be equally clueless what they actually mean by it ("First, we abolish Halloween, then abortions and Mormons..."). As swansont's earlier link showed, Sharia to most of Islam is a personal path, an approach to a moral life with some components that can be applied to law. But if you bother to do a little reasonable, critical checking, you can find that even in Egypt, a classical Shariah system, they don't incorporate very much of what you think they do, i.e., cutting the hands off thieves.

Oh, please. You'd be just as helpless to stop them as mainstream muslims are with their own extremists. What's your church group going to do against a few truckloads of David Dukes with RPGs and fully automatic assault rifles, who make it clear they're fighting the Trump fight, and if you interfere with their patriotic duty, your whole family will be wiped out? The reason I don't criticize Islam for its extremists is the same reason I don't criticize Christianity for its extremists. Extremists use religion like a tool to gather power and followers. It's not right to criticize a tool for the way the wielder misuses it.