Phi for All

It's more like what would happen here if you started a thread in Religion entitled "I need advice from fellow Catholics about Lent". I would expect any posters to respect your subject. If someone posted "I think Catholicism is wrong", I'd hide or trash that post, or at least let the poster (and the whole thread) know that's not what this discussion is about. It wouldn't be abrogating free speech, or stifling anything. When I see some of the almost inhumanly sadistic responses to things people post on the web, I'm glad the idea of safe spaces to express yourself exist. Things are very different from when I was in school. I can't even imagine having someone attack my ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, or any other affiliation, aspect, or trait that had nothing to do with the subject I was expressing myself about.

"Do you really want to 'light up' your home town?"

Well, if you were to take the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, Christian Identity, and some of the other cells of US religious extremists, arm them with lots of money, guns, and explosives, stir up their ideological commitments to their God so they can use that to gain power and followers, they'd push for a White Christian Only society. Whether that would become a theocracy is speculative. But you're right, I don't see many militant Catholics joining. Maybe because waterboarding doesn't hold a candle to what the nuns would do to you?

I think you're choosing to frame this in the most unflattering light possible to make it sound really bad. Nobody is "protecting their sensibilities" when they want a place free from being actively maligned. You're assuming they're just being "disagreed with".

Next time, cut the blue wire. Exactly! Watch out for these StringJunky, they could really be a depression trigger. I hadn't had that much trouble assuring myself "it was just a dream" since childhood. Enough? Hard to quantize.

Personally, I think this is an important point (meaning be careful, this may not work for you). When I gave up alcohol, I reached a point where the only times I ever thought about it was when I was purposely doing some program or ritual to avoid drinking again. I was fine around others drinking, I had no more cravings, I was completely at peace with never touching anything with alcohol in it for the rest of my (definitely longer) life. 24 years later, I've never been even mildly tempted to go back. Honestly, the hardest thing to get used to was dreaming that I had had a drink. It happened to me a few times over the first two years. I'd remember the dream sometime the next day and think, "Wait a minute, was that real?" It was never a very specific dream, but I knew I'd had a drink in it and it seemed very natural. Not like it was right, but more like it was just assumed that I was drinking again. It would take me a minute where I'd be panicked about falling off the wagon, and it always felt really good when I realized I hadn't. Have you had any dreams lately where you were smoking?

Someone with cartoon skills should draw up the two candidates on the Scales of Justice, where a yuge pile of facts on Trump's behavior equals all the airy, unsubstantiated claims on Clinton's side.

Are you kidding me? Much of it comes directly from the Bible. Chopping off hands for transgressions is from Deuteronomy 25. Honor killings? Deuteronomy 13. Men can beat an insubordinate wife all over the place in the Bible. Criticizing God is a big part of the 10 Commandments. Sure, there are more specific laws in Sharia that aren't in the Bible, but then Islam also doesn't practice all of the 613 Mosaic laws either. The whole point is that it's only extremists who are insisting on any kind of theocracy. It's not going to work in a western country unless someplace like the US lets themselves get tricked into letting evangelical Christian extremists into political office. The kind of people who put their god and what it wants ahead of the People they're sworn to protect and lead don't deserve those public offices, imo. There is a very good reason why churches shouldn't control states.

Biblical law, Sharia law, Mosaic law, it's all based on strict, extremist, literal interpretions of the Bible. I'm against any religion being used as the basis of government for a modern human society. I criticize extremism wherever it's practised, including in my own country. I've never worried about anyone trying to convert any western country to a theocracy, because it's frankly laughable. That any American is worried that we'll suddenly find ourselves governed by Sharia law makes me very sad. Those folks should be watching out for extreme Christians; the US is FAR MORE LIKELY to be co-opted by a militant wing of a Christian sect. If you dare, check out the FBI's documentation of the Christian Identity Movement. You'll be hearing a lot about these guys if your vote puts your candidate in office.

Knowledge is unlimited. Personal experience is not. One could technically learn a vast amount of knowledge, and have only the personal experience of learning knowledge. If you were only using personal experience to learn knowledge, then you'd be limited to only the knowledge available from those experiences. You could only learn what you had a need to learn. You wouldn't have any pre-existing knowledge about something you'd never experienced before. Experience alone would force you to always be re-active instead of pro-active. I'd say the best approach is the way we do it now. We fill young minds with knowledge, so they can be somewhat pro-active when they go out into the world to gain experience. If I can only choose one, I'd have to go with experience. That way, I get to experience my life instead of just learning about other's lives.

Why would you think that, based on what I said? Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism, same as Christianity. There's little difference when you're talking about using it as the ultimate law of the land. It's only the extremists who want to be governed by it in any religion. Give the Westboro Baptists some RPGs, see how quickly they'll want everyone under Christian law.

Change that to Biblical law and I'd agree. All that stuff is crazy. I'm pretty sure it's why we have a separation of Church and State in the US. Mosaic law is a bitch too. 613 of them, fortunately 26 of them only apply when you visit Israel. Christian law is probably the worst, simply because it's so open to interpretation. From 9000+ sects.

Not in the US. This is a prime example of a social, medical concern that's been run through the capitalist filters so often that profiteering from our penal system has fueled its growth beyond anything else in the world. Law enforcement and the penal system are supposed to be supported by social economic systems, but the application of business models have grown the system to where we have 1 in 4 prisoners on the planet now. Our big mistake here is not letting our social systems work the way they're supposed to. We allow our capitalist economy take advantage of taxpayer funding, so bills that should help our social structure end up doing more for the business sector. Or a great investment in People who weren't born into opportunity gets cut in half because conservatives are so worried People might get help who don't deserve it. And actually, nobody is using the tools the way you describe. Not all junkies are nails; some are screws, and some are staples, and some are brads, and some are magnets. Medical professionals have a better toolbox than correctional officers for these types of fasteners.

Of course. There are some norms that have changed favorably, and it's become very rude and even illegal to annoy people with smoke while dining. Most modern smokers ask before lighting up in enclosed spaces, so it's rude when you don't. That behavior has changed dramatically, during our lifetimes. I remember when there weren't even sections for smokers/non-smokers in restaurants. Most smokers I encounter still aren't as concerned about second-hand effects as I feel they should be. I get annoyed at the folks who are in an acceptable situation for smoking (say, in a park), but don't care who else is affected. Smoke drifts if the wind isn't blowing, and ash drifts if it is blowing (I'll be generous and assume they're disposing of the butts properly). I realize there's no way a smoker can control the winds, but would that excuse be acceptable if we were talking about the smokestack from a coal plant?

No, I understand the addiction part. But addicts do have the capability to choose in the moment not to exercise their addiction, something I don't think Tourettes would allow. It's akin to a physical tic, right? An uncontrolled spasm? That doesn't describe a person addicted to cigarettes. Smokers light up against their will, but someone with Tourettes is working against their muscles, aren't they? The one person I saw with the disease (many years ago) also had some physical cues that seemed related (head jerked to the side, facial tics).

! Moderator Note This thread is taking an all-too-familiar turn. Mike, you keep forcing these threads into the same indefensible, spacetime-is-a-physical-medium argument. You haven't been able to support that, which should show you something, but remain convinced it's a viable pursuit. Passion is good as long as it doesn't slip down over our eyes. Thread closed.

That still seems like comparing a physical tic with a muscle memory action. You were on auto-pilot (like making the right turn you usually make at a familiar intersection when you really needed to turn left this time).

Because punishment isn't as effective as rehabilitation. In the US, we have a heavy, conservative policy that focuses on punishment as opposed to restraint, or rehab. We even punish people before we put them on trial to determine their innocence or guilt, with our bail system. You talk about collateral damage, but this conservative, the-bad-guys-must-pay policy ignores all the collateral effects that often lead to incarceration in the US. In the instance of intravenous drug use, there are many collateral concerns that a knee-jerk, off-with-their-heads! policy will never address. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/how-effective-drug-addiction-treatment What people do to get these drugs is often prison-worthy, but science is showing us that the drug use itself looks more like a medical problem, which isn't helped with mere restraint, and certainly not with punishment protocols. I think these needle exchange programs are a smart use of taxpayer funding.

But it implies that the action of lighting up a cigarette is as involuntary as a Tourette's sufferer's expletives. Can someone with Tourette's choose not to swear, like a smoker can choose not to light up?

What's important here is not about the arguments. The arguments are for us all to shave away at our ignorance, something that needs to be done on a daily basis. That's the important part, that we listen to reasoned arguments, assess their validity and merit in the context of reality, and hopefully take away a nugget of knowledge. None of it should be considered in the negative; learning the things you shouldn't do is also valid. Opinions should be rooted in fact. The more facts you have, the more meaningful and nuanced your opinions will be. There's a famous case about the Baltimore Needle Exchange program that I like to use to highlight the importance of facts over emotionally laden opinion. I'll paraphrase the story like a conversation: Baltimore Press: "OMG, the city is giving out free NEEDLES to junkies! Drug use will soar!" Needle Exchange Program: "Actually, we're exchanging clean needles for used ones, in an effort to stem our out-of-control HIV epidemic, and it seems to be working. And no, drug use isn't increasing because of it." Press: "We have footage of some people who are collecting bags full of needles, exchanging them for new ones, and SELLING them to junkies for a dollar! These people are making money at the taxpayers expense! They're taking advantage...!" NEP: "Actually, we know about those people, and consider them our most valuable asset. They know where the junkies hang out, and they're very thorough about finding these dirty needles. In fact, this program has had such a positive effect on our HIV epidemic that we're hiring these needle-collectors to pass our literature about our other drug programs, and inform users about where to go to get help." Like everything else, critical thinking takes experience. You're getting that here. You're better about expressing your thoughts than you were before you joined. You're being exposed to perspectives from around the world. It's a lot to take in, but you're doing it the right way. There are no shortcuts to being better informed and a better critical thinker. You need to practice, and not give up.

Please give an example of where our current government is restricting what you believe. "Get involved in my decisions" is far too vague to provide meaning to my answer. Television commercials "get involved in [your] decisions". Give an example of where it's restricting what you can do with your own body. Same with where it's restricting what you can do with your money. That's the best response to the Libertarian stance I've heard.

What kind of fairy land is this Republicans bubble? Don't vote for liars, people who make themselves rich are crooks, people who get sick shouldn't be president.... It's beyond bizarre. It's like Don Rickles telling you "Hey, be nice!" Or like Martin Shkreli saying, "Jesus Christ, those Epipens are expensive!"

I'm not trying to be provocative, but you don't know what's meant by "small government". I can say that with confidence, because nobody does. It's a non-starter as a definition. You may have an idea of what you think it should be, but it's going to be like heaven; all the believers are going to describe it a little differently. Because conservatives made it all up. Why would one of the largest countries in the world need a "small government"? How could a small government regulate all the hugeness of the military, the diplomatic services, the domestic affairs that lie at the heart of our society? "Small government" is corporate code for "no regulations" and "low taxes", aka having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too. And btw, everyone being paid equally is a communistic proposition, not a socialist one. Socialist equality would be like having a minimum subsistence invested in by the People, so nobody starts below a certain rung on the ladder (as it were), or where everyone is given a fair and even shot at education up through a certain level. The big stink going on with wage inequality isn't a socialist movement; average wages used to be tied to productivity, but around Nixon's time, corporations started paying less for the same or greater productivity. 60 years later, wages have become completely decoupled from how productive we are for our employers. Corporations pay workers less for even more productivity, but they did it over decades so we didn't notice until it got this bad. This is a matter of lax regulations for our corporate policies, a capitalist problem.

The extremes are actually a good place to start. Think what life would be like if you had to pay for EVERYTHING, even walking on the sidewalk, or fire protection for your home. Can you imagine dialing 911 and having to use your credit card before the cops will come investigate the stranger in your back yard? That would be "full on" capitalism.

In any economy, you can have State ownership of an asset. The US owns the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation that developed power and a variety of services and products in an economically depressed region. Good use of communism. Republican Senator sponsored it, too. You can have public ownership of an asset if that makes more sense. Socialism takes concepts that shouldn't be profit oriented and gives them a more focused effectiveness. Healthcare should be socialized - profit should not be a priority over health. Prisons are another good example of where the People should be in charge. We're just now coming to the realization that privatized prisons are a complete failure. And capitalism is best when you want something to grow. While health insurance should be privatized, regular insurance is a good capitalist venture. You know what something is worth, you pay to insure it. Works with cars, boats, even lives. But not with health. Capitalism is what you use when profit is the fair outcome. When it's not right, use a different economic approach. The mix a country uses is important. Too much in any one direction is a mistake, imo.