Phi for All

No. I quoted him from post #4. Please check before accusing me of editing other's posts.

So the H1B visa holders are being used to lower wages, and that is wrong in your book, obviously. So why do you so easily write off the ripoff of the middle class over the last 50 years? The way I see it, we were lied to about how badly companies were doing so we'd accept lower wages, all in an atmosphere where getting a new job was a precarious, uncertain, danger-filled experience. We were pawns in a game with a goal to lower wages, weren't we?

Do you have a list of benefits to iron fertilization? Inducing phytoplankton blooms, potentially increasing fish populations, possibly reducing carbon emissions, all of these things together increase the interest levels in investment. More benefits are going to make this process more appealing. How solid is your research? Can you let us know some of the methodology used? Are the costs an obstacle at all?

Best laugh all day!

This is you, right?

What makes this process attractive to those interested in increasing fish populations? That sounds like a potential source for funding.

OK, you're in charge of that. Now can we please take this 24 page embarrassment of a thread down, so it doesn't show up on the cover page anymore? This is NOT how I wanted to step up the rigor for 2016.

In every sector? For 50 years?! Do you realize what's being called for is a rollback to taxation and regulation plans that have unfairly been influenced by too much money? That nobody is suggesting money and land be taken from you as compensation? You seem to think socialism is going to storm your bastille or something. Calls for your head have been greatly exaggerated. We're just tired of you saying, "Let them eat shit!" Hey, did you know Obama grew the government THE LEAST of any president since Eisenhower? That makes him a token Republican, right? Why does he honor your planks but nobody in your party does?

Hey, good point!

I take it you've never looked at all those graphs that show how the middle class was burgled by their employers cutting wages while productivity remained high. You always dismiss evidence piecemeal, and forget that it's just part of a mountain of evidence that shows how undue influence, and illegal acts made legal with that influence, have almost broken the global economy. You tend to ostrichize the preponderance, and instead focus on anecdotes and rhetoric.

We do differ in this a bit. I think the underlying foundations should be trust, since lots of folks claim my money is theirs somehow. And I think that trust was broken by the people who lied and told us to accept lower pay, wages not tied to my ever-increasing productivity. I think the folks who did that manipulated all of us, made us think we had no choice. By your way of thinking, we got flimm-flammed by con artists, and that's our fault because we should have just agreed that that little bit they kept taking away from me was theirs, not mine. But some of us feel that needs to change. We want it to stop, and we want the folks who broke it to pay. And first we have to change the laws back so they don't favor the rich anymore.

So is there anything specific you think doesn't make sense that we could help with? How can we deal with the fact that you think it's wrong somewhere in the math but you don't know the math? I don't mean disrespect, but this seems like someone who admits he knows nothing about nails taking a quick look at a house, and then telling the architect that he must have used the wrong nails, because the house just doesn't seem right. How about school for math? Has anyone mentioned Khan Academy to you?

You really should become one before assuming that because you don't get it, it's wrong. You should assume that because you don't get it, you need to study it on a deeper level. And that's not really our function here. We can discuss it, but trying to raise your knowledge above a popsci misunderstanding level is really the role of a good school, with formal classes where you can get excellent science coursework. So far, you pose that something may be wrong, and then when shown your error, you insist you're right. I find it hard to follow discussions like these. They seem pointless, asking for answers and rejecting everything mainstream in favor of your own incredulity. This is NOT a healthy learning process, and I don't think you're well served by it.

I only use emoticons a couple times a year, so I'll forgive that you missed my sarcasm. This seems like the old irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked for a long time, but continues to be used by many creationists. Apparently "throwing random bags of chemicals into the cells" and ending up with a fertilization process is wrong just because if you wave your hands broadly enough, it makes things automatically physically impossible.

Don't go all fallacious on us now.

I can understand why you mistakenly think your money will be taken in the form of higher taxes (it's more than offset by the savings in NOT paying into higher-priced private options, of course). I don't get the property bit. Please explain how Bernie wants your property, so we can correct this obvious misunderstanding. Wanting your property sounds like a Trump maneuver (ding dong, Real Estate Mogul!), one he's been admittedly and gleefully ruthless about.

Forgive me then, your title's claim seems to suggest otherwise.

So what do you think is going on when we observe evolution actually happening daily?

I don't understand your point, but it seems we're in agreement that the best course of action is not to create the backdoor codes in the first place. You can't steal/bribe something that doesn't exist.

It's also easier to switch an old fear onto new tracks, rather than start a new fear. I'm going to stop talking about conservative fear. To the People I'd most like to aim the words at, it comes off like I'm calling them cowards, rather than addressing legitimate concerns. Because those concerns are legitimate. Where I think conservatives make the biggest mistake is in NOT learning what's being done about their concerns. They assume no one is doing anything, and so they want to believe Trump when he lies about how much he cares for the average American. The conservatives develops a concern (or hear about one from their favorite conservative pundit/ranter). They voice it, gain followers who agree, but they leave it at that. They never check to see if the concern is legitimate, or that we've done a reasonable job already of addressing those concerns. That's the part they never learn about. They squawk about welfare recipients scamming the system, but don't bother to learn that such behavior is a tiny percentage of the whole program (1.9% in 2001, and it turns out the biggest scammers are the businesses who service welfare contracts). They hear about illegals doing criminal things, but don't check to see that what Donald said was a complete lie. It turns out that first and second generation immigrants have a lower propensity towards criminal activity. Who knew? People who checked when Trump lied about it, that's who. I'm reminded of the saying, "Why let the truth ruin a good story?"

Are there drawbacks to the process that are currently recognized?

Partially, but I think it's more equating socialism with the former Soviet Union. For those of us born in the 40s-50s, there was an enormous propaganda effort against Communism in the ensuing years, which we mistakenly thought was what the Soviets were practicing. A couple of generations of Americans were led to believe that Soviet Russia was the very definition of Communism. Despite the fact that the US has always practiced Socialism in one form or another, it was really easy for conservative leadership to convert "Communism" to "Socialism", and I think it was in response to Eisenhower's socialist programs. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the country prospered under Eisenhower and those Socialist programs he enacted, the already fabulously wealthy wanted more. So it's more ignorance, really. So many conservative talking points have been refuted, or shown to be outright lies, but they still pull the old "if your audience hasn't heard the truth, you can keep repeating the lies and they won't check" trick. And now these People have The Donald, who is allowed to make up anything he wants and puke it up on the base that doesn't care about liars, only alleged criminals and Socialists.

The Ethics of Awesomeness had no science in it, but I still participated in that one. Your first post was advertising your blog, which you found out we don't allow (you're free to put a link to it in your signature if it's non-commercial - we just don't want you starting threads about it). And the amusia thread got stalled because of terminology disagreements (re tone deafness). I think you need to give it a few more tries before starting a thread like this. The more science, the better. Why don't you post some of your observations about marine iron fertilization? That thread was only stopped because you were breaking the rules by advertising. We like it when everything we need for a good discussion is right here. That's what I would recommend.

I can assure you if you just give it approximately 8 more years... there will still be no evidence. But all you "no evidence to support these claims" bandwagoners who aren't being "even remotely scientific" will see the efficacy of blindly believing in whatever people who aren't like you claim. They will always be righter than you.

First, you should stop referring to yourself in the third person ("the student"). It seems dishonest, like you have something to hide, and I don't think you are. I think you are sincere. Second, is there a way you can summarize what you want to discuss here, a single topic at a time? If your work follows mainstream science, start a thread with a summary in the appropriate section. If your work is more speculative, we have a Speculations section with some special rules. Can you do this for us? We discuss science here, and we're glad you found us.