Phi for All

I'm not talking about hiding it. I'm talking about dealing with sex at the child's pace, which is inherently individual. That's what's should be happening in every culture, even those that have sex openly. Kids will ask questions that satisfy what they're curious about, and no more. If a 5-year-old asks about where babies come from, you don't need to give all the details. Do you think it would be healthier to take her down to the park and say, "See those folks, and those ones over there, and there? They're doing what people do to make babies! Watch carefully and all your questions will be answered"?

For the most part, events in a child's life are dealt with at their individual pace of development. Kids tend to understand complex concepts in stages. Sex is naturally part of this process, and kids tend to show interest a bit at a time, as they're ready. Unless an event forces them to deal with it prematurely. Public copulation gives a child no time take things at their own pace. They're seeing things they may not be ready to deal with, emotionally or physically. A more open policy forces all children to accept adult sexual behavior whether they want to or not.

! Moderator Note Hey granpa, let's increase the rigor and clarify some of your meanings. Most of this thread's posts are asking for that. Links with no specific explanations and two-word replies aren't doing the job. Can you help us understand what you're talking about, so our answers can be meaningful?

Ah, and I was thinking about the kids seeing public sex without a guardian to explain. The worst case scenario, the one I have the least control over. "...what they or their family see" has been dealt with, mostly by having laws against public sex. I'm not sure about any benefits changing this might bring, but I can see lots of problems, mainly taking away what little control I have over what my family might reasonably be expected to see.

That's why I asked if you wanted more parameters. He's offering to perform an experiment and show the video. We should take the opportunity to make it meaningful and helpful to Eldad, and set up some rules for him ahead of time. If we don't do it now, we'll just be complaining about it later.

Wow, I sure wouldn't use that picture again to argue against child beauty pageants. You don't need those slanted callouts ("caked-on makeup", really? Why not just "beauty-pageant heavy" makeup? Fake teeth?! Doubtful, probably caps). This makes it look like you feel your argument isn't strong enough and needs the descriptors to sway your audience. That's sure not the case here. Animals having public sex is a BIG red herring. Nobody is suggesting a curb on that. And animals are obviously different than humans, even to a child. Seeing dogs copulate when you're seven is different than seeing your parents, or your friends parents, or complete strangers copulate at the same age. I don't understand why you don't understand. Sex as we practice it is a very private thing. Part of the reason is our vulnerability during sex, which is probably part of why we generally prefer to be alone with our partner. Trying to establish safety protocols and providing a secure environment would be much more difficult if having public sex became the norm. I think children are adversely affected when they sense something they don't understand may happen to them, and their home environment can't help them feel secure.

Are those the only parameters you'd like to see?

Always the fine line the church walks. "We want you to multiply like crazy, but in a modest way."

It seems obvious we aren't talking about perfection. We're talking about a mate that matches you to a tee in all the important areas. That person doesn't have to be perfect in a general sense. But I'm with Strange. You have too many variables to get any meaning from a scientific explanation, but it seems obvious that it would be horrible if true. Humans are about adaptability to circumstances, and I don't think this is an area where that changes significantly.

! Moderator Note Please focus on the questions that have already been asked of you, and don't introduce new topics. Evidence to support EVERY assertion you make (especially when you're claiming mainstream science is wrong) will help you, but if you don't provide it we'll have to assume these theories are overwhelming you, so you have no idea if they're right or wrong. The thread will be closed then. Please take advantage of this chance to be rigorous in your science.

I've come to dislike hearing so many of our body parts and sexual terminology turned into negative slurs and derogatory pejoratives. Fuck is a great expletive, and fucking feels fantastic. But it seems natural to me that if you're going to keep telling people to fuck themselves when you really mean you'd rather they never have sex again, you're going to develop some very unhealthy attitudes about sex. Especially if you get called a stupid prick/cunt/pussy/dick all the time, and hear others doing the same. But I don't think the opposite of that is public sex. I think the operative injunction is to keep children from being sexualized before they're ready for it.

So, Americans are horrible when they exploit others, and horrible when they don't exploit the Moon. Got it. There is a treaty you know (sort of). Much of the world understands that the ocean floor and the Moon should never be the basis for international conflict. Exploiting the Moon is not something I would support.

Since you're still not removing any other influence you may have, I would suggest this is a worthless test. You mention "We don't really know", which suggests you have someone helping you. Why not set up the blind test Strange suggested?

! Moderator Note You can't dismiss questions and comments like this. Just claiming that engineers build things even though the theories behind technology are false is NOT RIGOROUS ENOUGH. You need to start showing evidence in support of your "idea". Your dismissals of science in favor of engineering is noted. Now you need supportive evidence. That's how science works.

I would suggest that moving it with your mind is NOT what's happening, and the reason for the random success is the chance involved in a system like you describe.

[ ! Moderator Note I'm warning you right now, drop this line of argument and concentrate on your other points. This is just going to derail any serious, intelligent discussion about the rest of your idea. You are challenging mainstream science, not arguing conspiracies. Focus on disproving science one topic at a time, please. And I have nomimated the above quote as 2016's Most Absurd Statement. I can't believe you posted that on a science discussion forum. Report this modnote if you object, but don't talk about it in this thread.

I may be wrong, but the OP seems to suggest that rice with curd and curry but no salt was the old diet ("I used to have rice..."). There is no mention of what the OP is eating now.

If it's about food, why do you think this is a psychological problem? Have you seen a doctor about this? You mention what you used to eat but not what you eat now. Why do you think it's the food, and not the stress of college studies, or the hostel environment? Any diagnosis over the web would be guesswork at best. A doctor examining you physically is able to use accurate data from hundreds of small observations and a few tests to remove as much speculation as possible. This is your health, and accuracy is an investment you'll never regret. So, you can try a bunch of different things and hope they don't make your condition worse, or you can save a LOT of time and get a diagnosis instead of a guess.

"Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci. You'll never be rich unless you look like you already are."

Or, placing the bowl over the wheel removes whatever natural force was making the wheel spin before. As mentioned, your breath, air drafts, and the heat of your hands near it are the most likely culprits. If this was a mental phenomenon as you suggest, why would you need to be so close to the wheel? If you could isolate as much air flow near the wheel as possible (rig a screen you can see through with plastic wrap?), you could leave off the bowl, stand at least 3 meters away and try to move it with your mind.

The fashion industry revolves around accessories. It takes a heavy investment to wear well-designed, well-made clothes, and most can't afford it. But many more can afford to accessorize from those same designers, or wear their cologne. Designers make a modest profit on $5000 suits and $10,000 dresses, but they make a volume killing on $200 colognes, $300 belts, and $500 watches. It's actually the middle class that funds haute couture.

It works that way for me. I've worn the same three pieces of jewelry for decades because I like them. I stopped wearing a watch when I got a smart phone. I don't think smartphones are much of a status piece anymore, if they ever were. If they were, and I thought that way, wouldn't I be thinking "Oooh, I want one of those!" instead of "Oooh, I want to be like THAT guy!" It's the accessory that gets the status, not the one wearing it. The other thing is, when you see someone dressed impeccably, and their accessories match the body posture and confidence of someone used to such things as part of the world they inhabit naturally, the accessories don't add to their status so much as reflect it, affirm it. But when you see someone who has just the accessory, it's pretty obvious it's an affectation rather than the norm.

I think they can serve as warning indicators for aberrant behavior. If, for instance, someone thinks their watch gives them status they wouldn't otherwise have, that person is definitely going to be robbing jewelry stores. We should lock up anyone who calls attention to their watch. Eventually, watches could be designed to work as handcuffs. Flash it too often, it restrains you and calls the police.

The approach to correct the problem. They don't respond to "OMG, you've lost your collective mind!" They think in terms of big picture scary, so big picture concepts from the left are automatically bad and quickly dismissed. That's why you can say "Gun control" or "Welfare" and get an immediate negative, stompy boots jumping up and down on it, unequivocal response from the base. But when you feather it out into tactical parts they can deal with, like "background checks for those purchasing firearms at private sales", or "no homeless widows with children", they feel completely differently. They're willing to approve spending that will alleviate the problems as long as it's not presented as one of those big picture scary concepts their media pundolts are always cranking the handle of the Jack-in-the-box about. It may not be the most favorable, effective, and efficient measure that gets taken, but progress is made with an otherwise intractable party. There aren't too many people who want widows and their kids homeless. I know staunch Libertarians who hesitate about cutting that type of public funding. And it's been shown that a majority of Republicans favor some of the specific gun control measures being proposed. It's a good vent to call out the crazy, but being specific about their faults probably won't work as well as being specific about where they can help. These aren't big critical thinkers, and they don't accept much criticism even if it's constructive. That's not a metric they respect. They're generally good people with big, easy-to-push YES and NO buttons (white and black respectively), who don't spend time much deeper than that. Whether they flock to the media sources that manipulate them, or the sources target them with gingerbread treats and candy, the choice I think they've made is a lazy rather than crazy one. So we can insist they need mental help, or we can break off some small chunks of reason and go out of our way to make sure they're palatable. The vent feels good but I doubt it's helping much.

He's done so much custom work, but he still has to hold that piece that holds the magnet by hand? Why isn't that piece fixed in place holding the magnet? If this really worked, wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do, set it up so it runs autonomously with you nowhere near it?