Phi for All

! Moderator Note This thread looks like it's dying for lack of clarity. I suggest the OP get this under control, and provide at least some answers to previous questions. Without it, you'll get more and more frustrated replies. Let's stay civil, and if the clarity doesn't improve, we'll have to close this.

What is conservative about championing equal rights? I guess it could be argued that inalienable rights just make a basic, foundational sense for a government, and should be championed on principle. But most of my championing these days is in direct opposition to the behaviors conservative males have inflicted upon the population. And why aren't Republicans and conservatives still supporting this mighty conservative policy? If they've dropped it, it must not have been very successful for them. I would like to hear why you think there are any successful policies that have come out of modern political conservatism. Beyond things like "Taxes are bad except when you need to pay for things", is there really any substance to requiring that everybody has to do the conservative bootstrap-pull in order to be worthy in your eyes? Most conservatives I know are just afraid people on welfare are out jet-skiing all day (which has been proven false) while they work hard, and they're convinced others are getting something for free that they aren't entitled to because they're the good guys doing it right. Corporations love using that fear to change regs and social programs for their benefit. So what happened? Did the people who's rights you used to champion change? Did they fail to pass the humanity test, or at least the conservative version of it?

A rock and a dead human body both exist. I think life needs to be in there somewhere. Life is the ticket to get into the show.

! Moderator Note I realize English is not your native language, but none of the above makes sense. You are using words like "body" and "death body" in unfamiliar ways. You mention things being "one" and "two", which is also unfamiliar. You mention "truth" like an absolute, while it's actually very subjective. This can't stay in the mainstream sections like Medical Science. It sounds like you're saying theories like evolution and the Big Bang are wrong, so you should start over, please use better definitions, and put your thread in Speculations if it's not mainstream science. I've got to close this one, sorry.

We know this product doesn't exist in functioning form, so it couldn't have EVER worked properly, so you must be trolling. I was willing to believe there was a language barrier, but I can't see how there is any confusion about your above statement. Please don't open any more threads about this.

IIRC, when the sun goes red giant, its equator will be well past Mars. But it's not going to do that suddenly, and part of that process will cause the sun to lose a lot of mass, so it's likely the inner planets (OK, probably not Mercury) will spiral outwards and may survive being totally ashed. Still, we'd be too close to keep our oceans. Without them it's highly unlikely we could sustain life as we know it. On the other hand, when this happens, for the brief hundred million or so years the red giant is burning helium, the Goldilocks zone for the whole solar system will be extended, warming up some of the icy planets and moons, providing water and possible new homes for life. Whoa, let's step back a moment and put our rational scientist lab coats on. There is absolutely no testable, repeatable evidence that Earth/nature has a consciousness of its own, outside the individual species that make it up. It's a very common thing to tell ourselves, we as humans love to anthropomorphize just about everything, imagining other parts of nature having the same kind of intelligence we do. But there's no evidence for it at all, nothing science can observe. Earth is a big biological system with an unbelievable amount of diversity, all developed by evolutionary processes that slowly change every species on it. It's amazing, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of overriding consciousness guiding everything. Trillions of little bits of life taking advantage of the way this world works, and the humans trying to figure it all out. Btw, "all animals came from plants" is incorrect. The protozoan lineage (leading to fungi and animals) and the algae lineage (leading to plants) both had a common ancestor.

Usually I hear "Darwinism" used by deniers, in an attempt to deride the theory by pointing out shortcomings in its earliest observations. Evolutionism was a new one for me. It sounds like it was coined by someone who thinks science is just another religion, which is a popular recent stance.

Has it ever worked correctly before?

No cause for alarm, or no cause to upset the profit infrastructure prematurely? That's where their fear lies, so they spend a lot of that money getting people with opinions just like yours to post on discussion forums, to sew fear and doubt about new technologies and costs and taxes and unemployment and immigration and abortion and robots and terrorism and regulations and Communism and welfare and Socialism. And the anti-AGW folks aren't just saying there's nothing to worry about. They're misrepresenting the solutions, making people afraid of doing something now about a problem pretty much the whole planet agrees is getting worse. Unfortunately, they found the corporate conservatives had beaten them to it. It's my understanding that the anti-AGW lobby has a firm contract with the fundies and a non-compete clause. That's OK, fear is your weapon, not mine. You stick with the heart on this one, and I'll use my mind.

When "-ism" is used after a word (from ancient Greek -ismós), it means "the practice of" or "the belief in". Since evolution is a fact of life, there's no need to "believe" in it, like it was a religion or a practice with followers. In scientific discussions, it's not referred to as evolutionism, it's called the Theory of Evolution. That's where it's constantly changing and being updated as new information is discovered. Evolution happens, it's a fact, and the Theory of Evolution describes its mechanisms and processes.

Person 1: "I know you, I recognize your face but can't remember your name." Person 2: "It's Jane." Person 1: "No, that's not it." In a search for Truth, you overlook a lot of facts.

Cool, creepy, and erotic in equal measures.

! Moderator Note Perhaps we need to re-word that rule, but it's intended to stop opening posts from taking us offsite to look at concepts for discussion, or videos which are difficult to skim for relevance. We encourage links to supportive evidence when assertions are made during the discussions, and appreciate it when the links show some rigor, especially when also linked to peer-reviewed studies.

You were using this hoverboard for 3 months, McFlying around until the magnet broke, and haven't been able to hover for the last 6 months, is that right? Is this what you're saying?

Isn't it all just communication for the purpose of turning data into information and using that in your relationships every day? I don't think of the internet as any less real. Before the internet, I was limited to the phone, printed media, snail mail, and direct interface in my interactions for work, family, and friends. If I wanted to know something, I needed a lot more time to gather data from those sources. My life isn't any less real, I just have several orders of magnitude more sources for the data that lets me assemble information and interact with people successfully.

Does personal growth require you to cut formerly established ties/friendships? Aren't they called "ties" because of the bonds of friendship you forge? Why are you cutting them? I think it's called "growth" because it's cumulative. Past, as in past friendships? Facebook really isn't my thing, I know I should spend more time there because that's where so much of my family is, but I don't think about FB being about the past. FB is about the now, what's going on with you, what did you do today, seen any cute cat photos lately? Perhaps you can define what it means for you to be "tied to the past", and why you think it might make one less open to change?

! Moderator Note And the winner of this week's Spot-On Description Award goes to... Whiney Meta-threads! You've won a trip to the grocery store, and a $1 off coupon for some Cheese Nips. AND I'm closing this thread in your honor!

A list of faults? At least five, more would be better? What's this for? Do you want to solve them, or use them to make a case against the science? It sounds a bit vendetta-ish.

Hey, you know what? You started this thread out a bit creepy, and I thought I'd help by adding a different perspective, and I think that part of the discussion was pretty interesting to many. But your part of the discussion continues to be creepy and misogynistic. And you can't post those pictures if they have a copyright notice. I think everything productive has been said, and while I don't usually do any mod actions on threads I'm involved in, a) this is the Lounge, b) it's late and there's no one else, and c) I mentioned your posts are creepy, right? ! Moderator Note So I'm closing this.

But I've never been against the eye-candy concept. That's a consensual bit of sexuality, and if it's condoned as a bit of hot and bother at the high school sporting event, that's not my objection. They're supposed to be doing coordinated gymnastics to get me excited... about the game. It really is the idea of the skirt you're supposed to see beneath that bugs me. Lots of things are sexual to lots of people, like wearing opera gloves, but it's an affinity that isn't overtly sexual. Looking up a girl's skirt to see her panties has no other function than to arouse (unless you're an official inspector with Victoria's Secret, like me). Lots of women tennis players wear the combo as well, and it bugs me on the courts too. Skorts have the part that keeps panties unseen built right in, but the skirt/lolly combo seems to be the most popular.

Here's a cheer outfit that doesn't use a skirt/lolly combo. Sexy, skimpy, functional, an outfit that fits the activity. It's built for gymnastics, and it's not sending a message to younger girls that there are some occasions when, if enough people want you to, it's OK to show them what's up your skirt.

Was it fun riding the ski board when the magnet was working? How long did it work before it broke?

Do you see why, when we're talking about a single process that spans multiple generations, there is no meaningful distinction between micro/macro/meso. It's all the same, it works the same way, and the only difference is where you look on the scale of time. Go back to Delta1212's early example. You're asking if the recipe was different between the cake and various sized slices of the cake. The recipe is the same. Looking at a single species and how they've evolved to date is just slicing the cake differently.

The guy in the blue shirt, sitting next to his car, is the luckiest man I've ever seen in real life. It's amazing he wasn't hurt being so close, and seated. I hope it wasn't his dog.

! Moderator Note No. Just... no.