Phi for All

This tells me you haven't read the SFN Rules. There's a link at the bottom right corner of each page. Really, given that you just got here and didn't take the time to read the rules, don't you think such strong criticism is misplaced?

Awesome, welcome to a thousand conversations about your questions.

This is going to be a problem. This site is full of skeptics. You're just going to seem like a troll if this is the way you judge skepticism,

I hope you don't have allergies as well. Sneezing must be... complicated.

If there should be lots of ways besides reputation, why do you want to abolish reputation? Do you think this might be an issue where your two weeks experience here isn't giving you enough data to make such strong assertions? Just sayin'.

Staff noticed this some time ago. There's nothing we can do to stop everyone else, but we've agreed amongst ourselves that we don't put rep on moderation posts, including those on the Banned/Suspended Users page. If everyone could stop voting on what is essentially an administrative task, it would be great, but I know that's not likely to happen. Some of these trolls have wasted a lot of people's time, and when you hear they won't be doing it to YOU anymore, it's easy to get some closure with a pat on the back for the messenger. But really, tipping isn't necessary. Finish the equation. You're leaving out the part where it feels good to get that pretty-looking +1 sign, aren't you? And you always have the option to use your words. The rep system gives us another option for expressing ourselves. Good communication is a very heavily nuanced process, and it's important to look at how the whole system works together before you start scrapping parts. I'm sure that's an influence. How could it not be? We've also been around and probably read more of what gets posted than anyone else. We may have a more refined sense of what the membership will find interesting or funny or reply-worthy, and ultimately, reputation-worthy. I think a good percentage of negative rep is given to people who misstate their intentions. They've come to explore but instead make lots of declarations and assertions that immediately trigger the skeptic reflex in the rest of the membership. But I think most negative rep is because people simply let a poor attitude make them behave poorly. This turns other people's attitudes sour and makes THEM behave badly, and the cycle drags the conversation and our reputations in the dirt. Mods are aware of this cycle and we do everything we can to help nudge people out of it. Sometimes we remember that we're not immune to it either.

"Legitimately"? Heavens, no. But they believe in the right to carry a gun openly for personal protection, so in this case the guns are still just tools for security. I just don't think they're appropriate tools for civilians to carry in public. Protect your home, your hearth, I get that. If you've got guns, keep them at home. Come out in public, you should accept what your government has put in place for your security when dealing with the rest of your society. Even concealed carry is preferable to walking around openly armed, blurring the lines between what we should worry about and what keeps us safe.

Ditto. I thought it was a jack-a-lope reiteration.

I've always been skeptical that a population armed as we are would stand much chance against a concerted US military effort. IF the military could be convinced to attack a superior force of armed civilians, wouldn't they go after them with more than assault rifles and handguns? I guess I'm saying it's not accurate to assume civilian firepower is better based on common weapons, but I'm also saying that owning guns to keep the government honest these days is a less powerful argument than it's ever been.

Seriously though, if you're including the military in those figures, why do they have to stop at handguns, shotguns and assault rifles if they're outnumbered so badly?

My point is that the people carrying guns as a 2nd Amendment statement are carrying them as tools to do work (security work, in this case), while the rest of us don't see them as appropriate tools to carry openly in public. Especially in the cities where our taxes pay for uniformed protection from criminals. I could argue about the loaded shotgun by the bed if it was just me and I could minimize any risk to myself for having it there. It's like the bandaids I keep in my wallet; damn nice to have when needed and costs me nothing to keep them there. But guns for home defense are a double-edged sword; you risk shooting through walls into loved ones (that's why I'd rather have a real double-edged sword instead of a gun). But you're right, having the gun with you all the time doesn't seem intelligent. The odds that you'll really need it are dwarfed by the odds that you won't, or you'll think you need it but are wrong. I've never been in a situation where being able to shoot somebody would have been a good thing. I have been in several situations where I would likely have pulled it out if I had a gun, and regretted it later. Sometimes having the gun as an option means you don't spend much time thinking of options.

We'll probably see the other side of the coin soon if we haven't already. That's where a bunch of assault-rifle-toting good guys walk past a bunch of assault-rifle-toting bad guys, nod to them and assume they're just making a second-amendment statement. Later, after the school/office/home gets shot up by the second group, people will ask why the good guys didn't recognize the bad guys and stop them. And it's because they're just tools that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user. Tools that are as inappropriate to have out in an urban setting as taking your power drill into a business meeting, or your tree branch pruning pole into a restaurant. In the city, at least, the only people who should have openly carried weapons should be in an identifiable uniform like police and security services wear.

I'd hate to go all stand-up on folks.

This isn't peer review, it's discussion amongst humans, so of course you're right. We need a full range of expression to convey our meaning here, and humor (even the silly kind with the "u" from the UK), can be crucial to that process. There are places to go for black and white, humorless data. We're more about making observations on the data, and sometimes our insights are just funny. I've always appreciated your humour over the years, Ophiolite. You have impeccable timing and a rapier wit. I've noticed that you more often resort (resourt) to humour than insults or derision when another member is misreading your words, and I think that's very wise as well. You're very patient until you're not any more, and then you use humour rather than getting cross. How can that not have value?

I love Kaku for getting people excited about physics, but I think his pop-sci vividness and less-than-rigorous approach to speculation can lead some to the wrong conclusions.

Definitions aren't simple semantics. I don't have to couch this in opinion, this is fact. Without definitions that are agreed upon, we're talking about different things. It's pointless. You can't redefine words and expect everyone to accept your redefinitions while talking to you. I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate.

Historically, most of the people who don't like the system have joined recently, posted a great deal and challenged everything with little to support them but their own opinions, got some negative points for being rude and not listening, and then started threads about how the rep system should be abolished.

Another mistake, imo. Definitions shouldn't adapt to what you want them to mean. Definitions provide a foundation for understanding and should lend utility to everyone who uses them that way. Definitions and descriptions are tools we use for communication mechanics. If you're unsure about what you think you should be sure about, maybe it's because you aren't using the right tools, or have modified them to mean different things so they don't work well for you anymore. Personally, I use the methodology of overwhelming evidence. The explanation that's best supported with reality-based evidence is the one I usually find most trustworthy. I rarely have moments where this method leaves me unsure. If I wonder if a snake sees red the same way I do, I can find out instead of guessing wrong.

Does Stand Your Ground have a don't-be-the-guy-who-shoots-first component? Hopefully "responsible" means both parties can figure out that neither really wants to start the bloodshed. "Drop your gun!" "No, YOU drop YOUR gun!" What about us unarmed People, though? I'm walking along, minding my own business, when I turn a corner and see two guys with assault rifles coming my way. If I continue or do nothing, I might be tonight's top news story. If I panic, or even if I'm just trying to get away from them and I'm injured somehow (diving into an alley, being startled into the path of a car or cyclist, etc), is that on me or are these guys technically assaulting us with the threat of another killing spree? Cops who see these guys have to investigate (just a guess, don't know this for a fact), people driving take their attention off the road, the whole thing creates an atmosphere of armed tension. I shouldn't have to defend overreacting to civilians with assault rifles in public. I should get to assume they need to be reported and stayed away from.

Are you saying No True Scotsman would watch the World Cup?

No. For reasons that should be obvious. It would be a great place to start. Discussion forum, talking about specific subjects, in particular having a conversation titled "Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Sceince?" This conversation.

This is how religion works. "Seems" is based on emotions, emotions influence our better judgement, and pretty soon we're killing neighbors because they don't believe in the one true God and it "seems" right because it's for God, after all. Science, on the other hand, knows that many things that "seem right" are not. We know that our emotions and biases need to be held in check as much as we can if we want to observe reality best. Emotions have their place but not when we're trying to understand the nature of the universe. Look at the thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Is it more likely that one is real, that all are real, or that none are real?

I don't believe in god(s) at all, I see no evidence of them or any need, but officially I don't know. Scientifically, we can't know anything about something that can't be observed. I'm sorry, but I write the words I write very carefully, and you seem to misunderstand or misrepresent most of them. I also think you're arguments try to convert a very complicated and nuanced subject into something very simple so you can better understand it. This may seem like a good approach, but to understand something like the relationship between imagination, religion, and science more fully, you need to figure out how all the parts work together. You won't get that by not listening to the other sides of the conversation.

Imagination surely came first. This led to speculating on the existence of things unseen, which led to religion. Religion actually doesn't promote space for imagination; instead, it promotes a single way of living life with a single belief system rigidly set out so believers can achieve whatever has been promised to them. Where religion fails, science has a better view of reality. We can use our imaginations for more trustworthy explanations and predictions using scientific methodology. The god(s) of the gaps with all their contradictory logic get squeezed out in favor of ideas that match what we actually observe happening.

I didn't say religion fell. I said religious explanations began to fail as our knowledge of the real world increased. God(s) always filled the gaps in our understanding. We used god(s) infinite power to explain what was going on with the thunder and lightning and the seasons or whatever. As we improved our knowledge of the real world, the gaps where superstition and supernatural speculation were needed become smaller. At some point, you have to ask yourself if we really need god(s) to explain anything. Personally, I think early tribes of humans developed the ability to think ahead further and further to insure their survival. It's easy to see how forward thinking could lead to seeing tigers in the shadows. It must have seemed like magic to early humans when one of their own predicted that an enemy was nearby but couldn't be seen. People like that would end up being revered for their ability to keep the tribe safe from unseen enemies. And it's very easy to see how that would lead to imagining unseen friends as well.