Phi for All

Do you think contradictions between democracy and equality are intrinsic to the system, or can they be minimized or removed? Are the seeds of its own destruction always planted, or can they be rendered harmless?

Which are often easily justified by the religious. You don't have to feed the child if they've been bad, right?

I would say equality is an outcome of the democratic process, rather than a process itself. Perhaps equity is the better word here. Equity is more of a process, and has elements of fairness and justice to it that equality may not focus on. It's a concept that understands that people and their circumstances are too different for equality to work across the board. Instead, equitable solutions are sought to minimize any contradictions in the system.

It's a nice fairy tale you've got here that bears little resemblance to much of organized religion. To them, it's VERY MUCH about a deity, and their relationship with that deity, and the benefits their belief in that deity bring them. The human condition considerations are normally only for believers, or those they want to convert.

I think that's where the phrase "douche canoe" came from.

Such a sensitive vitriol meter you have!

This seems like pure semantics. Those with hateful beliefs can affect others through inaction, like doing nothing to help those they hate. You don't have to wait until they decide to take action on their beliefs.

If distance is a property of a thing, then it can't be the thing itself, can it? Like kinetic energy is a property of a moving object, but not the actual object.

If you really want to accomplish a specific goal, you've already got the best motivation there is. Nothing gets us going more than doing something we really want to do. If you really want it but it's not happening, WHY isn't it happening? If you're like a lot of folks, you're somehow telling yourself it's not going to happen. You're programming your brain with negativity, so you don't get a positive outcome. You started working on your app "a few years ago", and I'll bet you've semi-given-up on it several times by telling yourself many different negative things. A lot of folks are taught that being your own cheerleader is vain and egotistical, and that's a shame because nobody knows your capabilities better than you. It may seem weird at first, but looking in the mirror every morning and reminding yourself how lucky you are to know what you really want to do is a great positive step towards motivation. And do you know how hard it is for most people to stop drinking or smoking?! You're amazing! And you live in a country that realizes you have much to offer that has nothing to do with your disability. And don't forget that you're a self-sufficient person as well, able to live on your own at 25 years old in these modern times. Bravo! Do me a favor, will you? If you can, put your arms up in the air like a "V" above your head, and imagine a whole stadium full of people are chanting your name and applauding, acknowledging the hardships you've faced, and admiring the fact that you still want to engage with the people around you and move on to your next goals. We're cheering for you because you deserve it, you're a very good person, and we all want to see you succeed. We want to see this app you've been telling us about for the last few years, and we're getting just as excited as you!

! Moderator Note Instead of "Reply to this topic", I clicked "Quote" under this post of yours, so the software repeats what you said. It left room outside the quote for this reply. Then I went into your quote and removed the first two sentences, since I'm just replying to the above paragraph. Last, I hit "Submit Reply".

Substitute a system where there is no hierarchy of worthiness, one that reveres all life as necessary and meaningful, not just intelligent life. Instead of making up non-observable deities to explain nature, we study it and accept that we should try to mirror nature's diversity as strength. If we understand that we have the capacity to act like other animals, but also the capacity to think of better alternatives, perhaps we could have done a better job of being so smart. Instead of continuing to ask questions and find the best possible explanations, we let the holy people make up their own answers. We shouldn't be surprised by what ignorant people can pull out of their asses.

! Moderator Note These are all very good questions... for VAWT. I suggest you contact them directly since they designed it. It's not something we wish to help them advertise here in our science discussion forum.

Now I find your idea very offensive. In the US especially, the police need a serious overhaul in terms of how they ethically protect and serve EVERYBODY, but it I'd known you were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bothered responding. Enjoy your... interests.

Are you sure it's a stain, which lies on top of the ceramic and should come off with some effort, and not a small chip showing a darker clay beneath? If you use a probe (skewer, chopstick, etc), can you tell if it's concave like a hole? Pale black? Should we assume the ceramic coating is white, and these spots are darker? I have a set of red latte mugs with a white coating on the inside of the mug, and one of those has 2 small chips in the bottom inside that look like dark spots. Not sure if it was fired badly, or if I might have dropped a spoon too hard on the bottom, but they're not stains.

I find this a bit offensive, focusing on the concept of the police when you have a way to develop a more ethical population overall. Shouldn't you use this in the schools first, and not just the police academies? You could also focus on removing the need to commit crime, since many are faced with the "moral" dilemma of stealing to feed families. I've often thought we should test children before school age by putting them in situations where we can formally observe their behavior, and continue it as part of school. We trust new parents with those formative first years, but maybe they should have a LOT more help from the state. It seems like we should be able to spot destructive behavior earlier so we can address it specifically. Set up scenarios to test a child in various ways and hopefully spot strengths and weaknesses. The big problem with this is there are still too many people who raise ruthless bullies on purpose, thinking this is how it's supposed to be. Come up with a standard for morality and ethics that doesn't involve conflicts with the extremist attitudes and double standards prevalent in our society today, and there may be a way for psychology to be helpful with this.

Merry Christmas! Stay warm and radiate happy today!

IlGeller has been banned as a sockpuppet of one of the other Geller incarnations that can't explain their non-mainstream ideas using science.

! Moderator Note You couldn't support that load of garbage before, but now you're claiming it's being used in fusion trials? That's one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever heard of. Your lack of science understanding was always embarrassing before, but now it's cringeworthy. Regardless, you were banned as a crackpot before, so I'm banning this account as well. Don't bother coming back, nobody is interested in your quackery.

One of the best I've ever heard for misdirection. Right up until the last word, you're convinced you know how they did it.

An elderly lady has just finished discussing the arrangements for her late husband's funeral, and the director of the mortuary asks her if there's anything else they can do to honor the dearly departed, anything at all. She tells him, "Well, I hate to mention it. I chose that black suit because it was the most expensive one he had, but blue was really his color. I first met him in a blue suit, and he wore blue when we married. If you could buy him a really nice blue suit to be buried in, I'd appreciate it greatly. I know that's over and above what we discussed, so take this." She hands him a blank check and he tells her he'll do his best. The next day the viewing starts and the elderly lady is very pleased to see her husband in a very stylish blue suit. She thanks the funeral director and compliments his choice. He assures her it was his pleasure, and then returns the blank check. The lady objects, saying, "But that's a really nice suit! Aren't you going out of pocket for it?" "Madam, by a complete coincidence, another woman wanted her deceased husband buried in a black suit instead of a blue one. One of my assistants remarked on how both men were about the same size, so it was the easiest thing in the world to just switch their heads!"

Questions are awesome! Questions spark great discussions where everybody gets to learn something. Bring 'em on, and welcome!

Forgive me if I failed to acknowledge the diligence shown by Merrick Garland. His non-partisan, ultra-cautious, barely noticeable approach has taken very little breath away from me, so I should have plenty left to sing his praises.

This is a misunderstanding of Relativity, and probably where your frustration lies. Spacetime isn't a "thing" I can loan you a bushel of, it's the geometry we can apply to determine position within the universe when we observe various phenomena. Three spatial dimensions and a temporal dimension can describe any event anywhere. Just like, on Earth's surface, I can give you longitude, latitude, altitude, and time coordinates so we can have lunch together next week on the 24th floor of the Chrysler Building. I'm not sure where all these people are who argue that time is a physical object. Can you cite some sources on this? The thing is, when we use spacetime calculations to determine when to launch a rocket and hit something millions of miles away, it's extremely accurate. Thinking of space and time as an inseparable continuum allows us to predict the movements of massive bodies to an astonishing degree. Can you use your idea to calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit?

So, I shouldn't drop the baby. Got it. I was waiting for this response. It's an assumption many make wrt privilege (among other things), that we'll automatically over-correct if we even try to correct. I'm reminded of the joke: What if climate change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Touch needs to be divided into more parts, imo. With touch we know when we make contact with an object, whether it's soft or hard or sharp or wet (textures) or hot or cold (temperature) or vibrating. We associate pain with touch receptors as well, and even emotions like compassion can be detected and even delivered through touch, so I think these are all separate senses, or deserve to be. And where does proprioception fit in? It's the sense that lets us know where we are in relation to the space around us, so we don't have to watch each stair as we climb them, or so we can touch our nose with our fingertip when our eyes are closed. We also have a sense of balance that seems caught up with tubes in our ears, but has nothing to do with hearing. I've heard some claim we have a sense of proximity, like how close we're standing to a wall, but I think that's a combination of feeling air pressure against the skin and hearing the difference sound makes when it's being reflected off a close surface. And of course, there's the fact that we don't sense anything with our receptors directly. It's all filtered and interpreted by the brain, which is so fast that it often predicts what you're supposed to be seeing based on past experiences before the light actually reaches your eyes. I hope that's not too off-topic for the opening post, but I think understanding how the senses evolved to work is important to their questions.