Phi for All

! Moderator Note This topic has been re-opened, at the request of the OP, who promises some new information and hopefully a new approach to dealing with requested evidence. Please allow the new information to be posted before replying. Thank you.

In the Chem sections, I read much more than I write, and I still seem like a noob to me. Oh, I have. See answer above. John Cuthber is British, and they have that socialized medicine where you go in for preventative visits a lot, so he's probably seen the results of too many people who didn't freak out enough over azides. He's nice enough if you stay on his good side, which rotates on an algorithmic schedule, Why does he act so grumpy? Well, again, he's British, so it's no act. It rains a lot, so they all have a grump for every day of the week, and some of their grumps have those little suede patches sewn on the elbows, for when they're feeling academically grumpy. And, despite all the denial by the Windsors, John Cuthber is the real King of England. Pulled some sword out of a stone, but can't get the Palace to listen. That would make anyone grumpy. As for the physics, well, sometimes the crazy gets hold of people and makes them think being well-versed in many areas makes them more valuable than the rest of us. Which makes it difficult for the rest of us to sell our over-unity devices and chemical-free body lotions. We deny no one the use of their crutches, but must point out that many parents of middle-schoolers watch for just such out-of-your-way uses to block their offspring from our Homework Help sections. And we generally find that avoiding personal attacks makes profanity seem out of place and rather forced.

I've been a Moderator here at SFN for seven years. And of course I'm stalking you. You happen to discuss Chemistry subjects I feel comfortable joining in. Usually I'm just watching John Cuthber's posts sail right over my head.

And yet, others find you interesting and your thoughts significant and important enough to discuss science and philosophy with you when they could be doing any amount of other things. I think you'll find it impossible to get "everyone" to agree on anything. Personally, when I stopped trying, it gave me enough insight to realize that my own meaning to life was the only thing I had much influence over. And that led to the idea that my ethics are stronger because I'm the only one who ultimately holds myself accountable. I can be a moral person because everyone, and me especially, needs me to be a moral person.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are against the rules you agreed to when you joined. They also show that you have no meaningful argument to add to the discussion. No more personal attacks, please. Attack the idea, not the person.

In most cases I agree. This particular tax cut was sold as a means to grow jobs, but was then used to fuel mostly corporate growth, 60% of which came from hiring overseas workers. This seems more like a subsidy. I don't think taxpayers would have approved of the extensions if they'd known it would be used to help corporations instead of unemployment, that's all.

Maybe I'll start another thread with a poll. "Would you approve more tax cuts for corporations, which everyone making under $200,000 per year would have to make up for, so these corporations can create new jobs, one for an American and three for workers overseas?" I'm a bit appalled that you think this isn't corporate welfare of the worst sort.

It's been posited by others that only a Christian moral system gives clear guidelines on how to live ethically. You said that you, "highly doubt that there is a God and 99.999% of the evidence simply points to there being no God and no objective meaning to life". I just wondered if your belief that there is no objective meaning to life stops you from forming your own ethical foundation and meaning to life.

Vigilance is necessary, I agree. It doesn't help that the random violence is usually perpetrated by the quieter types we have to dig to find (and even then usually only in hindsight) while the ones that crow about it on the public airwaves are usually just birdbrains tweeting (or am I unaware of all the Blank Panthers killing white people stories?).

And does this belief stop you from giving a ethical and beneficial meaning to your own life?

I don't know if they have anything like that on Holmes (it was only a month ago, he's still an "alleged" killer), but: http://en.wikipedia....School_massacre ... and: http://tpmdc.talking...trail-video.php And there have been many other tragedies where the perpetrator had left many clues to a fragile and violent mental state on the Web. Again, I'm not sure this isn't just knee-jerk legislation, and I'm not sure I support such an invasion of privacy, but it's clear where the impetus comes from, and it's certainly understandable that people would react this way when, in hindsight, it's 20/20 clear that some maniacs do advertise their intentions. I just don't think this can be justified though, possibly detaining hundreds or thousands of people in hopes of catching someone before they may commit a crime.

In this case, since the extension of the tax cuts was sold to us as allowing "job-creators" to create jobs, it was an example of tax cuts subsidizing businesses to create jobs. In addition, this was obviously a flat out lie, or at the least a scam that allowed the biggest companies to spend money the tax payers gave them to expand their businesses overseas. Do you really think the vast majority of tax payers would have approved the extension if they knew that only one out of four of the jobs created would go to a US tax payer? Do you think the justification that it would make iPhones a little cheaper would have been enough?

But what happens to one's morals when faith is successfully challenged and those guidelines come into question? And considering how many interpretations are possible when talking about the Bible, how can you really consider the guidelines to be clear? And what about the question of basing morality on a punishment/reward system? Doesn't that seem to encourage adherence to religious laws and allow that to supersede secular ones? Don't we see many examples of religious people ignoring a secular law in favor of a religious one? Is it OK to discriminate against gay people because that's the way you interpret your religious documents? What the Nazis did was not openly approved by their secular society. It was not part of the moral structure of Germans as a culture, but was rather a secretive justification for the actions of a few. I would more easily trust a scientist who had arrived at his moral system without threat of eternal punishment, or promise of eternal reward. I would much rather trust someone who realized, as I do, that ethical behavior is what allows our species to communicate and cooperate to make life better for as many of us as possible.

Considering there are over 9000 different recognized Christian sects, I would be careful about making blanket generalized statements about what Christians claim. And since atheism isn't a belief system, generalizing about what atheists claim is also fallacious reasoning. Don't you think the author of the original Professor/Student exchange would call him/herself a Christian?

Aren't you the guy who admonished another member today about being condescending?

How stable is a moral framework dependent on the faith of the practitioner? Don't a lot of people have crises of faith many times in their lives? And how valuable is morality based in the majority on punishment and/or reward? Isn't it more stable to believe in doing right because it's right, and not because you might get the carrot or the stick? Capitalizing the word implies that we're talking about the Abrahamic deity. The OP clearly states, in the second sentence, "Although if their [sic] is a god...", making the lower case spelling correct.

A trained combat veteran posting about severing heads represents a bit more potential danger than civilians in mock uniforms being interviewed on TV. But I think the real issue here is the state law Virginia passed to help prevent lone-gunman-type crusaders from carrying out their threats. It's probably knee-jerk legislation, but I'm sure it was passed to avoid some of the cases you hear about where someone goes on a rampage yet there was ample evidence on the internet that they were planning something terrible.

Agricultural subsidies.

Well, extending the Bush tax cuts was sold to us as a way for the "job-creators" to help with our unemployment problem. AFAIC, that money taken from our tax revenues should have gone to hiring US workers. It wasn't a spending bill, it was a tax cut. Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... we can't get fooled again. I consider relaxed regs to be a big part of why we're where we are at present. Agree here. What a stupid use of edible corn. Historically, they've done so quite well, and with tighter regulations and higher taxes.

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers. I would say the general shittiness of the economy is also partly to do with high unemployment. It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers. Maybe Ryan's plan to give the wealthy even more tax breaks will make them hire US workers THIS time, since that's not in any way insane or ludicrous.

I could have sworn this post didn't say this when I first responded. It looks like you changed the OP after people responded too. <_< If you don't want to climb a tree with a chainsaw, and can't cut it down to chop up later, you have no more viable options. Poison is too unpredictable, imo, unless you can monitor the tree 24/7. Burning the tree creates sparks which could set other things on fire. You're pretty much limited to having a professional do the work. They'd be bonded against damage and would be able to pull any proper permits with the city.

How about ropes around a single branch at a time for control, then lop them off one by one? Putting tension on the rope in the direction you want the branch to fall will make sure it doesn't hit anything you don't want to hit. That's the only way I'd cut down a tree that could possibly harm other property, or if I didn't have lots of help.

No one questions that there are synthetic sources that fortify foods through yeasts and cereals with B12. This simply casts doubt on the vegan hypothesis that this is how humans are supposed to eat. The vegan diet wouldn't even have been possible without modern chemistry.

And Obama extended those tax cuts, but "the job creators" used them to create three overseas jobs for every domestic job. http://economywatch....s-overseas?lite Essentially, it looks like Bush was counting on small businesses to hire domestically, while the wealthiest companies could not only reduce the public revenue through tax cuts, but also hire offshore workers who don't contribute as much to our economy, a double-tap to the back of the head for US employment.

Isn't this more a case of anaphylaxis induced by allergic reaction? Do you think everyone who ate these items together would experience the same symptoms? Can you personally eat each of these things individually with no ill effect? I think the OP was more interested in a universal chemical reaction, something inimical to anyone who tried it (like putting some Clorox in your Windex to make it clean better and then inhaling chloramine vapor).