Phi for All

It seems clear to me that freedom, or individual liberty, needs to go hand-in-hand with social conscience to make a strong America. Both are worth less alone, since you can have all the individual liberty you want and then fail without the infrastructure made possible by our social system. And all the infrastructure in the word won't help if you aren't free to take advantage of what your fellow citizens have helped make possible. Sometimes it seems that the people who made a fuss about Obama's "You didn't build that" statement are making the assumption that, because the roads and libraries are already there, they owe nothing more to the social system. "So what, if a person makes it somewhere in life due to the people who have helped or inspired them", you say, and I say that should NEVER be the attitude we as Americans hold. Helping and inspiring each other, contributing your part to help your society is not only what made this country great, it's one of the things that has helped humans accomplish what we have as a species. Perhaps that's the greatest freedom of all.

Is your confusion real or feigned? I understand if you're trying to avoid answering my questions, but if you 're going to quote me, you should align your part of the conversation accordingly, and actually respond to what I asked in the part you quoted.

I don't think this is a very good answer to Moontanman's question, why you think Jefferson considered Christianity to be the preferred, constitutional religion (or "The familiar and constitutional Christianity..." as you put it). Wasn't it purposely stated that the government derives from the People, and not from a deity? And while Jefferson didn't want the government to interfere in religion, wasn't it equally as important that the government NOT be influenced by ANY church?

I would amend that to, "We are here. It doesn't matter why." That way, when you try to make life better, you aren't the only one trying.

Did you call back the next night like he asked you to?

! Moderator Note Not an official proclamation at this point, and I'm not really singling you out personally for this immortal (so please don't respond to this here, please), but I ask you ALL to note that this posting style, putting in some links with absolutely no personal input, is inimical to the purposes of a discussion forum. You wouldn't just hand someone a newspaper article without another word in the middle of a conversation, and it's not really appropriate here either. In the future, I think we're going to start requiring that everyone say at least SOMETHING to limit the amount of link reading we're asking people to do.

No, it's really not. The default would be, "From everything we can observe, we can say with a great deal of confidence that physics holds true everywhere." Well, that would be wrong. No scientist I know would make an absolute, generalized assertion like that. MUST be false is often easy to show, MUST be true is contrary to the scientific method. We have no way of testing such a thing.

Bottom line, your almond oil isn't going to get into the bloodstream through your skin. On the other hand, the moisturizer you've been using is probably also a "natural" product, since chemicals do occur naturally. And it has the advantage of being designed to do one thing, moisturize your skin.

You all laugh now, but I've been warning people about the Swiss arming their rodents for years. They *claim* to be neutral, but that's just part of their scheme to take over the world. First it was those army knives, now these pistols. What's is it going to take to get you people to see the danger?!

I think it's clear to (almost) everyone that there has been no censorship here. No one edited or deleted another's words, no one was stopped from voicing his/her opinion, and no information was judged unacceptable in and of itself. A misunderstanding about what constitutes scientific evidence seems to be at the heart of this matter. Misunderstandings can be corrected, ignorance can be cured, as long as it's not willful. That said, I have to wonder which is worse, actual censorship, where a person's words are suppressed as unacceptable, or deliberate disinformation like this: where the key phrase, "... as evidence to support an assertion regarding a scientific point" is omitted? Adding insult to injury, Thomas Jefferson is then invoked in an attempt to lend the attack a validity it hardly deserves. Censorship is unjust suppression, but disinformation is malevolent evil, imo.

You requote the part of Jefferson's act that would prohibit people from forcing someone to denounce their religion before anyone takes them seriously. Again, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! Religious documentation that can't be validated is simply NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You can use it for the purposes of your opinion, but where you always run into problems here is when you try to use it to back up the assertions you make. That doesn't work well on a science forum, and you should be aware of that by now instead of claiming censorship. We don't ban people for holding a certain belief or point of view, we ban them for breaking the rules, period. Not so much word salad as completely meaningless to the charges of censorship you're leveling at us. Again, you take a non-mainstream idea, that equivalence principle should be applied more universally, assume it to be true and then argue that it's evidence ignored. Do you begin to see where the real problem lies? More temporal tinkering from Jefferson and his damn time machine.... Hold on here, let's stick to the topic of censorship. This is not another "Why do you believe" thread, this is a very serious charge of censoring someone's beliefs. We're not obligated to follow any kind of democratic freedom of speech here, but we do pride ourselves on allowing all opinions that don't violate our rules.

I think this part is the meat of the matter. And it's not accurate. It's not discussion of scripture that's inappropriate here; it's claiming that scripture qualifies as scientific evidence for ANYTHING other than its own existence. Further, this assertion impugns the spirit of Jefferson's "celebrated document" by implying that we're restraining anyone's religious freedoms by using accepted definitions of scientific evidence. Pymander diminishes the integrity of his own beliefs by willfully misrepresenting the problem, and shows us that his grasp of what Jefferson meant with these words is flawed and one-sided.

Actually, I think it depends on your definition of "rationale". There are some cases I can think of where murder can be the most logical recourse. Suppose someone told you privately that they were going to kill someone you love and make it look like an accident. No one believes you because this person is considered a normal, respectable person. Only you know he's a psychopath bent on destroying your loved one. Circumstances prevent you from providing round the clock protection, your loved one is trying to avoid you the more you insist he/she is in danger and you know this psycho will eventually find an opportunity to carry out his threat. If you felt that murdering him before he could murder your loved one was the only logical choice, that would be a rationale many would accept if the truth ever came out (in which case it wouldn't be murder, more like justifiable homicide). If it didn't come out, many people would still choose to murder and face the consequences rather than let the loved one die. There can be reasons for murder, but no excuses for it.

I think John Cuthber was referring to the fact that everything is made up of chemical compounds if it's not a base element.

! Moderator Note illuusio, you have failed to provide the necessary clarifications, derivations and other evidence requested. Also, you are introducing terminology that is not mainstream and have failed to explain its purpose. It might be wise to take a small part of your idea and start another speculative thread, but DO NOT start another thread on this exact topic to bypass this closure. Take some time to re-read some of the suggestions and arguments you've been given. Thread closed, per Speculation forum rules.

In the US, many cities make the distinction between legal and illegal knives by their use. If you're carrying a knife with a blade under 3.5" in Denver, it's generally OK if you're found with it on you (barring spring-loaded and gravity mechanisms), but if you stabbed someone with a screwdriver it would be assumed you were carrying it for that purpose, and would be considered a concealed deadly weapon. In general, I think it's best to avoid knife-fighting unless you're well-trained. A good knife-fighter could handle even someone with a gun if he's very close, since the gun-wielder will generally think only of bringing his gun to bear, while the knife-fighter uses hands and feet, arms and legs, knees and elbows as well as the blade. But a civilian shopper with a folding pocketknife against an armed robber of any kind is more likely to escalate the situation beyond control and could cause more danger to everyone in the store. Props for thinking of the welfare of others. If the robber was threatening lives openly it would be a different matter, but in general it would be better to let the robber take the money and run.

You joined and made this your first post, and your username is "Erudite"? That's funny*. Thanks! And welcome! * Although it would have been funnier, given the section this is in, to have said, "2 Bad", or perhaps "2(Bad)".

It's not hard to see how far we've come from creatures like this to walking erect. It didn't happen at a stroke.

You have an obligation to back up assertions with evidence when asked. From your link, regarding the scientific qualifications of the author: In other words, Perry is not a scientist. When a scientist says one can "think of DNA as an instructional script", he IS using analogy, LITERALLY. You use an unqualified source to say it's not an analogy, then you try to sneak past a quote from a reputable scientist who clearly claims it IS an analogy. Cheap trick, and very intellectually dishonest. Again, a clear use of analogy. Scientists often make the mistake of using analogy to make things clearer to an uneducated audience. Unfortunately, it's often these very analogies that get quoted and misrepresented, both by the innocently uninitiated and by those with a purposely devious agenda.

! Moderator Note illuusio, the Speculations forum has specific rules you are failing to follow. You have been asked for information multiple times and are not providing it. Each time you are asked for something specific, you reply with something vague. This thread is on it's 6th page and it's clear that the people interested in helping you are getting very frustrated. You need to provide what is being asked, or you need to tell why you can't provide it. Please comply with the rules or the thread will be closed. If you have a problem with this modnote, please report this post and state your reasons why, or PM a staff member. Do NOT discuss this modnote in this thread.

Space ≠ Spacetime. Time ≠ Spacetime. LOL, Pawel Kolasa!

But the forces are exerted on different objects. The size of the force on the fly equals the size of the force on the train, and the direction of the two forces are opposite as well. The train is affected by the fly's force in a very small way, and the fly is affected by an opposite and equally very small portion of the train's force. I have a T-shirt like this.

Just so we don't have to close this thread for violating our rules (Section 2.3aii), no one is going to tell you how to kill someone with a knife. Period. Please don't ask about that anymore. That said, do you think killing someone for robbery is justice? Did the robber have a gun? If so, a knife is a poor choice of weapons for an offensive strike. Also, a pocket knife is not a good weapon at all. It can be used for slashing if the blade is long enough (which usually makes it an illegal concealed weapon) but stabbing with it is likely to close the blade down on your own fingers. If it has a locking blade it could be used, but again it's a poor choice against a person with a gun in their hand.

I'm going to say you should have money AND food to stay healthy. Also, make sure you don't eat your money, since that's not good either.

Are you more interested in flora or fauna? Land or marine? Do you like research or were you thinking about applying biology to a different field (working with yeasts could land you a QC job at a brewery!)? Are you going for the B.S. or do you have plans for an M.S. or Ph.D.?