Phi for All

We have a problem with discussions like this breaking various rules. Non-mainstream ideas should be in Speculations, and discussions about religion from a science perspective go in Religion, and neither section allows bad reasoning and logical fallacies, and require that evidence be cited to back up assertions. This doesn't meet the requirements of Speculations, and you can't use unsupported scientific claims to make your arguments in Religion. If the science requires supernatural support, it's not science, and we shouldn't be wasting our time discussing something that isn't supported by observation and evidence.

! Moderator Note Moved from Amateur Science to Speculations. The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. The movement of a thread into (or out of) Speculations is ultimately at the discretion of moderators, and will be determined on a case by case basis.

Yes, in a new thread, located here: ! Moderator Note I'll close this one so you aren't tempted to post in both.

And the update after Leaven is probably "Twelve", right?

I'm sorry, I took it for granted that people would take my use of "topless" in the context I've been using, which is specifically bare breasts. Not bare legs. Not bare head. Let's keep the goalposts where they were. I don't see why Judea should be exempt from the lack of concern over bare breasts. Remember, when Adam and Eve ate the apple and became aware they were naked, they made garments out of fig leaves, and the Hebrew word chagowr used for those garments translates to a belt for the waist. IOW, they covered their loins only.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum, and we aren't here to promote articles you've written elsewhere. If you wish to discuss what you've written with the rest of the members, then give us some discussion points. The article can be used as a reference, but members should be given enough information so they don't have to go offsite or click links they don't trust. So far you've posted twice, with links to articles you've written. We need you to respond as if you were discussing your ideas rather than lecturing or blogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon. It seems like having some of your clothes on (or available nearby) kept one from "nakedness", which was seen as shameful. Overall, it seems like naked means "your genitals are showing" rather than referring to the full monty. It may be assumed that it didn't matter what you wore up top if your bottoms were visible.

But this isn't my expectation. This is, in its basic context, what I accused your arguments of doing. You imposed your modern version of modesty on biblical characters, and I pointed that out and even remarked that women often went topless. You countered with some strawman argument about breast-feeding, which I never mentioned. Women often went topless in the regions mentioned in the B because it was hot, and it just wasn't as shocking as it is today. I dislike your argument style. It seems very dishonest, and you make claims you don't seem prepared to defend.

If you're going to make blanket assertions like this, you definitely need to back them up with some evidence. Nothing I see on the webs supports this, unless you're talking about specific regions or countries, in which case you need to be specific. Science discussion, remember?

It's good form when someone polices your responses by saying "We aren't the thought police".

Oh sure, except for the many parts that don't. Leans in favor? Bet I can find more extremist behavior than you can find humble behavior in the Bible. It preaches moderation, but few of the characters actually practice it. I disagree that it IS a basic assessment, which should be far more objective. Moderate is what YOU consider it. It was not uncommon in biblical times for women to go topless. It wasn't considered immodest. In fact, there are more mentions in the B about women covering their heads than there are about covering their breasts. And try reading the Song of Solomon sometime. Well, this is the Religion section, which makes this a religious discussion. It's OK that you aren't interested in a POV that disagrees with yours. And I completely understand why it wouldn't interest you. But my points weren't inaccurate or off-topic, and I'd be happy to defend them for you, from Biblical times all the way up through more modern primogeniture practices. You can defend why you think sports influenced the biblical stance on nudity.

Biblical strictures against nudity stem from the world of sports? Seems a stretch, to me. Even jealousy and envy seem misplaced. Everything about the way women were treated in the Bible supports the concept that everything but their fellow men (and even them if you followed the laws) were possessions to men back then. So not jealousy or envy, but the pure greed of ownership and wanting to be taken seriously. They didn't want their women to be attractive to other men because they wanted to ensure that any offspring they support can only have come from their own loins, and that the heirs to their fortunes were legitimate. And beyond the inheritance, according to Deuteronomy 23:2, illegitimate children can't join any congregations, which probably means they can't get into heaven. And that lasts for 10 generations, so that's probably a big part of the whole "keep it covered" campaign. Of course, the problem with the OP is that we can talk about sexual topics without having sex with each other, just like we can talk about death without killing someone. And we can talk about public nudity and how it impacts Christian morality without showing pictures of ourselves naked.

Great rack for you here, Moon! And I don't normally do this kind of thing, but:

Sorry! How about this pair?

You need to share the science of how you think you could do this. "Enwrapped with a lot of energy" is not a good start. Energy isn't a thing; it's a property of things.

! Moderator Note I don't think you understand how any of this works. You've tried this many times before, you don't actually support your idea beyond stating it, restating it, and waving your hands in insistence that you're right. I agreed to let you bring it up yet again because you promised you had some supporting evidence to back up your claims. And here is the first post, with nothing but vague promises and absolutely no direction for discussion. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?! If I was trying to persuade anybody of anything, I sure wouldn't make a bunch of promises I had no intention of keeping. I would lead with some good, solid evidence that supports my extraordinary claims.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Is there something about biochemistry you want to discuss?

And this seems tied to the religious hierarchy so many cling to to this day. God is above everyone, and the rest of us are placed beneath Him in descending order based on worthiness. Our leaders MUST be better than we are, and priests and doctors and lawyers are surely the goodest folks ever, so they're usually ranked very highly. The masses desperately try to place themselves as highly as they can, and are generally only too happy to judge which folks are BENEATH them, or less worthy than they are. Most businesses are set up with this hierarchy, and so are most governments. And with this structure, there will always be slaves at the bottom with no alternatives.

I don't agree that slavery is defined strictly by ownership. Even the slavery the OP is talking about didn't end when black people stopped being "owned" by white people. "Forced to work" is a different measure. It doesn't only refer to beatings if you can remove all the other options available, so that work or suffer are the only choices.

You should probably define what you mean by slavery. Is it defined by a lack of pay for productive work? If so, does paying a pittance make it NOT slavery? Emancipation didn't end slavery in many areas. In any case, describing African slaves as "lucky" sounds like something that would prolong slavery as opposed to ending it.

we2 has been banned for sharing everything except science discussion.

! Moderator Note Deadline passed, thread closed.

This effort seems aimed at promoting the continuation of colonialist practices. Foster racial and social inequality. Establish legal and political domination over the non-white population. Keep the indigenous population from mixing with the disaffected elements of your colony. And don't let them have access to an education that might lead them to expect better.

My hunch says it was Smokey. Bandit would have people in the picture, drinking and grinning. Smokey is behind the cameraperson, probably establishing concrete evidence that this is, indeed, beer. They already have concrete evidence about the concrete.

Probably from the same bowl he uses to cut his hair.