Phi for All

In terms of my spiritual beliefs, if I denied myself sexual pleasures, I would be cutting myself off from a part of my social and physical being that I was obviously meant to enjoy, which might lead to my being less than a good person. As long as I'm a moderately sexual person, one who causes no harm in my sexual actions, there is nothing in my belief system that would cause God to be angry with me.

It's not really about being offensive, although there are plenty of places on the net you can go to be insulted and we do like to be different in that regard. It's more that ad hominem is a logical fallacy in arguments. We try to aim our discussions at the ideas, not at the person who holds them.

Please drop the personal attack. Calling someone an idiot is a violation of the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

The Nazarene church I attended when young was extremely severe in terms of pleasure. Though too young to remember anything said about sex specifically, they didn't approve of singing or dancing that wasn't praising God. I remember asking my Sunday school teacher once if I could dance at a middle school sock hop if I did it while thanking God for the opportunity. The rant he gave me lead me to later leave that church, but not before I went to the dance, and had a reasonably good time. I did retain a sense of fairness and humane treatment. I won't do anything sexually that might cause any undue pain (even if a lover requests it - mild spanking is about all I'm OK with, and even then it tends to be absurd). For me, bringing pleasure is what sex is all about, even when you're trying to have a child. We have the capacity for many emotions and sensations, and I don't think any god would deny us any of them. If God created us then I think it's responsible to use everything He gave us to make yourself the best person you can be. I can't imagine being a good person while denying myself sexual pleasures.

That's how I looked at it. If I was too tired and declined and she demanded as her right that I perform, then it would have been an entirely different matter.

Many years ago, I had a girlfriend who woke me up this way once. It actually started a dream about having sex and when the stimulation woke me up, it was a little unnerving to find the dream was really happening. I did react well, though, at least in that context, since it was completely appropriate in terms of timing and consent. The only part I felt bad about was that the girl in the dream was not the girlfriend who woke me up. The girl in the dream was my next girlfriend, though.

Other than the almost universal taboo against incest, does your religion/belief system limit what goes on between you and your lover? Does it limit who you can have sex with? What kind of sexual practices are the most encouraged?

Can we have one that's even simpler then, with just the url (the s, f and n can be white, the rest in light blue), with the oval rings as the background (that might require changing the color)? I agree that the url is what people need, and the coloring will give us the SFN we like, all in the same logo. And tomgwyther, I really like what you have (phi, golden ratio, yeah baby), but like mooeypoo said, it has too many pseudo-scientific connotations to be so prevalent in the logo.

Does anyone know if a future public option is still possible or does this bill preclude the government ever proposing one? That's the kind of thing I worry about in a bill this large and complicated.

Something astronomical might be nice. To balance out the mathiness of the logo. Which brings me to ask this question: Are we getting lost in the concept with the logo? It's very clever but the brackets don't really focus on anything if that integral isn't clearly an S. I mean, we all get it, but will everyone? That's the purpose of a logo. I don't have a problem with the regular rings on the ovals because it has a slight illusory effect of movement anyway. I thought I liked the electrons, but seeing it without them I like it better. The SCIENCEFORUMS.NET might be tucked in a bit too close to the rings, which seems efficient but isn't very clean. I'm always torn between the efficiency of a clever use of space and how clean and easy to read it is.

I would choose Option 1. Option 2 is an emotional choice. It would save or prolong the lives of so many, but it doesn't really do anything to improve the quality of the later years. If this option also took care of dementia and Alzheimer's and some of the other problems of advanced age, I might choose it. Option 3 is also tempting. This is like having 600,000 nuclear power plants that could fit in my garage and still let me fit cars in the other 2 bays. But I fear this would stop us from looking for alternative sources, in much the same way cheap fossil fuels stifled research. Option 1 is my choice because I think it would have a galvanizing effect on the whole planet, one that would unite us together as a species and provide a common cause. Even though the aliens aren't hostile, their presence would still force us to act as a planet instead of separate countries. And having them be generally less advanced would allow us to grow as mentors (we'd still argue over how much to tell them, but at least it would be "us" discussing and deciding). There is much that is learned by the teacher that we could benefit from.

What other entity could hold that kind of money against claims and not charge a profit? Medicare's admin costs are for the sector that uses medical services the most, and their overall admin costs are still lower than those of a private insurer. Sure, the government would have to deny claims, but not for pre-existing conditions and may be not for experimental procedures and medication. That's the real burn here, when you're on your back laid low by something unexpected, and the insurance you've paid into all your life is suddenly worthless. This is where universal healthcare that is more interested in the health of its citizens will be more effective than a private insurer who will, at some point, decide that there is no more profit in keeping you healthy.

I think a lot of the opposition is to what would be, in effect, the dismantling of an industry. I would normally be opposed to government takeover but if you think about it, health insurance is unlike any other business in the world. Holding the maximum amount of our healthcare dollars until our medical service providers need them is something the government is perfectly suited to do. Giving that money to an industry that needs a small chunk of it for denying claims, a bigger chunk for administration and an even bigger chunk for profit is just ludicrous when you think about it. What other industry gets to control such a huge portion of our monthly wages so tightly? Who else gets to deny us access to the services we've paid for the way health insurance companies can? And what other middleman gets to make the payee wait 90-120 days for payment the way insurance companies make doctors wait?

The real question here is whether a poll that rates the equality of opinions is either rationally valuable or logically sound. I think it will make it too easy for anyone to point to this poll and claim that they have provided more support for their argument and therefore their opinion is the better one. I don't see this as being a good thing for SFN in general. I think it diminishes the potential of many members by scaring them away or keeping them from posting their opinions. And as has been mentioned, it is entirely possible for an argument to be well-supported yet still be wrong. I contend that it is fallacious to appeal to support as a way to quantify the equality of opinions.

Well of course it isn't the whole answer. It's only a part of the larger methodology. A methodology that, when used properly, can find its own mistakes and do better next time. Just thinking about knowledge isn't enough either. Why do you criticize one part of the scientific method as being inadequate while holding up another single part of the method and say that's all we need? It's the *process* that's successful, more successful than anything else we've ever done. You should stop trying to pull it apart. Just use it as a whole. It's like you're taking the transmission out of a car and then claiming it's not enough to get you to the store. Of course it won't. Put it back and use the whole car!

In 1967, insurance companies based your rates on on your age, and used actuarial tables to figure what the risk pool needed from you. The insurance companies had loyal from their customer base because if you switched insurers, your new rate was based on your current age. When managed healthcare insurance took over in the 70s, they claimed it was to give us a choice so we weren't locked in to one company. It was a scam, and obviously one that artificially increased our costs by at least a factor of six. And somewhere along the line, they started denying coverage too, and I think it was to try and gain back through fear the loyalty they lost through deception. People are afraid of losing their coverage by rocking the boat. Fear mongering and health insurance go hand in hand, and that's why I think universal healthcare is something that makes good fiscal sense for this country. I hope this bill will be at least a first step towards something better, since I think we deserve it.

You mention all the parts of a good methodical approach to science, the theorizing, the math, the writing on the blackboard/paper, the physics, understanding the concepts involved, the open mind tempered with skeptical questioning, the explanations. These are all part of any attempt to find answers in science. But then you pick on math specifically and claim it doesn't explain everything. Math is just a part of a very successful methodology, the most successful methodology our species has ever used. I think criticizing science, scientists and scientific achievement by pointing at one aspect of science and claiming it doesn't answer the basic questions is a flawed argument.

It wasn't meant to be a counter, so perhaps I was unclear. I was suggesting that it's not just some leftist ideology that paints insurance companies as greedy. Their profit is an unnecessary drain between my health and my health dollars, especially when a public option could give me at least the same coverage without me paying for their auditors to deny me coverage when I'm counting on it most. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ditto. In fact, I also want to start watching who pays for attack ads on various bills. This should tell us when the legislation is starting to hit them where it hurts.

The universe seems to be filled with comparatively little matter between enormous amounts of space, suggesting it was designed to keep any form of life separated from any other form of life. If there are multiple sentient experiments going on, they have vast hurdles to overcome before they can share notes with each other. The secrets of the physical universe seem like they are exponential in nature. Once you unlock some of the elementary bits, the next bits lead you to even more secrets, and some lead us way beyond the bits that came before. Certainly the secrets of uranium are a test of sorts, if there is a designer, seeing if we can survive something so many orders of magnitude above what we knew before. Perhaps the universe is designed so that we grow into our responsibility before being able to affect other life. This might explain why intelligence grows in leaps and bounds, but still not faster than we could get off-planet while still dangerously young.

According to a recent study*, 62% of all bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were because of medical expenses. Of those who filed due to medical expenses, almost 80% had health insurance. This may not equate to greed in the insurance industry, but it does show that concerns from the left are not merely based in "greedy corporation" ideology. Something is inherently wrong and it's happening between our healthcare dollars and our health somewhere. * Himmelstein, D, E., et al, “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, American Journal of Medicine, May 2009.

I'm still a little stunned. It's a good start, more to be done, but hopefully the fear will keep receding. If I say I'm breathing a little easier, is that admitting to a pre-existing condition?

It's very difficult to point out someone's behavior without it seeming personal. You have a stellar posting record, your arguments are always well-researched and supported. And when it's been pointed out to you in-thread that you sometimes violate the forum rules to make your points, then more strenuously through the old infraction system, then in Private Messages requesting that you stop using these tactics, eventually we've had to go back to posting in-thread and pointing out exactly where you are in danger of hurting these forums with those tactics. In case you haven't noticed, several Staff members are trying in their various ways to reach you here. My way is to point out how you personally are out of line. For the last time, it's never been about your opinion, it's about the way you try to elevate your opinion over that of others. You call them "kid" to point out their lack of experience, you dismiss their arguments as "nonsense" and you claim that their opinions aren't "based in reality". You're subtle, you're good at it, and I think you're capable of winning arguments without those tactics. They chase people away. Oh, please. Do you think everyone is that stupid? Ah, reality-based. The reality of it is I don't like the way you want to quantify everyone's opinions. You and I share a lot of stances politically and socially, but I'm content with sharing my views with others, and feel no compulsion to change or make fun of what I disagree with. I agree with mooeypoo, bring the old iNow back. Challenging opinions is one of the things discussion is all about. Rating those opinions based on substantiation so you can dismiss them is a sort of Appeal to Support fallacy. An opinion that opposes yours isn't necessarily wrong just because yours has more support.

But I thought forecasting what MIGHT happen was OK with you. To support this, I offer the following: All I'm doing is speaking up for the people who might be abused by the results of your poll that was aimed at proving their opinions are worth less.

No problem. As jackson33 said, we're all very interested in hearing your viewpoint and opinions, and if I have anything to say in the matter, they will never be considered as worth less. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, the poll isn't done yet, is it? But when finished, I can easily see it being used to squelch the opinions of others in the future, especially newcomers, by claiming that it has been previously established by poll that their opinions are worth less due to less rigorous support. And no matter how you emphasize worth less, to many it will still read as worthless. I'm not as willing to chase off more members just to justify some kind of mental score-keeping for discussion parameters. I've seen too many leave because of persecution, ridicule and demeaning tactics (Rickdog, I hope you will give us a chance and stick around). Frankly, this whole idea, while well-intentioned and seemingly innocuous, is coming off like some kind of fascist classification methodology, designed to elevate the status of those selected by their superior actions with regard to the opinions they espouse. I'm really sorry you can't seem to see this, iNow.