Phi for All

Just to clarify, do you mean matriarchs and patriarchs, or are you talking just about women who support your patriarchy?

I wonder if this is a mis-read of the latest trend of meals with just a handful of ingredients. That's done for convenience and simplicity, NOT for nutrition.

That's twice you misspelled "Putin".

! Moderator Note MavricheAdrian, you need to copy whatever you want us to look at (COPY), and then paste it here on the forum (PASTE). The members don't want to have to open documents or visit links they don't trust, so it's a rule we have. We've been all over this before, like three times. Can you do whatever you did before (perhaps read the whole thread again). It makes it much easier to address specific sections if it's posted HERE.

So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?! Again, I'm going to look at some studies that have actual numbers so you can stop waving your hands. Did you know that, if you take a sample of 100,000 white people in the US, 450 of them are in prison? A sample of 100,000 indigenous people (native American or Alaskan native) shows that 1291 are in prison. Out of 100,000 black people, 2306 are in prison. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw3K2XBhAzEiwAmmgrAqX1ByZOv00NNSKl-1_yiUB7xdgvJ1rfsxrzRPuaZHsns98Bq0lWnBoCz0oQAvD_BwE Yeah, the US has nothing like that kind of Left. Remember, liberals in the US like democracy. Since the civil war was all about kidnapping and enslaving black humans, are you in favor of bringing it back? Do you feel that the kidnap and enslavement of black people was justified by your Right? Voting age is certainly open for interpretation, but what's the deal with "not encouraged"? That sounds a LOT like you think some people aren't worthy to vote. Is that true? What?! I'm 65 this year, I've been shaping my worldview my whole life. I think about it with every thought. I don't view others as above or below me. We're all living side by side, we're all stronger side by side, and I think the uber wealthy have spent a LOT of money making sure you stay uneducated, uninformed, and pointing the finger at everybody but THEM. I've seen wages decouple from productivity, forcing average people to work two jobs to make ends meet. I've watched medical insurance go from being actuarial based and affordable to this horrorshow worldwide laughingstock we call managed healthcare. I was born an Eisenhower Republican, and I first voted after the Nixon years. I embraced the Democrats until Bernie Sanders came along, and now I'm an Independent. I don't know why you think you know my life well enough to presume what I think, but so far you've been wrong on every count. Perhaps you should read what I write, and reason it out for yourself? You have a great many prejudices, my friend. So maybe you aren't a Christian Nationalist? What form of government would you prefer to democracy, and why? Thanks very much for the replies btw, this feels much more like a good-faith discussion. I look forward to more substance and meaningfulness.

Huh, that's interesting, because the most recent studies show that when welfare is removed (for example, when an 18-year-old no longer gets Social Security supplements from a parent on SS), crime goes up. Source: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BFI_WP_2022-28.pdf Employment can be with a private company that pays a fraction of the worth of a good or service to its workers, or it can be through social cooperatives where each worker is paid closer to the actual value, and the owner is compensated fairly for providing resources. Employment can also be through the state, where goods and services are distributed and performed to all who want to deal. In this case, the emphasis is on making sure people have good products and services, and no emphasis is placed on falsely marking up the value as profit. Capitalism, socialism, and communism ALL use employment, so your distinctions need to be further defined.

No they don't, but men historically have ignored their part in procreation and leave it all to women. One of the problems I have with your stance is that you consider an unborn fetus to be a citizen that needs protecting, but you won't let me claim it on my taxes until it's born, and you won't give it any other protections citizens get, like the right to vote. You give more worth to a glob of cells than you do to a living woman. You insist that a heartbeat is life to an embryo, but when I'm old and dying you move the goalposts and insist it's the cessation of my brain activity that signals death. Why won't you even consider abortions before six weeks, before there's brain activity? Obviously, you aren't a small-government conservative who believes the government should intrude in citizen's lives as little as possible. I don't see how you could believe that AND believe that the government should step in to protect citizens from themselves. Do you approve of fascism as a mechanism for exercising this government protection? Kick in their doors if they don't approve of what you're doing?

Without insurance? That would be great, wouldn't it? Liberals think we already are wealthy enough to afford medical insurance, as long as it's universal and supported by everyone. I want you to have it, because your health matters to all of us.

This would be a good stance to flesh out an argument from, so we understand why you feel the way you do. Exactly why is "the Left" society's #1 enemy? What specifically have they done to earn them this distinction? I'm looking for clear evidence, not FOX News talking points. It's easy to say "liberals are the root of all evil" but it doesn't tell me why you think that way. Does that make sense? Give me specific examples of why you hate liberals and feel like they're the enemy of humankind.

WTF dude?! Again you skip an opportunity to teach me why you're making the claims you do. I really want to know, and you're avoiding it by posting that you're not avoiding anything. Pick even one of those items I mentioned, and give me your thoughts on why my liberal approach to the issue is wrong or bad for you.

What?! NATO didn't act in Ukraine because Ukraine isn't part of NATO. You REALLY need to read better sources, because your current ones are letting you down badly.

Is it unreasonable to ask you to answer some questions? I gave you a list of things "the Left" would like you to have, full of all kinds of talking points. Instead, you're off on this censorship tirade, yet I can't see where that's happening. We don't delete posts. We move them if they're off-topic, and we sometimes hide them if they're offensive, but we don't delete. None of your posts have been hidden or deleted, so where's the censorship? Most conservatives I've discussed politics with do the same thing. You tapdance around issues you don't intuitively grasp, relying on talking points you really haven't thought out. An example is healthcare. Many conservatives don't support universal healthcare because they say it all comes out of your taxes, and many liberals are confused because that's partly the point. You spend less on health insurance because EVERYBODY pays into one system through taxation rather than deal with hundreds of private insurors each charging enough to turn a profit. The government can run a risk pool like that more efficiently and cheaper because they have lower administrative costs and don't have to make a profit. Can you tell me why you don't support that, without all those partisan whines about being unreasonable and censorious?

I noticed this request was ignored by the OP... again. They quoted all the rest of your post but skipped any actual substance. Going back over their other posts, this is a familiar pattern. If it continues in this thread, I'll report it and maybe we can either get some clarification or we can get it to stop.

Interesting article from the Economist: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/11/green-finance-for-dirty-ships

You asked a working physicist what spacetime is "made of", they give you a mainstream definition, and you reply with "what it looks like to me", in direct opposition? No offense, but I have to ask if you came here to learn like the rest of us, or if you're here to push some form of woo that seems intuitive only to you?

The Left wants you to have universal healthcare coverage, which isn't tied to your employer and would cost a fraction of what most folks pay now. They want you to have bodily autonomy and be the ultimate authority for what is done to you physically. They would rather support you financially so you don't turn to crime than put you in prison for being poor and desperate. They want people to have equal rights under the law. They want to be governed by principles, not authoritarian commanders pretending to lead. They want everybody who's eligible to have access to voting, and they want them to exercise that right. The way I see it, you either have to think those things can't happen, or you don't want them to happen. Which is it, and why?

The concept may not be new, but I recently heard this argument phrased in a way that really resonated with me. Many people, including many religious people, view morality as a vertical scale, with their deity or moral mentor at the top, those they disagree with below them, and themselves and everyone else ranked somewhere between. It's a hierarchy from which they can strive to do better, and recognize when they do worse. But it's also a perspective of subjective judgement, and I think it's responsible for much of the inequality in our societies. Horizontal morality asks us to look around at each other from a side-by-side perspective, and recognize that nobody is inherently better or worse than anybody else. It requires us to assess the impact of our actions based on how they affect those around us, and to adjust based on the individuals and circumstances. It tends not to judge groups of people, and it seems like a better framework for diverse societies to deal with each other. What do you think?

He forgot the comma before "stupid", so he must be in grammatical agony anyway, and we'd hate to add to that burden. But I think everyone can handle talking about this without insults and rudeness. I've always wanted to know why some folks don't think others are as worthy as they.

! Moderator Note Split off to its own topic for focus. So when you're wrong about science and get called out for not following our rules of evidence, you call that censorship. Now you'd like to talk about how the Right is your ideal. How far do you take this? Do you believe anyone who thinks liberally deserves to die? What are you going to do with these people when you take over? Are you going to repeat the colonization indoctrination policies that worked so well for the Right to suppress all those people of color?

Great idea. While we're at it, let's take another look at Intelligent Design, and some of the other doubts regarding evolution. Have doubts about relativity, by all means let's go over the arguments against phlogiston again. Let's waste our time taking another long look, photo by photo, of something that's already been debunked ad nauseam over the last 50 years. Because all the evidence shows that the OP is totally sincere about expressing their freedom of speech, and isn't interested in casting doubt over one of humankind's greatest accomplishments for their own purposes without providing a shred of evidence. I know a few of the 400,000+ people who worked on Apollo. I know one of Buzz Aldrin's biographers, and I've met Buzz's son Andy. I'm going to step out of this discussion as a member and a moderator because it literally makes me ill to see the accomplishments of these brilliant people drug through the dirt by members of this board. Enjoy your mockery and disinformation!

I believe conspiracy rhetoric increases ignorance and fear, and if you're doing it on purpose, I believe you're a manipulative monster. I believe in the intelligence of the other members here and their ability to see the shaky foundations of your arguments, but too many young students come here to learn, and I'm afraid those are the people you've set your sights on. And I believe, rather I know, that you don't know what censorship is, even though you probably use the word often.

! Moderator Note Too bad this was asked in bad faith. Now it can't stay in the mainstream sections, and there's really no place to put it since you refuse to support your conjectures with evidence of any kind. Hand waving isn't enough here, so I'm just going to throw this in the Trash. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog.

I don't understand how your title relates to anything else you're talking about. You've devised this whole concept and now behave as if it's intuitive, but you're the only one who gets it. Can you explain it to others? I don't understand the bit about your noun diagram explanation being specifically about marriage. Are you talking about the marriage of maths and logic? Why do you think they're married? I'm glad you understand the confusion, but do you understand that you're compounding it each time you try to clarify? Every post you've made so far has gotten replies practically begging you to make sense and focus on explaining your idea to others. Do you really think you've made an effort?

But a square IS a type of rectangle, though not all rectangles are squares. A second is a unit of time, and I think you make a mistake trying to mix units and types. OK, so you feel the need to convert and mix these concepts because of extraterrestrial fears. I don't have anything for you, and I've lost all interest in trying to have a conversation about this with you. Sorry, but I have no idea why you think this is important or interesting. OK, this site isn't for you. We like clarity and civility. You need to start a blog for people to ignore elsewhere.

Can you pretend we're all sitting at a table talking, and you put up this slide to illustrate your concept? Now we need you to narrate, tell us what we're looking at, so we can have a conversation about this. Tell us, in your own words, what aspect of your idea you want to discuss, please.