Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Oh, so this is carryover from a Minny fight? What about the noob, cuckchoker or whatever -- is that also the case with him?

They both launched within a few hours of each other and neither was half steppin so it seemed kinda Fishy.

But Kepler, you already said you like the way I think.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Oh, so this is carryover from a Minny fight? What about the noob, cuckchoker or whatever -- is that also the case with him?

They both launched within a few hours of each other and neither was half steppin so it seemed kinda Fishy.

I was bragging about how UMn produced musical giants like

Tay Zonday, with the Chocolate Rain song and others

And I guess they thought that I was serious.

Quoted a bunch of hockey stuff from a Ross Bernstein book, about UMners in the Olympics and in the NHL, apparently the same Bernstein book that JDubbs had read, because they swore up and down that I HAD TO BE JDUBBS.

Was meant to be all in fun. Got out of hand, a large percentage of the fault was mine, started spilling over to other threads, USCHO deleted the entire thread. So I moved on or am trying to move on.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

But Kepler, you already said you like the way I think.

I'm going with you're an ironist. If I'm wrong I do not want to know.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Oh, so this is carryover from a Minny fight? What about the noob, cuckchoker or whatever -- is that also the case with him?

They both launched within a few hours of each other and neither was half steppin so it seemed kinda Fishy.

NO, Kepler, its not a carry over at least not on my part.

I came over here to have serious discussions. And just got neg repped because I told you about what went on over there to give you some context. But I did get carried away. So my bad.


I should not have responded? I should have just ignored them. I will do that from here on out and assume that whoever just neg repped me is doing the same to the others who try to bring that stuff up over here.


So Kepler, do you see what I am saying with my deer analogy? Am I wrong to think that overpopulation won't become a major issue in the future?

[LynahFan]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Am I wrong to think that overpopulation won't become a major issue in the future?

What do you mean by "major issue?" Are you worried about a human population crash? The complete extinction of the human race? Something else?

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

What do you mean by "major issue?" Are you worried about a human population crash? The complete extinction of the human race? Something else?

Was thinking about widespread disease I guess, but that could be because that stupid deer analogy is stuck in my head, lol.

Don't think it would wipe out the whole human race, but it might wipe out a lot of people with weaker immune systems?

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

So Kepler, do you see what I am saying with my deer analogy? Am I wrong to think that overpopulation won't become a major issue in the future?

I have not been paying real close attention to your particular discussions, but my understanding of culling herds is they are a greater long-term kindness because they prevent breakdown of the entire ecological chain which would in turn spawn tremendous suffering.

What is your proposed analogy? Hunting humans for sport with ancillary population control values? I would not be in favor of that. There are better ways to address the same problems: free birth control to women with no conditions and no monitoring. Free, universal education of women to give them other choices in life. Give women the practical, every day ability to escape the brutality and imprisonment of men in their birth home, their married home, and in society at large. Universal rights to live and flourish.

Likewise, we should use our technology to limit ecological damage: both to clean our nests and also to move humanity out of this one precarious box.

All much better solutions than blam blam the tard is dead.

[joecct]

I have not been paying real close attention to your particular discussions, but my understanding of culling herds is they are a greater long-term kindness because they prevent breakdown of the entire ecological chain which would in turn spawn tremendous suffering.

What is your proposed analogy? Hunting humans for sport with ancillary population control values? I would not be in favor of that. There are better ways to address the same problems: free birth control to women with no conditions and no monitoring. Free, universal education of women to give them other choices in life. Give women the practical, every day ability to escape the brutality and imprisonment of men in their birth home, their married home, and in society at large. Universal rights to live and flourish.

Likewise, we should use our technology to limit ecological damage: both to clean our nests and also to move humanity out of this one precarious box.

All much better solutions than blam blam the tard is dead.

Kep

Re your para 2:

Isn't that what war does? Culls the human herd?

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I have not been paying real close attention to your particular discussions, but my understanding of culling herds is they are a greater long-term kindness because they prevent breakdown of the entire ecological chain which would in turn spawn tremendous suffering.

What is your proposed analogy? Hunting humans for sport with ancillary population control values? I would not be in favor of that. There are better ways to address the same problems

Oh, no no no, that is not what I was thinking AT ALL. lol I'm not in favor of any kind of violence towards humans of any kind, whether its the Government or an individual perpetrating the violence, with exceptions of course. The cops have to use a degree of violence sometimes, but far too often they cross the line.

And I'm not a fan of the Government imposing restrictions on things like how many kids we can have, etc..

So the things you mentioned sound like good things to try.


So it seems most of you think that compassion towards our fellow man, even to the lazy ones or the weakest ones, is ingrained in us, hardwired from birth and not taught? That its something that has evolved in us as a species?

And I'm not arguing or saying that I disagree, I just know as a former military man, and as an athlete and sports fan, and a former business owner that in the military, in sports and in the business world, the world of finance, it seems that it is only the strong that survive, that there is little in the way of compassion shown to the cadet that is lagging behind the rest of the company, or the athlete who can't make enough baskets or the business that can't keep in the black because of competition eating into their profits. And this is justified because we need only the strongest and fittest soldiers, teams only have so much room so they want the best athletes and the consumer wants things this way or that way and will go where they get what they want, and so the businesses that don't give enough customers what they want adapt to the marketplace or close up shop.

But yet most humans seem to not be able to take that cutthroat approach when dealing with lazy bums or criminals? Not saying its wrong, its just interesting is all.

Really enjoy the show Black Mirror and I guess different episodes of that show make me wonder how long this compassion towards those types of non contributing people will last??

I could so imagine an episode, if there hasn't already been one that I'm not remembering, where this exact issue is addressed and the way that show seems to lead, my guess is it might present, what would seem to us today, to be a harsh solution to this issue.

[LynahFan]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

If you're a former military man, then answer this: on the battlefield, do they train you that the best outcome will occur if every soldier just worries about his own personal survival and objectives, or do they teach that you need to work together at the platoon, company, and division levels?

Think it might have been the same for a small band of prehistoric humans trying to survive the battlefield of nature? We are descended from ancestors who figured out that by working together, a village could be greater than the sum of its parts. Humans who preferred every-man-for-himself did not fare so well, so altruism is now baked into our DNA. We no longer have to band together to defeat sabre-toothed tigers, but humanity still faces an enemy that requires us to work together and look out for each other - ourselves. If we all started acting purely selfishly, that means no more stopping at red lights, no more property rights, no more governments. How long would we last under those conditions? We're not altruistic because of morality or religion. We're altruistic because it causes us to survive. Peoples without altruism were eliminated from the gene pool many millenia ago.

[joecct]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

@elonmusk: Falcon Heavy remains go for launch at 1:30pm on Tuesday

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

@elonmusk: Falcon Heavy remains go for launch at 1:30pm on Tuesday

Please just work. A nation turns its lonely eyes to getting the f-ck off this rock.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

If you're a former military man, then answer this: on the battlefield, do they train you that the best outcome will occur if every soldier just worries about his own personal survival and objectives, or do they teach that you need to work together at the platoon, company, and division levels?

Think it might have been the same for a small band of prehistoric humans trying to survive the battlefield of nature? We are descended from ancestors who figured out that by working together, a village could be greater than the sum of its parts. Humans who preferred every-man-for-himself did not fare so well, so altruism is now baked into our DNA. We no longer have to band together to defeat sabre-toothed tigers, but humanity still faces an enemy that requires us to work together and look out for each other - ourselves. If we all started acting purely selfishly, that means no more stopping at red lights, no more property rights, no more governments. How long would we last under those conditions? We're not altruistic because of morality or religion. We're altruistic because it causes us to survive. Peoples without altruism were eliminated from the gene pool many millenia ago.

Ok, I delayed in responding to this, because I wanted to be able to take time to respond, because I very much respect you and your opinion, I really do. I was impressed and your response caused me to have to think about this further. But thinking too much, well, that usually results in my getting all long winded, lol. And I took too much time, now I just decided to respond without putting a ton of thought into it.

Thing is, all of what you described is nothing more than SELF, looking out for SELF. Banding together isn't truly sacrificing anything especially when all involved benefit from doing it. Your idea of what it means to act purely selfishly is naïve, at best. To be honest, your so called definition of a person or individual acting "selfishly", is actually an example of a person or individual acting STUPIDLY. It's stupid to go lone wolf when that will get you killed. It's TOTALLY selfish behavior to join a group when that group offers you more safety and security. DUH. Nothing SELFLESS or charitable about it. You claim its people without altruism that were eliminated from the gene pool? I claim it was people who were FAR LESS intelligent. Nothing to do with TRUE compassion or SELFLESSNESS.


I'm addressing the issue of compassion shown to those who DO NOT contribute to the betterment of society.


You have listed people who did, by joining a group or community, contribute to the good of the larger community, AND THEMSELVES most importantly.

I'm asking why we have gone from doing that, to extending our compassion, our charity, our taxes, etc., to those who have proven that they are a DETRIMENT to society or are WORTHLESS and do nothing to contribute to society. The LAZY, the criminals, etc..

[joecct]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

People from around the globe were pulling for the flat earther's rocket launch to be successful.

Alas, the rocket did not launch.

[LynahFan]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Ok, I delayed in responding to this, because I wanted to be able to take time to respond, because I very much respect you and your opinion, I really do. I was impressed and your response caused me to have to think about this further. But thinking too much, well, that usually results in my getting all long winded, lol. And I took too much time, now I just decided to respond without putting a ton of thought into it.

Thing is, all of what you described is nothing more than SELF, looking out for SELF. Banding together isn't truly sacrificing anything especially when all involved benefit from doing it. Your idea of what it means to act purely selfishly is naïve, at best. To be honest, your so called definition of a person or individual acting "selfishly", is actually an example of a person or individual acting STUPIDLY. It's stupid to go lone wolf when that will get you killed. It's TOTALLY selfish behavior to join a group when that group offers you more safety and security. DUH. Nothing SELFLESS or charitable about it. You claim its people without altruism that were eliminated from the gene pool? I claim it was people who were FAR LESS intelligent. Nothing to do with TRUE compassion or SELFLESSNESS.


I'm addressing the issue of compassion shown to those who DO NOT contribute to the betterment of society.


You have listed people who did, by joining a group or community, contribute to the good of the larger community, AND THEMSELVES most importantly.

I'm asking why we have gone from doing that, to extending our compassion, our charity, our taxes, etc., to those who have proven that they are a DETRIMENT to society or are WORTHLESS and do nothing to contribute to society. The LAZY, the criminals, etc..

Please read this (the book, not the wiki page) and then get back to us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Whatever genes have survived to this point in history are, by definition, "selfish" because they're the genes that created traits that allow the genes to survive through the generations. The amount of compassion that we have is simply the mechanism that our genes exploited to ensure that they (the genes) survived. In other words, our genes are selfish; we* are not.

*current GOP members excluded. There are always mutations, most of which are (mercifully) choked out by the tried-and-true mainline genes.