Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rama Set

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 211
61
You should become a centrist and invite your libtard friends to do the same!

Is that downtown Dallas?

62
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 31, 2017, 07:13:26 PM »
Rama Set, what conclusion do you want me to support? I don't know which part of what I'm saying you need me to google the statistics for. Do you believe WHO has good numbers? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/  Or is that not what you're looking for?  We do normally want people who are making conclusions to back them up, but I just don't know what it is you're disagreeing with. (normally a person would make that clear in a friendly discussion, but you don't seem all that friendly about this one, I already said #notallmen gosh)

I want you to support the conclusion that violence is commonplace for all women. I had specifically requested before that these conversations be limited to western democracies, since the issues in other parts of the world are more obvious. In regards to being friendly or not, you have leveled some derogatory comments about men in general, which you might imagine makes me feel defensive towards you. I am interested in your point of view so I think it is worthwhile to continue.

Quote
Why do you think rape is a point of view someone who hasn't experienced can appreciate?

Because it's a basic human cognitive function. I watched the movie Irreversible and that rape scene made me feel helpless, disgusted, outraged and sad. Likewise for the "ass to ass" scene in Requiem for a Dream. Never been raped, but it provoked a whole host of emotional responses. It's part of our imagination. I am not saying that it allows one to perfectly understand someone else's experience, but it allows you to create an analogue of an experience.

Quote
This is making even less sense to me. It's like saying that my friend broke her arm, so I should be able to appreciate what having a broken bone feels like.

Go watch a video of someone breaking their leg and feel what your body does. You have visceral physical reactions that are analogous to what someone in pain goes through.

Quote
I do know the traditionalist view is still common. It is the view of the Abrahamic religions, and I'm sure it is of some of the other religions that I'm not familiar with.

It's in the books, but, for example, what percentage of American Christians practice these values?

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 31, 2017, 05:01:14 PM »
So it seems violence against women is only extraordinary to men. When I say it is ordinary, I mean "commonplace" (one of the definitions of ordinary).

Are you anecdotally speaking for all women?  I don't get how you arrive at this conclusion.

Quote
Rama Set - and how would BHS experience rape via his daughter?

Look up compassion, sympathy, empathy and mirror neurons.

Quote
Not the same way the victim would,but I'm sure he'd get lots of sympathy for having damaged property.

There is really nothing to say to this.  It is such an abstract and derogatory statement that has nothing to do with reality.

It doesn't surprise me that you are having difficulty understanding what I am saying.  You could look up some statistics to see how I arrived at the conclusion that violence against women is commonplace (ordinary).

I understand your words, it's your conclusions I don't understand. Usually we ask the people making the claims to support them. Perhaps you could do the same?

Quote
You think it's extraordinary, but for women it's just something we have to learn to navigate.  Violent men don't normally look like villains, you know? They are the pastor at church everyone loves, they are the bus driver, the school teacher - ordinary men.

I know what all those words mean. BHS would still not experience rape via his daughter. You can't be raped vicariously. It would be a completely different experience for him than it would be for the actual rape victim. He wouldn't feel the fear, the feeling of worthlessness, the shame, the self hatred. He'd probably feel rage at the perpetrator, though. Women are raped all the time, I do not see it creating a compassionate society. Do you?

It's not about being raped vicariously. It's about appreciating the point of view.

Quote
I guess the concept that women are the property of men is so abstract that you've never heard it before?  Traditionalists view women as the property of their father, then the property of their husband. If you think that view is gone from society, I don't know what to tell ya.

Gone? Probably not. Do you think it's common?

64
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 31, 2017, 01:00:58 PM »
So it seems violence against women is only extraordinary to men. When I say it is ordinary, I mean "commonplace" (one of the definitions of ordinary).

Are you anecdotally speaking for all women?  I don't get how you arrive at this conclusion.

Quote
Rama Set - and how would BHS experience rape via his daughter?

Look up compassion, sympathy, empathy and mirror neurons.

Quote
Not the same way the victim would,but I'm sure he'd get lots of sympathy for having damaged property.

There is really nothing to say to this.  It is such an abstract and derogatory statement that has nothing to do with reality.

65
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 31, 2017, 12:03:45 PM »
Rama Set, Symptom's post is an example of how violence against women is normalized. When men get pissed off at each other they often fantasize about raping or murdering the women/girls in their opponent's family (#notallmen).
Since when do we take a troll's statement seriously? I understand that a faction of men are MRAs, are extremely misguided, and tend to say stupid things.  However, I'd hardly call that normalized.

If you pretend MRAs and internet trolls are the only men who threaten each other this way, then you can say it's not normalized. If you pretend women aren't raped every day you can say it's not normalized.

Rama Set - Violent acts against women aren't "extraordinary" they're every day ordinary.

Happening everyday and being ordinary are two totally different things. There are 7 billion people.  Extraordinary interactions happen between them every minute of every day.  Just as an illustrative point, supernova happen every second of every day, yet are one of the rarest of astronomical events.  This is the difference, for me at least, between ordinary and it happening everyday.  It happens everyday, and that is far too often for me, but it is never unremarkable, not to me or any other man I know.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Even if someone he loves is raped, he still won't know what it's like for rape victims. He'll only know what it's like to know someone who has been raped. He would most likely have more sympathy for the victim, but it probably still wouldn't change his views of other rape victims.

That is not totally true.  Humans are actually pretty adept at connecting with someone else's experience.  It is why we can do things like theatre and film in the first place.  There are entire neurological processes devoted to mirroring someone else's experience.  I also don't see how it probably wouldn't change his views of other rape victims.  You don't have to experience something first hand to have your mind changed about it.

66
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 09:19:40 PM »
Yeah because Symptom was wishing pain on him (for whatever reason, I think to troll). It's more painful to watch someone you love suffer than to suffer yourself.

Sorry I don't follow this kind of thing that close but isn't he trying to stand up for trans rights or something? But he hopes some innocent person will get raped to teach somebody else he doesn't like a lesson? Sounds pretty hypocritical. Who is standing up for the rights of the innocent person? Not Symptom!

I am not saying I agree with Symptom.  All I am saying is that the entire reason his tactic could be effective is because violence against women is extraordinary, not because it is normal.

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 07:32:15 PM »
He was commenting on a lack of compassion for trans people so created a curse that would play to compassion. It requires something happen to another.

Not in this thread. He was pissed at BHS for a post he made on page 1, had nothing to do with trans.

Sorry, I got confused. I mistook one symptom shit-post for another.

Quote
Also, I can't see how fantasizing about gang raping someone's daughter (who has nothing to do with the argument) plays to compassion.

Compassion has quite a lot to d with suffering and to up your perception of the suffering of another it almost always makes it more intense if you are closely related and they are innocent.

Quote
It's just a typical way men sometimes threaten each other, by threatening their property.

How do women typically threaten each other?

Also, I can't see how fantasizing about gang raping someone's daughter (who has nothing to do with the argument) plays to compassion. It's just a typical way men sometimes threaten each other, by threatening their property.
Emphasis on this. It wasn't anger at the person the vitriol was evidently directed at, it wasn't "I wish you could see/understand what it's like," it's "I want someone else to suffer for your development."

Yeah because Symptom was wishing pain on him (for whatever reason, I think to troll). It's more painful to watch someone you love suffer than to suffer yourself.


68
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 04:55:18 PM »
He was commenting on a lack of compassion for trans people so created a curse that would play to compassion. It requires something happen to another.

69
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 04:25:21 PM »
Rama Set, Symptom's post is an example of how violence against women is normalized. When men get pissed off at each other they often fantasize about raping or murdering the women/girls in their opponent's family (#notallmen).

I think the whole reason that is brought up is because it is literally the worst thing they can imagine happening to a daughter. Wouldn't that be the opposite of normalized?

70
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 10:04:28 AM »

I apologize then Rama set. I suppose if I would have known that was Lenny Kravitz and that was a line from one of his songs it would have made sense.

Not putting gun back in locker, just returning the aim to symptom. Again..My apologies.

No sweat.  Thanks.



71
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 30, 2017, 08:24:16 AM »
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.

As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.

That is because you are too lazy to look.  In less than time than it has taken to type this sentence, I found a document detailing all acts of declassification taken:

https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html

Quote
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.

Demonstrably false.  You suck.

Quote
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.

Why would I blame you.  You are unimportant to me outside of this thread.

Quote
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.

Incorrect.

Quote
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.

I disagree.

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 08:19:20 AM »
Rama set Did you not see what he posted??

I guess you are a fucking idiot as well?

Sad

The part I quoted is from a Lenny Kravitz song.   Put the gun back in the locker son.

73
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 30, 2017, 06:53:44 AM »
You find the law that I quote at:

https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf

Look at Section 10  (b) (1)

"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"

This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well.  Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission?  None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles.  It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.

74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 30, 2017, 06:19:15 AM »

75
Except more's happening to the Earth than just heightened rates of CO2. More CO2 only helps plants in specific situations: change the rest...
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
For an easy illustration.
Like you say, other pathogens are a problem. So why ignore them to focus on the apparent benefits of CO2?

Yup, for example, in Canada, the melting of the permafrost has begun in earnest releasing large amount of methane in to the atmopshere.  Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

76
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 28, 2017, 01:57:14 PM »

The 1.5% is probably the Mass that reacts before the enormous energy rips the whole thing apart, creating the explosion. Another reason is that the Mass that consists of 98.5℅ the particles is no longer critical. But I suppose it ist the First one. You might ask someone who is proficient in nuclear physics though.

Fission is not a chemical reaction. It is just what happens - a process - when a neutron splits an atom releasing energy and more neutrons.

Of course, if a certain number of atoms make up a critical mass, when one atom is split by fission, the remainder is not a critical mass any longer. 

By defintion a critical mass is the minimum or smallest amount of fissile material needed to maintain a nuclear chain reaction of an exploding a-bomb, but it is normal nuclear physics nonsense.

The self-sustaining fission process spread by neutrons, which occurs in nuclear reactors, is not a chain reaction of any kind but is a simple process that does not require any critical mass. By controlling the number of neutrons reaching the nuclear fuel, you can stop, start and adjust the fission process.

Good thing mass is not the defining critical property in self-sustaining chain reactions then.

77
Yeah, HRC was widely regarded as much more hawkish than Trump, with the notable exception of nuclear arms usage.

78
This is just saber-rattling. I think Trump gets this as a negotiating tactic.

79
First off, in regards to the lists of scientists who support or don't support Anthropogenic Climate Change, they are irrelevant, it is the facts and evidence that matter, which side wholly on the side of Climate Change.

Second, re: Trump, I don't have a huge problem with many of his policies so far. I think the wall and trade tariff are not going to work out well, I think a freeze on refugees is a good thing as long as something productive is done. His approval of torture is irrelevant since it is still illegal, but I do think it shows a poor understanding of how valuable torture is. I don't like pipelines, I think he should be supporting sustainable energy because it is just the most logical thing to do. He is still petty as all get out and driving many of the stories in the media that his proponents dislike. He needs to check that and get a punchng bag if it pisses him off that his inauguration wasn't the most watched ever. It wasn't realzoomb, Obama's was. Both in terms of live, tv and streamed viewing. It's doesn't fucking matter though. Trump should stop talking about it so the media doesn't have to keep talking about how he brings it up so often it is sad. The bright side of the media shit storm is that his policy work has been more visible than any president I can remember and that is ultimately a good thing.

N.B. This was a first thing in the morning post on my phone. Please excuse formatting and typos.

80
HaHa, this thread is not about you anymore.

This thread isn't about who anymore?

81
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 27, 2017, 11:03:02 PM »
Well, I indicate the energy released by one (of 1024 fissions) and that the end result after 1024 fissions is a temperature of 100 000 000K of the 98.5% of the critical mass (60 kg) that remains and doesn't fission and it would appear that the bomb would melt (and fizzle) in the short progress (nano-seconds).

You are an engineer, surely you can show a calculation, stating all of your assumptions, to demonstrate this.
 
Quote
The 'experts' say it is prevented by clever design (sic - it doesn't melt but explodes) but I haven't seen any clever design!

The perhaps you should not decide it is impossible, but instead just remain skeptical?

Quote
Just two sub-critical masses that are suddenly compressed mechanically. It cannot possible produce a FLASH!

Of course it can.  As you have indicated it is a matter of containment and reaction rate, not a matter of defying the laws of physics.

82
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 27, 2017, 10:46:34 PM »

Good idea.

I only had to ask you 3 times for it to appear so?

Quote
However it is better you start with http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm 1.1.1 to 2.14 and then finish with http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm 3.1 to 7.1.
 
There (3.5 - 3.9) you will find that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms of which, for unknown reasons only 6x1024 atoms or 1.5% do not fission in nanoseconds after having been mechanically compressed to double density creating a FLASH followed by destruction and a mushroom cloud.

Reason is that any fission of metal uranium will just melt it, vaporize it and then any neutrons just fly away and disappear. It is called fizzle. I look forward to your comments.

My comment is this:  You never give any demonstration of how quickly the bomb assembly would heat up vis a vis the speed of the nuclear chain reaction.  If you wish to demonstrate that the bomb will melt before the reaction takes place, this is essential. Until you do that, I see no compelling reason to accept your "findings".

83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 27, 2017, 10:32:47 PM »
Sorry, not a super humorous explanation.... :(

Well it wasn't a super humourous joke so that isn't too surprising.

84
I never called you an idiot, idiot. I encouraged you to watch someone who can hopefully change your mind.

Lol.. You're fun...

Then what did climate change have to do with my feelings on the trump if my assumption was incorrect?

If you knew someone was keeping important facts from the public, wouldn't you be upset?

How humiliating is it to admit you can't explain your own thoughts and turn it over to some stooge on YouTube?

Not humiliating at all.  When you know there is someone with expertise you don't have, why would you pretend to know otherwise?  It is not like Climate Change is a simple issue.  How low is your self-esteem that you had to ask that?

I searched him, the first thing I came up was some sort of snarky skit with him arguing with himself about some sort of nonsense...

Tried to suffer through a couple others but it was the same nonsense. All I heard was bias and an echo chamber... But to be honest, I couldn't suffer through much, it was nails on a chalkboard.

You didn't give it a fair shake then.  That is ok.  All of his assertions about the actual state of climate science are based on pier-reviewed science journal published papers.  The snark is at the people who think that bloggers and media outlets should trump hard science.

Quote
I am seriously disappointed this is where you send me for pure facts and to change my mind.

It is what I consider digestible information for non-climate scientists.  Where would you send me to change my mind about Climate Change?

Quote
If this is what you and other libs consider quality information, then we may have found a partial root cause of the issue here.

You haven't discovered what you think you have.



85
I never called you an idiot, idiot. I encouraged you to watch someone who can hopefully change your mind.

86
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 27, 2017, 08:50:04 PM »
Sorry, I am not sure what this means. I am sure it will be funny when you explain it.

87
Climate change isn't WooWoo.  It is a well-established scientific fact.

No!!!!! Rama set!!! We were on a roll....Agreeing multiple times :(

The only "fact" is that the average temp has changed from a decade ago, and that decade changed from the previous decade and so forth... (You get the drift)

Go and watch every video by potholer54 instantly and then let's talk about this. There is an awful lot of bad reporting and posting in the blogosphere by people who are not scientists. Seriously, this guys YouTube channel is really worth it. He speaks only in terms of factual information and only sources actual scientific papers.

Quote
The cause.....That is not the non negotiable "fact" presented...



As for the rest of this trump is a dictator hyperbole.... That is just typical liberal nonsense, just like some conservatives were yelling obama is the Anti-Christ. Obama was a guy with different views than I, just like trump is a guy with thin skin and hyper awareness of what people think (delicate ego)...

As for his exaggerations or lies....They are simple...To save his ego, nothing sinister. I have met people like him many times, especially in business. There is actually a business acquaintance of mine who owns multiple apartment complexes, he is worth a solid 50 million free and clear. He isn't happy with that, so he always brags he is worth 200 million. Tells stupid ass white lies, tries to top you on stories etc etc...

He is a good guy, you just have to know what he will lie about. Would give someone the shirt off his back, and some things he would never lie about. It is what it is...I know where his compulsions come from, and I accept them for who he is. At times, his stories crašk me the hell up.

I would much rather have someone who I know why they lie and what they lie about, plus with it out in the open.

99.9 percent of politicians are full of shit and lie, however most of them do it for sinister reasons...Not childish ones. I will take childish all day long.

Not to mention, he is the most motivated president I have seen. His agenda seems to be OK at the moment

If you don't believe in Climate Change, then I can see how you hold this position. Lets pause, go watch potholer54, and the let's talk.

By the way, go watch potholer54.

88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Violence against women
« on: January 27, 2017, 08:29:56 PM »
You make it sound like the only choices are 1. Speak for yourself or 2. Get your opinions from the echo chamber.

This is an asinine position.

89
You clearly disagree with our president. Fine.

I disagree with anyone who denies facts.  Don't you?

Quote
I was never an Obama fan boy. Big deal.

What is your solution to this tragic reality of new leadership replacing old?

That isn't what I am talking about.  What I am talking about is the troubling fact that Trump is appearing to suppress what is actually a serious environmental issue, and call it a hoax.  This is a problem.  It is not a problem for you right now, but I really want to know how far along the spectrum of suppressing and censoring the scientific facts of climate change would Trump have to go before you get alarmed?




90
Moot point; didn't happen.

I tend to not invent 'OMG what if' scenarios. Once that starts, there is no end.
Much more sane to wait for some evidence before launching a counter attack.

He is taking down scientific information about Climate change, he has appointed someone to head up the EPA who is a climate change denier.  He has gone on the record to say that Climate Change is a hoax.  What is your tipping point for saying he is censoring?  How far does it have to go?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 211