Well you know, the very assertion "race" is anything more than a wholly subjective, cosmetic differentiation is soundly falsified by published findings in the field of genetics.
In tens of thousands of samples worldwide, some as part of a specific study to assert racial groupings (the chinese study for example, sought this conclusion), it was shown as much genetic variation existed within any regional/cultural grouping as there existed outside the grouping, and MtDNA was common among all samples (all from the same ancestral body of people as descendants, numbering originally no more than a few thousand humans from an area no greater than a few hundred square kilometres, from which all people today are evolved).

This is proven science, it's simple observation of physical samples taken from actual people, from all over the globe.

There are transient adaptations by region, but it goes like this: asians have almond eyes? (actually about half don't). It's a regional adaptation from the migratory path of human expansion in ancient times, from the group that was in siberia for tens of thousands of years before heading over to china, etc. (others that settled came through a more southerly route, so there's diversity long since established for millennia).
Well all this genetic stuff means take the same group of people and put them in the Sahara for tens of thousands of years, and they'll lose the almond eyes and start looking like every other semitic.

So how can they be racial differences when one changes to another depending where you put him, and the genetics prove both are actually the same just a bit slightly adapted, but not enough to become a speciation?

You can't, it means the only difference is 100% cosmetic.

Punishment =/= prevention.
Intervention = prevention.

People prefer to be happy than uhappy. Hating/attacking others is unhappy. Strangers wanting to be your friend is happy.
The majority of buglaries are more circumstantial than by design, nobody tries to make themselves live such a way they need to rob someone to achieve something (food, drugs, expressionism, whatever).

ie. you can't stop crime with penalties, you can stop it with intervention, and you can reduce its proliference by reducing criminal environments with fruitious ones of lawful endeavour.

Things like muggings are a social statement, not an alien invasion. This should be obvious.

A similar experience gives me another view on this too.
Several years ago, living at an inner suburban boarding house for a bit, I saw a mugging in broad daylight right on a city street from a nearby park.
The park was known for the occasional druggies in the public toilets, and one had wandered over to the city street and decided to try to grab the purse of an elderly asian lady with her more elderly husband, it was atrocious.
She was trying to beat him off with her umbrella, must've been in her sixties (her husband in his 80s I'd guess), but tough old bird. It was this activity that told me it wasn't a joke, it was a real mugging.
So this is about 08:30am with people in business suits with briefcases literally walking around them dispassionately while it was going on, like it was some kind of street play they weren't interested in watching. Nobody was even bothering to use their mobile phone to call the police, or instruct the mugger to stop, they were literally just stepping around the altercation as if it was nothing, and heading off to their office jobs.

That actually made me as angry as the mugging itself, I wasn't in real good shape those days (out of work, barely scraping by with food), but thankfully just my running over shouting like a crazy person gave the mugger enough of a fright that he left them and turned to me as a threat. Tall guy, but clearly stoned and it wasn't hard drawing him back into the park, away from his victims and then escaping (he was being joined by a heavier mate that just came out of the public toilet after shooting up, so I wasn't about to hang about and get knifed).


My point however, is that the bystanders are probably more scumbag than the perpetrator, whilst criminally aggressive and violent, thieving, intolerable, he was at least desperate. They were just arrogant.

To add to my last, you know what upsets me about my country, parliament's version of representing the well being of indigenous population is a pack of old white conservatives passing legislation that they consider on behalf of and for the betterment of the indigenous population.

Not ensuring there are indigenous members among the parliamentary council itself.

That seems a lot like racism, but it's almost entirely conspiratorial in practise. They're quite sincere, they just feel most aborigines are drunkards who need looking after in spite of themselves, so there's different laws for them in some circumstances than anyone else.
But by anyone else, that means any other immigrants from anywhere of any race. So to parliament's mind it's not about race, it's about inferior jungle bunnies locally. And they do treat immigrant destitutes from europe or wherever no better or sometimes even worse, so it's doubly not about race.
It's about stuffy old conservatives who think they're god.

I didn't mention that because it walks a fine line with conspiracy theory.

But I did consider that, for example indigenous populations are ridiculously under-represented among the legislative bodies of colonial *** democracies like your nation and mine. That in itself I do consider a travesty, but I'm hesitant to label racism from a podium.

However I do feel extremely confident shouting any legislative minoritization is absolutely purist Racism, from the very rooftops.

Politics places greater emphasis upon maintenance of public order than it does accuracy.
In current times maintenance of public order in the western democracies involves using popular terminology among a majority population with unfinished high school educations and megalomanic attitude towards authority.

ie. racial slurs have nothing whatsoever to do with racism. They are offensive behaviour, the perpetrator does not seek to minoritize subcultural groupings but simply wishes to express an offensive regard for cosmetic difference. The same people saying ****** to blacks also say retard to people with downs syndrome and poofter to bully victims. It is about an offensive person, not about a racial issue.

Racism is literally the institutionalization of racial minoritization through legislation. Racism is when blacks aren't allowed in a white shop, not about someone saying something someone else doesn't like. That's mundane offensive behaviour.

Unfortunately politicians are also legislators, so in public (individual majority vote market) appeasement, they'll happily call mundane, generic offensive behaviour "racism" and stay in office longer to pilfer more taxpayer money into their personal accounts.
That's how it works.

It's really up to individuals in the general population to get a clue and say, racism is when it is law, offensive behaviour is when it is a person, and neither is acceptable but one is the far greater concern and the other has nothing to do with race, but more to do with aggressive parenting/upbringing and an abrasive personality who'd offend anyone of any race because that's what they enjoy. That's just a sad person, not a racist.
Congress or the Senate lobbying different legislation between races for any purpose, that's racism.

Remember that even Apartheid's purpose wasn't to offend the indigenous population, but to maintain a superiority of the colonial establishment beyond them. According to the legislators they thought they were preserving the rights of the colonial population, not attacking those of the indigenous one. In their twisted minds.

But the singular purpose of people who make racial slurs is to offend. That's not racism, they're just using racial terminology for that particular victim, if they were disabled instead they'd call them other names. The purpose is purely to offend, not to causally achieve political and personal aims. That's offensive behaviour, a misdemeanor, not racism, which is indictable (since it involves legislation by definition).


ie. if "racism" doesn't involve racist legislation, it isn't racism. It's just horrible people being themselves to anyone, being about race in that instance is incidental.

Just to add in simplification,

The black hole hypothesis prohibits the existence of supermassive black holes. If black holes have been inferred by astronomical observations, the same inferrences have shown supermassive black holes and yet the model prohibits them. That's more than just a question mark, and if they're caused by some other model then it contradicts the existing black hole hypothesis by simple use of even more exotic conditions.
When the math is correct and complete, you can go silly with values and the equation still works (solves), so we know it isn't by this alone.


On singularities, they're a mathematical barrier not a physical one. Even the "lightspeed barrier" is a false nomenclature. The math works fine for any speed above or below c. The singularity only happens at precisely c.
That's like saying it is impossible to travel at 50mph in your car, yet 51mph or 150mph is just fine, and 49mph or 5mph is just fine, therefore the car's top speed is less than 50mph. That's not just a contradiction, it's complete nonsense.
It means there's something wrong with your car, not its limitations.

The math is the car. That's singularities explained. Going from there to Wormholes is what Sagan et al did for their works of fiction, using good science up to a point, to make a good fiction.
And that part is like saying, there's a problem with my car at 50mph so obviously it must be travelling into another dimension at that speed. A rational person would ask, just where are you getting this leap from in terms of any corroberation whatsoever?

Chandrasekhar postulated only defiance of the electromagnetic force, his math only covered the creation of neutron stars but what he achieved was identifying what pulsars are in working theorum.

Others postulated, based upon his work: "...but what we know of Gravity as a Force, one could extrapolate a subatomic breakdown beyond the Standard Model, producing a mathematical singularity in theoretical physics, but a real possible stellar object."
And observations seeking evidence of this have matched the extremely limited predictions thereof.

Numerous problems ensue.

1. the postulate outstrips the existing math for describing it, instead of working within what we know, the calling card of science, it works outside what is known to describe something also unknown, suspending the rule of observation in nature "correlation does not infer cause" when observing effects of massive stellar forces.
The Black Hole model describes something, so ambiguously that it may very well be completely off base with elements we have not yet learned about physics. Maybe they have something to do with what we don't know about dark matter and dark energy.

Chandra stuck within what we know, he stuck within the Standard Model, the math provides an inferrence but it is one of incomplete knowledge, not of flying dragons in space gobbling up matter.
Quite simply nobody knows what the rules are when you go beyond the Standard Model, as the black hole hypothesis does.
Chandra's work is clinically accurate for a neutron star, and utterly ambiguous when talking about black holes because it causes a mathematical singularity (the very definition of incomplete math), by stepping well beyond the Standard Model.

In other words it's like trying to predict a sandstorm on Mars using no more than a multiplication table and a pair of binoculars, it isn't much to work with and only the most elementary predictions are possible, which could be entirely off base because they're so elementary.

2. the black hole model elicits Gravity as a Force, that's Newtonian eccentricity which remains remnant in modern science, the conservative element which finds it difficult to imagine fourth-dimensional spacetime as a field and so still regards Gravity as a Force with a few values changed to match GR predictions moreso than Newtonian predictions.
Gravity is a spatial topography. It isn't a force. That kind of kills the 'traditional' black hole model coming right out of the gate.
According to GR questions like 'where does the information go?' simply cannot be unanswerable in a working theorum. So it isn't, it's a partial hypothesis as a model and incomplete as a theory.
Black Holes do not describe a singularity. There is no such thing as a singularity in the physical universe, it is a mathematical expression on paper which literally means, "we don't have math for that."

3. The Black Hole solutions as they are, being so very elementary cannot describe a stellar object except in the most elementary fashion (not what it looks like or acts like, just a couple of things about it with a lot of question marks).
The reason for this is the specific solutions (Static, Kerr, Reissner-Nordstroem), all contradict themselves when asserted as an actual stellar object. They cannot physically exist, they're partial descriptions of something, like trying to describe a rhinocerous without words using only its foot.

ie. the only realistic black hole solution is the reissner-nordstroem (the only one which describes a degenerate star rather than an ambiguous stellar object), and the problem with this solution is that if the star is very massive before it degenerates, the math doesn't form a black hole at all, it forms a naked singularity. This, gentlemen is like a lecturer giving you an F on your paper. The math just plain doesn't work.


What are popularly referred to as "black holes" wrt to astronomical observation are definitely something, but being "something" is literally all that can be proved about them until more is known not about "black holes" but physics itself.

Sarcasm is a parable. It only suggests lack of due consideration when it is either an inaccurate inferrence, or you don't understand the parable.

Martial law has not been formally declared in the US. So in this universe all military personnel are still subject to the same laws as everybody else when off their bases. That would be the opposite of impunity.

I've been in military culture from an early age and I can tell you, among mates in army, navy, air force, there is just the same variation in personalities as you can find down your local pub.

Some are cheating, misogynist, abusive horrors, and others are awesome coolsauce you'd leave children with happily and feel secure.

How is this not obvious?

I think you'll find that a woman who consistently leaves her purse unattended on a crowded subway can come to the conclusion that all people are thieves, because every time she does it her purse is pilfered.

In other words tell your friend TO GET A CLUE.
And don't *allow* people to do things you don't want them to do to you. That's how you fix it.

Jesus Natalie, you're fricken gorgeous, where has your self confidence gone?

Stop losing yourself in this guy or anyone. Be conscious of you, and consider looking out for you to be looking out for the ones you care about.
Why? Because that's what the only people who really care about you, care about.

This guy sounds all wrong. All wrong.


ie.


they leave that wrong person, that clearly wrong person. It's about serendipitous compatability, so clearly the wrong personality for you. Put the big girl panties on and realize, there is no other way but to bite a bullet when you want to play sherriff in your life and you should, because everyone else who claims to is a liar coming out of the gate.

Put it another way, a horrible person with partner A is a wonderful person to partner B, purely because partner B was right for them and partner A was wrong for them, yet their personality is the same with both.
They just react to each other differently. It's about the mix, not the individuals. It was always only about the mix not the individuals.

Social sciences are referred to as "stamp collecting" by hard sciences (sciences based in math) because they're completely comprised of utter speculation. The more that coincide with the speculation, the more accepted the theory, even if it's so clinically incorrect it's actually unlawful in practise.

Women do not have a collective intelligence.

That means "women think like this" is exactly the same thing as saying "black people think like this." It's beyond retarded and all the way into bigoted ignorance.

But people once thought black people think a certain way.
Some people even today think women think a certain way.

Both are bigots.



ie. both assertions serve no greater purpose than to dismiss the opinions of either when individually encountered, in favour of the generalization you've decided upon, which suits your personal agenda, hence, bigotry.



just a bit of background nomenclature, stamp collecting actually refers to chemists, who generally go from there into social sciences, chemistry as opposed to physics is the general departure, the table of elements looks like a stamp book, hence the term stamp collecting.


last point, the opposite of self centred is humility, not empathy. Empathy is a given, sociopathy has replaced psychopathy in all medical science (but not criminology who lags behind as stamp collectors), specifically because empathy is a given, and there is no such thing as a living creature which does not experience empathy.
Some simply justify the need to detest it within themselves by blaming others for it (sociopathy). Criminologists (breed of psychologist without medical qualification), still refer to serial killers as psychopathic, but all medical science now refers to them as socipaths instead, because of this particular point.

People who don't know what they're talking about say serial killers are an example of humans who can't feel empathy. Medical science says they used to think that, but were wrong. They self justify, they don't lack. So if even serial killers aren't in any way lacking in human empathy, how the hell is anybody else ever?

Mr Smart, many of us are well aware of the criminally horrific things our governments have always routinely done to their subjects in the name of nothing at all, just whimsy and the personal agendas of those involved.

You're effectively making a social statement. But we can see the painting without the narration, in the world around us by simply opening our eyes. Those who need to be told aren't of much help to you.

So your point is?

Hans cites a science-journalism sensationalism which, unfortunately the general public take at face value without performing any independent research.

There was never a big bang. Never happened.
Years ago some astronomers and theoreticians off-handedly mentioned that the freshly discovered CMBR "looked just like the residual heat from a terrific explosion."
That's what started the whole "big bang" nomenclature, so let me just clear up this glaring point:
The Current Model is not a big bang theory, there was never a big bang theory, there is in fact no such thing as a big bang theory.
It is Inflation Theory, and it doesn't even begin until 10^-22 seconds after *whatever might've happened prior to the photon veil*.
It is based purely and 100% upon physical observation, it is not a theory, it is a model of observed phenomenae called scientific-theory which is different from a layman's theory. A scientific-theory is where you see an apple fall, then you make math for the apple falling, you test the math with another apple, the math is proved consistent with physical observation, it came from physical observation, it is retested by peers, the math is called scientific-theory but it describes physical fact. That's a scientific-theory.

Nothing about the Current Model talks or postulates or attempts to fathom what happened before the photon veil.

But there is math for a working possibility. In entropy.

If you have a universe of nothing, and anything ever appears in it ever, anything at all, General Relativity explicits that all spacetime in the entire universe collapses around this point.
There you have a cosmic egg, the math says this, it is all consistently supported by physical observation but there is no possibility of physical observation of the cosmic egg itself, so it's not included in the Inflation Theory or Current Model.
But the math works.

Now do you believe that entropy exists? Do you believe the laws of physics thus observed exist? Do you believe that the universe will eventually undergo a heat death?
If yes, then you believe in a cosmic egg. Because in heat death lay a virtual particle field, and the instant after total heat death, that any particle-antiparticle pairing experiences extreme variation (observed in fluid dynamics through brownian motion), then the entire dead/empty universe will collapse immediately around it, and form a new concentration and expansion.


But FYI, just to be perfectly clear, the Current Model explicitly allows for the distinct possibility that a bored chinese dragon, or a hairy invisible giant, simply created everything just prior to the photon veil. It is quite a part of the science, the part where nobody can possibly ever soundly falsify any wild hypothesis. It is quite simply, utterly irrelevent.
Find heart in religion, find competition in science. Competition is nasty, even with aftershave and a nice suit, it'll wreck your mom for funzies. Heart is in your personal philosophy, not among kids who all think they're the next Einstein.

In clinical terms a mass-energy value describes anything in the physical universe, although for areas the term 'field' is used for the same thing. It's minkowski space, with theorum, time isn't an issue. A planet is a mass-energy value in variation to a field.

You can think of it this way with 100% clinical accuracy.
Govern the walk to postulating the potential for sapient thought among things like planets though, it's kind of stepping way into crazy street. Complex evolutionary diversity is responsible for conscious thought, clearly, but one could postulate that a solar flare 'feels' to a star just like what seeing a bird feels like to a cat.

Vinu, women aren't generic creatures with a collective intelligence. If you want to know what a particular woman likes in a man, ask. Really, you ask, that's what men do if they want to know.

But don't ask the cat about the dog or the dog about the bird, ask the bird about the bird and it can only tell you what that bird likes.
Each is individual.

This whole "war of the sexes" trip is meant to be satirical, humour, people who take it seriously identify themselves as a little too unevolved for adult relationships anyway, they just rut and argue and pea brained concepts are a descriptor of them.

So evolve, and start treating people like individuals. Don't just say, "yeah I believe in the rights of the individual" and then in the same breath ask, "so what do (all) women think about this..."
It's pea brained and kind of a descriptor of other ignorant ideas adults like to watch out for and avoid.

Let me put it this way, because people in this thread seem to have no idea what either the medical or legal definition of a clinical psychological disorder actually is, but seems to really get off on all the utter and complete fiction that fills television and news media about everything, everything, everything in america or about people. Pure fiction, utter tripe is what people seem to believe, and they apparently got it off an episode of CSI, complete and utter tripe and fiction, intentionally I might add, scripts/SFX/dialogue written by...wait for it: fiction writers.

Like D. U. H.

Are all Americans basically Homer Simpson?

The patient must be in distress to have any kind of mental disorder.
If they're not in distress, they don't have a disorder.
Yes it really is just that simple, both by law and medical association boards ethics committees (meaning by another law just as threatening to a doctor as criminal law).

See what this means, if you examine the words like ever when you read things so you actually learn something other than sales pitches for a change, when a person is at ease, at home, relaxed, with friends, under no threat or danger or unusual environmental nor any other kind of circumstances whatsoever, they're still in visible distress.
It might be a social anxiety disorder.
It could be sociopathy.
Perhaps they simply need to go to the toilet really really bad. We don't know, you'd have to ask them.

You'd have to ask them.

And that my friends, is the actually definition of whether or not someone has any kind of disoder. Of any sort.

This is actually the reason for the mental competency assessment legal requirement that the patient must first be in distress to even have any kind of disorder, no matter what they do, no matter how crazy other people think it is. Even if it's having sex with chicken guts, unless they're in distress doing it, like they think something is making them do it, then they're perfectly healthy and simply criminal if they commit a crime. Not insane. It all comes down to whether you are doing what you want to do or not, when you do something offensive or illegal.

As it should be.

The truth is the reality of biochemistry means that your own body can literally force you to act in a way and respond to things in a way which you do not want to do when challenged or asked. Biochemistry controls your emotions, and how you view things. Your personal goalposts of right and wrong are set by a consistent biochemistry, throw it out of wack and you can only try to remember where those goalposts were.
It's all demonstrated by testable results of reproducible physical experimentation and observation in nature (MRI, etc.).

England describes the country, Great Britain describes the Empire - less colonial holdings.

Great Britain includes Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Orkneys, the Channel Islands, you name it.



actually "England" is technicallly just Northumberland and a smatch of west cost harbour. Also where the Vikings mostly invaded, except the west coast bit.
Probably why Eastenders are so droll.