shirgall

I will pick a minor nit: to get surround sound you have to have movement, either by moving your head or by moving the source, over time, that causes variation in the sound received. The brain is very good at analyzing the streams of data (within certain bands of the auditory range) to produce a three dimensional model, because tigers ate everyone that wasn't good at it. Unnaturally low bass notes are extremely hard to localize. Higher pitched things like people, screams, and rustling grass are easy. But short events are hard to localize without repetition. Try to localize a gun shot all by itself in the woods. Try again with three fired from the same position (a way to sign that you are in trouble and need assistance). I have performed this experiment myself.

It does, but your brain compensates. Similar processes are at work when you are able to pick out a conversation in a crowded room.

I'll bite. If they are too young to give consent (that is, forbidden to have sex, enter into contracts, vote, go to see certain movies without adult supervision, drink alcohol, buy a gun, etc.) then they are too young to adequately answer questions about gender identity and probably a wider range of mature topics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperaturelists that Diesel and Jet-A1 ignite at 210C at normal pressure. Increase the pressure, or increase the temperature by smacking into something at hundreds of miles per hour and it should lower this threshold.

Even so, it's hard to have a discussion without agreement on what words mean or how they are used. I don't think he was picking a nit so much as striving for clarity.

The kinetic energy of the plane opened the hole, the payload of the fuel tanks entered the building, the obliteration of the plane and the wall and the spreading of the fuel through very open space was plenty for igniting it. Why is this so difficult? This cargo plane smacking into the ground has the same color:

Unanimous consent is all it takes.

https://i.imgur.com/WQvNS1V.gifv

One could verify 9/11 happened with millions of observers (including my sister that lives in Brooklyn), including videographic and forensic evidence... either the event itself, or the aftermath.

In addition, the collision acted somewhat like a kinetic energy penetrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator I've posted repeatedly about the extremely high kinetic energy (millions of joules) of such a large plane travelling at over 500mph.

The theory is that those underage participants are not mature enough to consent, so their act is rape. Whether or not a particular age is an appropriate dividing line is a big debate of its own. If you encourage them to do it and take steps to help them act upon it, that's conspiracy. To coldly plan and act upon the commission of a crime is the issue.

It boils down to the fundamental question: "When is a person capable of consent?" It is such a difficult question that the age is set by statute differently in different states and countries. The theory is that until a certain level of maturity, it is impossible to grant consent because it is impossible to understand the consequences of giving it. People who exploit people incapable of consent are predators. People who promote such exploitation are not deserving of high regard. People who knowing seek out such material are supporting the subornation of consent. People who unknowingly have such material, because it looks very like similar legal material, deserve the "innocent until proven guilty" standard we are supposed to enjoy in the west.

We can combine the two. Who do you think he will fire first? Smart money is on Janet Yellen. (Three or more puns intended!)

As much as I dislike John Oliver on politics, this was darn funny:

My argument wasn't NAAALT, it was merely my first reaction. Later in the thread I talked about how atheism was a red herring and the danger was actually cultural marxism which gave rise to atheism *and* cessation of good values. I'm not sure what you have against atheists, but it's clearly not an attribute that carries a lot of weight. I'm a skeptic about a lot of things, not just religion.

What if we just shot people that directly impose unchosen positive obligations backed by force and with "consent of the plurality" as the only justification?

What must be done is discrimination on the basis of values, and recognition that race/ethnicity/style is a poor predictor of values.

http://www.thelocal.at/20160506/attack-victim-claims-police-told-her-to-dye-hair

"It's boring" isn't just a non-argument, it's also emotionally manipulative. We aren't trying to woo you, so it is reasonable to expect that when you are making claims you support them with reasonable arguments that relate to the claim. Changing what is being argued about to some other scope is "moving the goalposts" akin to declaring victory when none has been achieved. We were talking about free riders and suddenly you were talking about aversion to religion and claiming the question was relevant. Meanwhile, back at square one, we were trying to ascertain what value of significance was being enjoyed without contribution of value in return... the free rider problem. That question has not been answered.

There are certainly stories of brave individuals from this forum confronting public child abusers. They are some of the most touching things I've read here. I looked at your #4 and #5 items and I trimmed your response down to what I posted because they seemed like side dishes to the entree I quoted. There is no consistency in how people do upvotes/downvotes, so I wouldn't put any credence into that system. It's a forum option that was enabled and that's it. The truly abusive stuff gets caught by moderation either by prior restraint based on keywords that flags for moderation or by complaint. Most things are left alone. You are free to make your own forum and there are certainly other freethinker places out there.

When your choices are overly constrained due to threats and abuse you either freeze, run, become robotic, or take desperate but pragmatic actions. You aren't free to make choices any more.

Not all value is monetary. Like, share, and subscribe is not money, but it is appreciated. Pose interesting questions. Post thoughtful answers. Stop child abuse when you see it. These are all things that the community values. I have not yet seen it demonstrated that there's a free rider problem, or I somehow missed it in the exchanges.

There's nothing anti-philosophical about being interested in an inflection point. While this candidate's rise might not be as fascinating as the industrial revolution or the Renaissance it could be an important shift in the reflected values of the country. There is also a faint hope that Trump is far more capable of listening to reason than professional politicians. The trick is understanding what will grab his attention.

When I saw the first posting, I was immediately reminded of eminent domain, thus my reaction. I guess it really matters who sets the price and how.

And so it begins... https://next.ft.com/content/7271d02e-12eb-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173