YOU CALLIN ME ANGRY?!

What Brownian motion practically describes through observation is that any medium experiences extreme variation.
Where this becomes important in cosmology is in Hawking effect describing the virtual particle field, which states that absolute entropy intrinsically evolves a black hole universe.

Doesn't really relate to chaos theory directly, which is most correctly stated as complex evolutionary diversity. It does, but it doesn't, it's about latent fields and the fact there is truly no such thing as an empty space even in an empty space. For the potential for something to exist there must be an existence potential latent in the environment. It's like extrapolating quantum physics from classical rules like conservation of energy.

Belief has nothing to do with it.
It was a mathematical observation, which coincidentally best describes evolutionary theory in general. Strictly, it functionally solicited the need to use closed models rather than an open system when mapping a macro operation, such as planetary orbits and then combine the models to get a complex system, since if you use a top down approach and overload initial data crunching you just get random predictions. The small error margins of using closed models is better than random figures due to factors entirely too involved to predict.

I think somebody was confusing science with philosophy. Scientific theorem aren't political devotions, they're statements of observation. You may not agree with a point of view, eg. string theory or m-brane theory, but they are always framed to fit existing observations, which are fact and then make predictions about future observations, which is like waiting to open Christmas presents midway through the year.

Oh and the reason IQ scores aren't awesome is when looking for a girlfriend. Try spending the majority of your life when the only women who get you and become interested are using walkers, but like any red blooded man you want the hotties all the morons get to screw through all the good looking years.

It's a conundrum, the kind where you slap anyone who shoves an IQ test in your face and tell them go out and work for a living and figure it out for yourself. Does nothing for me.

And Mensa, omg I've never met so many pretentious idiots in my life. It's like an alien conspiracy convention, they're morons, seriously.

For a history lesson, IQ testing was developed as a means to show mental age, not intelligence per se. The idea was it would show which schools aren't teaching their students to become adults properly. It started in France in the 19th century.

For an ad hoc way to use IQ scores you take them as a percentage value of mental age, so a 20yr old with a 120 IQ has a mental age of 24, whilst a 20yr old with an IQ of 90 has a mental age of 18. That's what it was designed to demonstrate.

IQ testing requires a control body and is extremely subjective, the important point is no matter which grouping you gather together the average is always 100 and individuals are tested against this median. For example in student IQ testing among universities you'll score higher in a region/country with a lower population than you will against a higher population region/country, mainly because smaller numbers of variants have greater impact on the median, which is determined as the base 100 figure, which is subjective. By the same measure it is inappropriate to measure IQ outside the regional social environment of the subject, ie. a Somalian with a 130 IQ might score 95 at a US university and yet in all respects still find themselves celebrated among lecturers and professors at that US university as well above average IQ with some cultural difficulties.

Point being it is an entirely subjective measure of no social value. What social intelligence really comes down to is whether you put effort into being competent as a human being day to day, where the lazy minded are chores to deal with for anybody with a couple of brain cells to rub together, whether streetwise, mature or simply smart.

Unless you have a medically diagnosable intellectual disability you have the same intellectual potential as everyone and everyone has the same. It's about assertion over assumption, it is effort and that's why many don't bother. People who don't bother are basically ********.

If a good splash of Brut33 doesn't distract suitably from a bryl cream comb over I find a cat as a hat not only covers appropriately with a full head of thick fur but also doubles as a personal defence system.

Without context philosophy is merely sweeping generalizations, anyone can poke holes in a sweeping generalization.
Looking forward to the day everyone is just a person infers a context of authority. It simply suggests that nobody has inherent authority upon another, that authority in etymology refers to an educational reference, ie. what people say may have authority but never the person themselves. It is a truth which is dismissed by the arrogant and unknown by the ignorant, which is functionally the same thing.

An example for those in the back row. An employer instructs you to perform a contracted work duty in a safe manner. It has authority. An employer instructs you to perform a task outside contracted work duties and to do so in a dangerous fashion, ie. lacking required safety equipment, using legally defined unsafe procedures, etc. Here it is your lawful responsibility to supersede the instruction as it no longer has authority, despite the fact the employer may, themselves believe their position offers them seniority towards subordinate employees, as a human being. Legally this is not the case and logically this is not the case. But it is stressful having to argue with an idiot in positions of authority, even when they are giving unlawful instructions as they don't see it that way, so one might look forward to the day when everyone might realize they're just a person and if you have a position of authority you lose that authority every time you're wrong.

This is just an example, completely different ones could be given, describing completely different types of situations from religious worship to a combat environment. The key point is the only logical context of the statement is related to authority.

The one paying wants their needs met, not yours. Didn't teach algebra in your school?

A crazy person would've immediately assumed someone, not of this world had murdered, flayed her and was wearing her skin and then stalking people she once knew to study their reactions and report back using a complicated series of low frequency sounds made with a hair dryer and canola oil. That's what a crazy person would assume.

You could also come at it another way, the image of femininity, especially the commercialised image is about visual stimuli, whereupon sexy feelings if you will would be produced in the brain of the person onlooking, however when a woman gets in your personal space in some kind of mating ritual it's more about interaction so popular images of femininity probably wouldn't apply so much as the nature of interactivity. Ultimately I think true femininity comes down to the right equipment and being yourself so you get the correct match.

I like when a woman is being herself and acting in the way which is most comfortable and honest. People do often have a slight persona to go with their sense of humour and entertaining yourself a little bit, but a full on femininity act to attract men just comes off as a total fake to me and so does the complete tomboy act. I'm not big on women who either cry about breaking a nail or act like they're all upper body strength. I like an actual person or else you're just boring and a dependent, like a pet turtle. It's not sexy.

Sigourney in Aliens was sexy because she's the only woman in what's otherwise a b-grade slasher/monster film, who doesn't just stand there screaming and get mutilated when basically a physical creature that you can try to fight physically attacks you. She had the kudos to at least try not to be food, which is very sexy in a woman because it means you might get a little teamwork if you like, get attacked by a bear on a picnic instead of having to fight the bear all by yourself as well as fight your girl's stupidity not to go running directly at the bear's claws whilst you're at it. Stupid people are redundant, a not-stupid woman is sexy, nothing masculine about it and if you think there is because feminine women should be useless when it comes to any survival skills or instinct or intellectual development beyond toddler age, then you're a fake, not her.


By "you" I mean generic "you" not anyone specific, it's just a generalized statement.

Assuming the photos weren't downloaded from a modelling website and the message/profile grammar wasn't assisted by an English speaker at the local church in Ghana, the trick about these kind of descriptions/messages is that anybody wealthy enough to afford the poolside lounging lifestyle clearly alluded by wannabe trophy wife is probably educated enough to much prefer a peer like a professional woman, or at least one with active personal interests articulating an IQ higher than plant life, but good luck with your search

Well a base is like a self contained town really, isn't it. So it makes sense spouses feel part of the community.

If you are serenading your heart's desire from the street, outside her bedroom window in the early evening and not entirely unwelcomed by her, yet a conservative religious neighbour, primarily offended by courtship in a manner unsanctioned by their church phones police and complains, the officer in attendance may, once you have explained the full situation to him and absence of malice is established, ask you to move along under threat of a misdemeanor vagrancy charge called "unduly blocking a causeway" (standing on a public sidewalk causing a minor nuisance, basically), with, even if you gave vehement resistance would incur a maximum penalty of a $30 fine and a stern glare, but you couldn't really be arrested unless you turned aggressive. You could keep singing and cop the fine, with a stern glare.


Let's say you were doing exactly the same thing, at exactly the same volume, in exactly the same way but the girl is a complete stranger you stalked from the local mall after she rejected your advances and the tune you were singing was from Nick Cave's album, Murder Ballads. The girl doesn't want you there but it's a public street, you're not on her property. Nevertheless she's the one whom phones police attendance in fear of her life and explains this to them when they arrive. Now, under the letter of physical descript you're doing precisely the same thing as the previous example, serenading on a sidewalk in the early evening.
Well, the attending officer explains, placing a hand on his firearm and directing you with the other, you're under arrest for loitering with intent and causing public nuisance, put your hands on your head with fingers interlocking and drop to your knees and please, by all means go ahead and resist. After he has a nice chat with the prosecutor you might be looking at 30 days.


This is because first tier in application of law is the responsibility of judicial officers in attendance and that requires interpretation of the situation as given by evidence, to be used in court.

The law doesn't need to be interpreted. The situation does.

Okay firstly any scientific conclusion is falsifiable by definition, so nothing about the evolutionary model in any way excludes involvement by God, a pantheon of Gods or a magically empowered Micky Mouse for that matter. Simply show testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, subject it to peer review and remember your hypothesis is falsifiable and lay it on me baby.

But that's science, which is about critical thinking. Teaching the evolutionary model, more correctly termed a working model than a speculative theory, is about showing testable results and critical thinking. It may be readily challenged by students who use scientific method to do so, any other means of counter-argument belong in a subject other than science, such as philosophy or theology.


It should also be noted that the evolutionary model is not described by natural selection but by complex evolutionary diversity, ie. mutation, which is observable. Natural selection is merely the process by which some species remain and others are extinct, the actual causality is mutation.


Also, CrystalFairy was correct when she mentioned earlier that hominid species are not a linear evolution, many coexisted and some are branches from common ancestors, like homo sapiens and neandertal, just like bonobos and chimpanzees are two, separate, coexisting species from a common ancestor. Homo Sapiens and Neandertal lived alongside each other from approx.180,000yrs ago until 25,000yrs ago. All modern humans have some amount of Neandertal DNA and Homo Sapiens Archaic DNA, which are not directly related, so we are in fact crossbreeds and not entirely a separate species from either of them.


But this is all about critical thinking and has no relationship with our social existence, science is an academic exercise and of itself maybe quite brutal, at the very least it is apathic. It doesn't care if your feelings are hurt by a new fact, but people do.

Within a theological or philosophical class creationists can freely challenge the evolutionary model upon the basis of "what if". However if they are to do so within a science class it is upon deaf ears if it is not performed by showing testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, with its hypothesis subject to peer review and regarded by the arguer as readily falsifiable.

Otherwise from your own religious conventions you are just an arguer, the Hebrew term for which is satan, which is a verb and not an identity, for point of historical theological fact.

As it is there is plenty of arguing for creationists within a theology class, because the historical genesis first written in Archaic Hebrew can be read many different ways due to such a limited literary vocabulary using ridiculously generalised terms for lack of a complex linguistic development at this time. For this reason many Rabbi preferred to transcribe in Pheonican, Greek or Aramaic. And that's how we run into problems with books like Genesis and Kings and some other of the earliest ones. Trying to write something like "chariot" in Archaic Hebrew can come off sounding like "flying dragons" when you translate it to Modern Hebrew, then "winged serpents" translated to Greek and it only gets worse when you then translate the Greek into Latin and worse again into High German and Old English and finally modern English and that's what happened with the Old Testament creationists and pentacostals love so much. Most Catholic and Jesuit priests straight up warn people off the OT and tell them to concentrate on the NT. For example did you know Hebrew angels translated into Greek is damon, into latin is demon, and into Old English is devil? In modern English the terms angel and devil are largely determined by context of the passage, it's the same word in Old Hebrew and in Greek, with identical meaning, that of divine messengers and spiritual guides. With this in mind it is no surprise in some OT passages angels are the ones who wipe out entire populations, or send a ruler mad. NT sort of replaces that entire concept with Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, but then your pentacostals try to mash it all together and have divine spirit and evil spirits, which is really pantheism when you think about it. That's okay, Judaism began originally as pantheism and was up until sometime between the 6th-4th century BC, when it was still an oral tradition. The earliest scriptures clearly outline a pantheon of numerous minor deities and at least two major ones, but was rewritten in modern Hebrew as a duality of one being, the LORD God and the creator God, but they have different personas among passages, they act differently.

So there's plenty to argue about within theology, you don't need to screw up a science class to do it.

I think it's a perfect example of totally rational use of a privately owned firearm.

Shooting someone you're arguing with in a pub carpark is a completely different situation, or leaving a firearm laying around loaded so someone who shouldn't have access to it does and uses it, these are wholly other arguments about people who aren't mature enough to be given the responsibility of owning a firearm.

But as for rational ways of using them, assuming you are a mature, responsible owner, this story is a great one. It should be a lawful act in every country.

Just pretend like you're treading water.

If you took a firearm to a party and shot someone dead for committing misdemeanor assault you might get a little surprise when you're the defendant in court instead of the dead body you made. Bringing the gun is premeditation so you're looking at 15 to life or even the death penalty if the tearful, drug dealing family make a convincing act about how you stalked and brutally murdered their poor little boy. I'm guessing since it was such a quick go-to act the prosecution will be able to show a history in your background of building to an act of murder. They'll paint you as a wannabe serial killer and you'll be in an episode of true crime wearing an orange jumpsuit with a cell mate named bubba whilst you wait for execution.

Probably not the best way to go in this situation. But a funny story nonetheless. You could label it Be a Bigger Criminal than the Criminals because you were Self Justified.

No, gun culture isn't the answer. Not legally and not even if you get away with it and his friends come around to your house with assault rifles.

Your brother is going to have to grow up a bit and start avoiding parties he knows large, violent people will attend.
The first thing police want to know in an assault report is why the victim was there to be assaulted and feeling entitled to be there isn't the world's best answer.
Society at large doesn't exist to preserve the bourgoisie fictions of youth, he's a little primate who needs to avoid bigger primates when they're likely to be violent and definitely avoid places he knows pathologically violent ones are likely to attend. It's what chess clubs were invented for.

If he wants to be social with people who also socialize with pathologically aggressive primates he's going to have to toughen up so he can look after himself. Carrying a weapon isn't the answer since it shows premeditation of violence and makes your bro more criminal than the criminal he wants to feel secure around. He's going to have to develop his natural weapons and that means bulking up physically and training in some martial arts to learn how to move. People who run around assaulting others already get that from experienced streetfighting, which is more valuable so even then it's just going to be a tool to hopefully help an escape with minimal injury when assaulted in future. And definitely start to think tactically since you don't want to wind up cornered by large, aggressive primates intent on doing you injury, a military cadetship or reserve service is a part time thing more useful to do with his spare time than sitting around crying about being assaulted over a bag of chips and watching tv.

The question becomes how concerned is he really about his role in life and what is he prepared to do about it? Because if he wants to play the forlorn little victim society will accommodate him for that too. What it won't do it chaparone him, entertain his sense of entitlement, or act upon his governance.

You live in Belgium and are adult ages. If you wanted to you could take a train to Moscow or a ferry to Malta. Don't tell me you can't change your social environment. If it's related to economics then concentrate on developing that instead of going to parties where you get assaulted. Like I said and the police will say the same thing, humanity may not live up to our expectations but when it doesn't that means it's time for you to grow up and start dealing with it. Want violent people put behind bars? Become a cop or a lawyer as a better form of concern, start with a law degree, get a part time job in a restaurant if you can't afford it, work the problem where you can actually make some headway instead of sitting around crying. It's what not just men do, adults in general, cool chicks handle things this way too.