What automatically makes you disrespect someone?

Duggys Housemate · 20-06-2013 01:05PM

Three types of people I detest.

1) Racists
2) Xenophobes
3) Foreigners.

JP85 · 20-06-2013 01:31PM

People who are way too friendly the first time you meet them!!
People who say last night was so random, how random was it??
People who overuse full stops, question or exclamation marks to make their point...

V123 · 20-06-2013 01:33PM

me too duggy!

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 01:39PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Someone who puts "science" and "Deepak Chopra" in the same sentence. When you can't comprehend the basics of evolution and get muddled up with creationism then you're void of any scientific integrity, even alone on that with all the other guff he peddles and makes millions on.

Homeopathy, auras, angels, angel card reading, reiki...............animal reiki healing, for fùck sake.

Generally have a weary eye towards people who are overly anti-corporate, "fight the system man!!", want to talk politics at every oppertunity to toot their own horn types.

Met a guy recently who was caught with a bag of weed in his car. What was he going to do? Play the Freeman card and say in court that corrupt man-made laws don't apply to him and that he pays the judge's salary through a corrupt government that infringes on his own rights as a human being.

He then went on a rant that everything should be privitised like schools, hospitals, roads, etc, taxes should not exist, visas to other countries infringe the human need to love and that he didn't believe in Social Welfare...........

..........what did he do for a living?

............he's on the dole, of course.

I think you will find a lot of high level physicists are very spiritual.

20-06-2013 01:44PM

audi12 wrote: »

if you are referring to me i dont buy tabloids if you are not referring to me them fair enough my mistake

No, referring to the thread in general.

Raic · 20-06-2013 01:47PM

zonEEE wrote: »

I think you will find a lot of high level physicists are very spiritual.

No.

20-06-2013 01:48PM

Loud and overly opinionated people

Thundercats Ho · 20-06-2013 01:56PM

Men who use smilies in text messages get instant distain.

endacl · 20-06-2013 02:07PM

audi12 wrote: »

have you ever used facebook old hippy because it seems you dont understand how it works you have jumped to a conclusion and got it wrong.. the pictures she puts up come up on my news feed so no i dont look at her photos and if so what do i have to be friends with someone before i look at their pics and by friends i mean real friends not facebook so called friends

Anybody who uses Facebook, but doesn't use punctuation.

endacl · 20-06-2013 02:09PM

zonEEE wrote: »

I think you will find a lot of high level physicists are very spiritual.

Go on then. Name one. I'll respond with a 'high level physicist' rationalist. We'll take turns. You'll run out of names first. And quickly.

Duggy747 · 20-06-2013 02:28PM

zonEEE wrote: »

I think you will find a lot of high level physicists are very spiritual.

On a personal level, maybe, but blending it in with science and using it to give their beliefs "scientific" weight? Nope.

audi12 · 20-06-2013 02:28PM

young hippy it is not my fault if you cannot understand basic points that are made on here. I use it to look at pictures of people and sneer at them what total and utter rubbish.You may not have heard of the term Facebook friends maybe you should look it up not everyone a person is friends with on facebook is genuine friends unless you think most people have 200 or 300 genuine friends

Rasheed · 20-06-2013 02:41PM

Awkward stubborn people. People that can't every so often go with the flow. Everything has to be questioned, dissected and debated even if it's deciding what restaurant you go to or who does goes to break first for example.

20-06-2013 02:43PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Does she need a hand?

I wouldn't say a hand is going to get her pregnant!

hullaballoo · 20-06-2013 03:50PM

Spitting in public.

Immediate irrevocable disrespect.

20-06-2013 03:54PM

hullaballoo wrote: »

Spitting in public.

Immediate irrevocable disrespect.

Yes, and ditto littering.

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 03:57PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

On a personal level, maybe, but blending it in with science and using it to give their beliefs "scientific" weight? Nope.

Explain what happens in the double slit experiment with science. You cant.

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 04:00PM

endacl wrote: »

Go on then. Name one. I'll respond with a 'high level physicist' rationalist. We'll take turns. You'll run out of names first. And quickly.

Tom Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Warren_Campbell

Science explains how but not why.

endacl · 20-06-2013 04:04PM

zonEEE wrote: »

Tom Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Warren_Campbell

Science explains how but not why.

Science doesn't need to explain why. Only how and what.

Martin Rees.

Back atcha!

Raic · 20-06-2013 04:04PM

zonEEE wrote: »

Explain what happens in the double slit experiment with science. You cant.

Are you kidding? Each individual photon which travels through the slits is obeying a probability wave. It's just statistics; over time the pattern builds up and you see that the particles (in large quantities) can be modelled using wave mechanics. This is fundamental quantum physics and is well understood. Are you trying to say you can explain this only with religion?

endacl · 20-06-2013 04:05PM

Raic wrote: »

Are you kidding? Each individual photon which travels through the slits is obeying a probability wave. It's just statistics; over time the pattern builds up and you see that the particles (in large quantities) can be modelled using wave mechanics. This is fundamental quantum physics and is well understood. Are you trying to say you can explain this only with religion?

Well, if one doesn't understand it, it must be magic. It's the only logical conclusion.

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 04:13PM

Raic wrote: »

Are you kidding? Each individual photon which travels through the slits is obeying a probability wave. It's just statistics; over time the pattern builds up and you see that the particles (in large quantities) can be modelled using wave mechanics. This is fundamental quantum physics and is well understood. Are you trying to say you can explain this only with religion?

Who said anything about religion? And does science explain the effect we as the observer have on the experiment? What changes the photon from a wave to a particle? I understand how the experiment works but it still doesn't give the explanation that Einstein and many other physicists died looking for.

Keyzer · 20-06-2013 04:14PM

People who piss on my leg when I'm not looking while waiting for a bus.

Really drives me mad.

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 04:26PM

endacl wrote: »

Science doesn't need to explain why. Only how and what.

Martin Rees.

Back atcha!

Typical, "Science doesn't need to explain why".

Science + Consciousnesses = answers.

Also Einstein back at you.

JupiterKid · 20-06-2013 04:30PM

Two-facedness and general falseness. Yes - I can usually see through you!

Being a turncoat where your loyalty and admiration is not appreciated and is thrown right back in your face.

Patronising and condescending people.

General self-centredness and selfishness. Rudeness and a lack of mannners.

Litter louts.

Raic · 20-06-2013 04:32PM

zonEEE wrote: »

Who said anything about religion? And does science explain the effect we as the observer have on the experiment? What changes the photon from a wave to a particle? I under stand how the experiment works but it still doesn't give the explanation that Einstein and many other physicists died looking for.

If you really care about this issue you just need to learn more about it. I don't know if there is much that I can do by trying to explain it to you as you seem to have your beliefs already. Also, you are confusing the observer effect and the Young's slits experiment. If you understood how the experiment "works" you would not be asking these questions.

The photon does not change from a wave to a particle. Photons are "particles" which follow a wave-like distribution based on probabilities of being at various points. A popular science book might explain this a bit better than I, I think. Each one acts like a particle, but their distribution resembles that of a wave, because they follow a probability distribution. A photon is more likely to appear at a point A than a point B, but the probability of it appearing at B non-zero, so if you fire a bunch of photons you will get a pattern that arranges itself according to the probability, with more being observed at A than B, but there will be a lesser, but non-zero amount observed in other areas than A. This is how the pattern forms.

As for the observer effect, it's a fairly simple idea. If you measure an aspect of an experiment in some way you change it because the simple act of measuring changes the system in some manner. For example, if you want to see what is in a dark corner of a room, you shine a torch there. However, you have now changed the system, as there is light where there was none before.

I also don't think you understand what "Einstein" died looking for. What are you suggesting this was?

Even if science doesn't have all the answers yet (though it can explain what I have mentioned) it does not mean we should invent some spiritual nonsense to explain it. Just because it doesn't have the answer yet doesn't mean it will not find it. Think of how far science has come in the last 100 years. If we had stopped a hundred years ago, stuck our heads in the sand and decided that everything we didn't understand then could never be explained by science then where would we be now, hmm?

I think at this point you need to go educate yourself a bit further on the topics if you actually care. I think you are happy in your beliefs, however, and unwilling to listen to any evidence to the contrary. You should read up on biases such as the confirmation bias. The thread is being dragged off-topic so let's get back.

I do not respect someone when they ignore evidence and reason and refuse to research a topic further when confronted with something that contradicts their long-held beliefs.

endacl · 20-06-2013 04:45PM

zonEEE wrote: »

Typical, "Science doesn't need to explain why".

Science + Consciousnesses = answers.

Also Einstein back at you.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Einstein

Niels Bohr

Take two next time, to catch up after your Einstein mistake.

Sir Gallagher · 20-06-2013 04:49PM

People who say, "happy out".

zonEEE · 20-06-2013 05:00PM

Raic wrote: »

If you really care about this issue you just need to learn more about it. I don't know if there is much that I can do by trying to explain it to you as you seem to have your beliefs already. Also, you are confusing the observer effect and the Young's slits experiment. If you understood how the experiment "works" you would not be asking these questions.

The photon does not change from a wave to a particle. Photons are "particles" which follow a wave-like distribution based on probabilities of being at various points. A popular science book might explain this a bit better than I, I think. Each one acts like a particle, but their distribution resembles that of a wave, because they follow a probability distribution. A photon is more likely to appear at a point A than a point B, but the probability of it appearing at B non-zero, so if you fire a bunch of photons you will get a pattern that arranges itself according to the probability, with more being observed at A than B, but there will be a lesser, but non-zero amount observed in other areas than A. This is how the pattern forms.

As for the observer effect, it's a fairly simple idea. If you measure an aspect of an experiment in some way you change it because the simple act of measuring changes the system in some manner. For example, if you want to see what is in a dark corner of a room, you shine a torch there. However, you have now changed the system, as there is light where there was none before.

I also don't think you understand what "Einstein" died looking for. What are you suggesting this was?

Even if science doesn't have all the answers yet (though it can explain what I have mentioned) it does not mean we should invent some spiritual nonsense to explain it. Just because it doesn't have the answer yet doesn't mean it will not find it. Think of how far science has come in the last 100 years. If we had stopped a hundred years ago, stuck our heads in the sand and decided that everything we didn't understand then could never be explained by science then where would we be now, hmm?

I think at this point you need to go educate yourself a bit further on the topics if you actually care. I think you are happy in your beliefs, however, and unwilling to listen to any evidence to the contrary. You should read up on biases such as the confirmation bias. The thread is being dragged off-topic so let's get back.

I do not respect someone when they ignore evidence and reason and refuse to research a topic further when confronted with something that contradicts their long-held beliefs.

I don't have any long held beliefs, like how can you explain quantum entanglement then what makes one talk to the other? Theres something happening that we do not understand or explain with science. And if you can , I think it time to get off boards and head out to NASA or something. You talk about facts and evidence however science starts with a presumption of the big bang just happening, but still it doesn't explain how it was there in the first place.

So all your facts and evidence is based on a presumption. Nice.

I don't believe in any sort of Christian God or Allah or anything but I do think there's a higher programmer of this simulated reality.

endacl · 20-06-2013 05:04PM

zonEEE wrote: »

I don't believe in any sort of Christian God or Allah or anything but I do think there's a higher programmer of this simulated reality.

Just scanned that vid. Some funny sh1t!!

Sorry man. I thought you were being serious!

What automatically makes you disrespect someone?

Comments