ChemFlunky

People often liken the steps women are asked to take to prevent themselves from getting raped to telling people to lock their doors to prevent being robbed.  But let's follow that analogy a little farther, shall we?

Locking your door is a pretty easy ask.  And some of the things being suggested in the name of rape prevention are similarly easy asks--don't get drunk in a public place without a friend present, be alert if you're walking alone at night, that sort of thing.  But anyone who has ever had a window smashed knows that a locked door does not prevent all robberies. 

There are increasingly difficult or expensive things that can be done to keep yourself from being the target of a robber--barred windows, alarms, large dogs, and the like.  But if you had to do those things to avoid getting robbed all the time, you would probably see that as a problem.  And, in that case, you'd probably be pretty pissed off if the authorities were issuing advice like "Get a dog, and get an alarm system" without *also* saying "And here's the things we're doing to reduce the overall crime rate".

Similarly, when there's a rape problem, and all women are hearing is "Here is all the things you can do to keep yourself from becoming a target of rape", and not "Here are the things we are doing to prevent rapists from trying to rape you", they... tend to get pissed off.

Does that make sense?  Do you see any flaws in it?  Any other thoughts?

I live in the Phoenix, AZ metro area.  I have a tree in my back yard, that was there when I bought the house, and I'm trying to figure out what kind it is.

It has ~30cm bipinnate leaves, with ~6cm sub-leaves and a dense thicket of ~.5cm long, kind of pointy leaflets.  It doesn't seem to have any spines or thorns.  It's evergreen (at least in this climate, if it's from somewhere else it might be deciduous there), and about as tall as my (1-story) house.  No unusual coloring (green leaves, grey-brown bark), relatively smooth bark that kind of has furrows/ridges in it.

It doesn't currently have any flowers or fruits on it, and my memory is kind of crappy, but I seem to remember it having purplish, normal-looking flowers (that is, flowers with petals, not the tassel-looking flowers of acacias or mimosas), though I could easily be mixing its flowers up with the flowers of one of the other plants in my yard.

I can answer other questions, if you have any.

Atheists, feel free to respond to all but the last one.

1. Only an a**hole God would punish people for believing material evidence over a holy book, at least on matters of fact.

2. Only an a**hole God would punish people only for guessing wrong about His nature absent clear evidence of same (eg picking the wrong religion)

3. If God is not an a**hole, then people who don't believe in Her, but do their best to be good, loving, and kind will *definitely* not end up in a worse afterlife than people who profess belief in Him, but don't make any real effort to be good

4. If Hell or some equivalent exists, then if God is not an a**hole, people will only be sent there a. for a specific term relevant to their sins, and/or b. if they are somehow irredeemably evil, rather than just having made a few mistakes or whatever.

5. Only an a**hole God would give a large fraction of the population sexual urges that they *can* satisfy in an ethical and responsible manner, then punish them for doing so (eg masturbation, homosexuality)

6.  God is not an a**hole.

I have fairly oily, and also fairly long, hair.  Normally, I wash it every other day (washing the scalp area, conditioning the rest), and that seems to be about the right amount to keep the top of my hair from getting too greasy, without making the bottom too dry.

Lately, however, I've been having problems with (oily) dandruff.  If I don't wash my hair basically every day, it gets itchy--by the second day, itchy enough that, if I'm not careful, I'll basically scratch my scalp raw.  Even after a day, it's starting to get a little itchy.

Vinegar (usually apple cider vinegar, mostly because it smells nicer) seems to keep the itchiness under control, as long as I use it every day (it's cheaper than dandruff shampoo, and it smells nicer).  I generally pour about a tablespoon on my scalp while I'm in the shower, kind of rub it in, then rinse it off after a few minutes.

I had hoped that, once I got the dandruff under control, I wouldn't have to keep using the vinegar all the time, but that proved not to be the case.

But I'm worried that the vinegar may be doing Bad Things to my hair or scalp if I *do* use it every day.

Am I worrying over nothing?  If it is a problem, is there anything I can readily do to counteract the problem, and/or any other dandruff remedy I can or should alternate with it to give my hair a break?  Any other info?

You could describe me as gender casual.  ...It's not that I don't consider myself to be female (my actual sex), I just don't think it's all that *important*.  Like it's one of a long list of descriptors, and there are a lot of them that are much more central to my identity.

I would be more different as a person if I suddenly wasn't smart, or nerdy, or a nonspecific theist, or on the autism spectrum, than if I suddenly wasn't female.  My being female is just, well, a fact, like me being short, or having blue eyes.

Does anyone else here (male or female) feel similar?

I have an Aerogarden (a little self-contained hydroponic system) that I got as a present, currently growing basil.  I have run out of the little nutrient pellets that came with the pods I was given, and can't really afford specialized hydroponic nutrients.  If I get a generic fertilizer intended for soil-based plants, what would I need to supplement it with to make my basil tolerably happy?

If it makes a difference, I fill it with RO water, to avoid excess calcium buildup, but I live somewhere with very hard water, so if all that's really needed is, like, calcium, I can just add some tap water to the system occasionally.

I have limited funding, but due to the better finances of others, will hopefully soon be going to Hawaii and other tropical destinations. I am also delicious. I would like to arrange some way to not get eaten alive by insects, without literally bathing in insect repellent.

My thought was that I could make myself a "bug suit", using tulle and strips of flannel or something.  The basic idea would be sort of a pullover top, made of two layers of tulle, with the flannel reinforcing all of the seams, and with an elastic waist, elastic neck, and elastic wrists. There would also be a set of loose pants, also with elastic closures, two layers of tulle, and flannel reinforcing all seams.  

Is there some reason I'm not seeing that this would be a terrible or somehow unworkable idea?

When debating abortion, I often see people making absurd assertions.  Let's see if we can agree to some ground rules...

1 People have sex for lots of reasons, often without intending to reproduce.

2 Birth control fails.

3 Kids are not born knowing about sex.  In the absence of decent sex ed, they may believe myths about contraception (eg "rubber"=rubber band), or even not realize that sex leads to pregnancies.

4 Pro-choicers, and even women who have abortions, don't generally "hate babies".  In fact, many women who have abortions already have kids, and may be aborting so that they can continue to care adequately for the kids they have.

5 There is sincere disagreement about when in a pregnancy the fetus becomes a person in a morally meaningful sense.  Either end point (conception, or birth) seems absurd to most people, but there is no obvious bright line between them.

6 Late-term abortions are very rare, and afaik *always* involve something going disastrously wrong (eg microcephaly; aggressive cancer that can't be treated without killing the fetus).  No halfway sane person would endure 7+ months of pregnancy, then abort on a whim.

7 Pregnancy and childbirth are life-changing, and can permanently harm or even kill you.

8 Most pro-lifers don't hate women, any more than pro-choicers hate babies.

9 There are sane, reasonable, moral people on both sides of the debate.  Likewise, there are screaming morons.  Sadly, the screaming morons tend to be more noticeable.

I see a lot of discussion on here (and occasionally elsewhere) about the idea of heavily penalizing people for falsely accusing someone of raping them.  Not just some sort of "contempt of court" or wasting-police-time misdemeanor, but something resulting in serious jail time.

Is there *any* other crime where anyone is seriously advocating serious jail time for falsely accusing someone else of committing it?  Or could this maybe be more about wanting to intimidate rape victims or something, or excuse rape, or otherwise make it easier for rapists to get away with their crimes?

Back in '01, I collected a bunch of predictions about 20 years in the future (so, next year).  I figured 20 years was a large enough time span to be interesting, but short enough that I'd actually remember I'd done it.

One of the predictions I made was that around half of the cars on the road would be powered by something other than gasoline-powered standard internal combustion engines (hybrids, electric, natural gas, fuel cell, whatever, I didn't specify what other than not standard gas-powered ICEs)

Anyone have any numbers on how close to accurate my prediction is, at this point, for either the US or the world as a whole?  (we're not quite to 2021 yet, but I figure the composition of cars on the road won't change *that* much in the next 6 months or so)

1. There are legitimate issues regarding equality and fair treatment for women.

2. A small, but unfortunately loud percentage of those trying to address these legitimate issues are misandrist a**hats who apparently just want to make men suffer.

3. There are legitimate issues regarding equality and fair treatment for men.

4.  A small, but unfortunately loud percentage of those trying to address these legitimate issues are misogynist a**hats who apparently just want to make women suffer.

None of the questions load, on Firefox, and while questions will load on Chrome, I can't seem to either ask or answer questions.

My computer is running Windows 7 Ultimate.  Firefox version is 78.0.1, and Chrome is version 38.0.2125.111

Anyone know what's up?

Police violence and police brutality have been... topics of considerable public scrutiny, and justifiably so, especially recently.  The reasons for police violence and brutality are multiple and complex, but I had a thought that might reduce the incidence, or at least scope, of these problems, and I'd like to know your opinions.

One reason for the increased incidences of, eg, innocent people being shot in the course of a search or whatever is that, increasingly, police have military-style weapons and equipment, because of the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror".  There are reasonable debates to be had about whether police should even have this kind of equipment, but I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument that they do legitimately need at least some access to it in some situations.  The problem is the temptation to use it just because you have it.  If you have a shiny new hammer, a lot of things start to look like nails.

It occurs to me that we may be able to use interdepartment rivalry to reduce the temptation to over-use this equipment, while still having it available if and when it is genuinely needed.  The idea, basically, is this: don't issue that equipment to local police forces, only issue it to a *state-level* police organization, which the local police can call in as needed.  That would add an extra layer of "Do we really want to call in *those guys*?", which might prevent overuse.

Thoughts?

There seem to be at least some men who either are genuinely confused about how not to come across as an obnoxious creep when expressing their interest in the women around them, or are pretending to be thus confused.

I'm willing to give at least some of them the benefit of the doubt.  There are guys out there who have poor social skills, or got led astray by BS pickup-artist crap, or whatever, and genuinely don't know why they're coming across as creeps.

So, fellow womenfolk, what advice would you give to confused dudes who want to express sexual/romantic interest in women on how not to seem like a creep, a jerk, or a sexual harasser when they do so?

Please be as specific/clear/direct as possible, eg don't just say "look for signs of disinterest", say "look for signs of disinterest, like A, B, or C"

1. It's beneficial.  Every baby boy should be circumcised

2. It's harmless.  Parents should have no restrictions on circumcising their sons

3. It's not great.  It would be better if parents didn't circumcise their sons, but it's not that big a deal.

4. It's pretty bad.  There may be reasons it shouldn't be illegal, but it should at least be heavily, heavily discouraged.

5. It should be illegal.  There is no reasonable justification for infant circumcision, so parents should not be allowed to do it.

6. It's child abuse.  Anyone who even tries to get their infant son circumcised should be thrown in jail.

Also, any other thoughts?

To some extent, "information" is one of those nearly meaningless creationist buzzwords, like "kind", that they can re-define on the fly to exclude any example you can come up with.  But there's *some* physical reality to the concept (after all, we talk about DNA being the cell's blueprint--that is, containing the information the cell needs to make and repair itself).

So, for any or all definitions of "information" you care to discuss, can you give an example (theoretical or actual) of how DNA could gain new "information"?  Please be as specific as you can while keeping it understandable to a general audience.

Some examples of possible definitions:

Gaining total genetic material

Gaining the ability to produce a new protein or other gene product

Gaining the ability to produce a new protein or other gene product without losing the ability to produce an old one

Gaining a new macroscale function (eg the ability to digest some particular thing)

This is a serious question.

I'd like you to list at least one, if not more, scenarios/results/scientific tests that would, at least, make you seriously reconsider your lack of belief in a Higher Power.

Theists, if you want to join in, suggest some evidence that would either make you *disbelieve* in the existence of God (or whatever Higher Power(s) you believe in), or make you believe that you were substantially incorrect about the nature of said Being(s) (eg if you're a Christian, what would make you believe that Thor or Zeus were real)

Please don't just answer something generic like "evidence".  Try to describe what that "evidence" might *look* like.

Many of us like the idea of having a universal basic income, such that nobody has to be gainfully employed to survive. However, depending on how the UBI is structured, there are potential problems, including actively discouraging work, encouraging excess reproduction, and possibly other problems I haven't thought of.

So, if we are going to have a universal basic income, how would you want to avoid the potential pitfalls?

I'm not talking about those who legitimately can't get flu shots for medical reasons, or financial reasons, or who have a severe phobia of needles or the like, just people who either can't be bothered, or think vaccines are evil or whatever.

I think anyone looking at the matter fairly and with an open mind will admit that feminists, and men's rights activists, both have at least some legitimate issues they are raising.  There are ways that women are discriminated against and/or treated badly in our society, and there are also ways that men are discriminated against and/or treated badly.

And, I think anyone looking at the matter fairly will also agree that *some* feminists and MRAs are, well, somewhere between not as nice to and absolutely horrible to their non-target gender, and also inclined to entirely dismiss even those legitimate issues as false or unimportant.  Others are not necessarily any worse than the general population, but also not necessarily any *better*, either.  And some--probably a minority for both groups, but not necessarily a small one--are legitimately egalitarians with a primary focus on one gender, and are better than average at addressing the other gender's issues.

But, in general, which group, feminists or MRAs, do you think has a better overall record re: the other gender's issues, and/or of fair treatment of the "non-target" gender?