It only ‘matters’ to the extent that OP claimed it doesn’t run in families, and you seemed to be claiming it does ‘because’ you had 3 -5 relatives that died from it. All I’m saying it’s that anecdotal evidence doesn’t refute an assertion like that.

If you’d said ‘it does run in families and here is a statistically significant sampling across variable x, y and z’ i wouldn’t be arguing, I’d likely be reading an article about it. But it’s worth pointing out when people use unscientific reasoning in a forum where other people might be influenced by an argument if no one calls out the fault in logic.

Seems like it. It was worded a little unusual so not terribly surprising, but technically you said it’s a deal breaker if they’re not into x, y and z. :)

Good things to future out since cloud to cloud lightning is significant and if the island is large it would likely be in the path often. Not an expert for for story telling, might make sense that it is handled relatively benignly. Maybe the coral is a poor path to follow or is very attractive, making the strikes really frequent and light, hardening the sides and creates a pocket of relatively low energy in the surrounding clouds.

Wow, those are deal breakers if they’re not into them?

Just funny that you are saying that you can’t relate to someone because they can’t relate to someone. Empathy isn’t just about feeling other people’s pain, it’s about being able to understand things from another perspective.

Not being able to relate to them is literally relating to them.

The question wasn’t wether there are inheritable health issues, diabetes, some cancer, etc are demonstrated to have a heredity component. I’m not even arguing that heart disease ‘isn’t’ hereditary, I’m just saying that in the context the argument, you saying that several of your family members had it doesn’t prove that specific thing is inherited. Everyone does of something and the fact that you can find 3 to 5 people in your lineage that died of that does point to it being inherited.

Is there a reason you have to interact with this person? It seems like if you’re in a situation where her response comes with an LOL, your best course might be just to not engage. If you’re in a position of responsibility with teaching her how to interact then gently repeating that respecting how someone would like to be addressed is probably warranted, even if it doesn’t seem terribly effective the first (many) times.

Shouldn’t exist. That’s different.

Their belief system is based on an a being that can’t be sense that banished people to infinite torment for following instincts that he designed them with, then sent part of himself to be tortured and killed as a sacrifice to make up for a curse he put on them, but only if you it was necessary. A ridiculous age of the earth is hardly the craziest thing schools like this teach.

Looks like almost exactly half of the red ‘circle’. He may not agree that the circle is accurate.

You’d be surprised at the number of nurses and doctors with wildly unscientific views. You really don’t have to understand how things work to be successful doctor, and you don’t have to understand them at all to be a mediocre nurse. Not sure you have to understand much even to be a good nurse.

This isn’t to say there aren’t a lot of very smart doctors and nurses, just that you can get by without being particularly good, especially with the shortage in the US

That’s like saying black lung runs in families because your family all worked in the mines.

Funny? Do you think religious schools don’t exist?

Wonder how many new ones it’s creating.

Scientist: ‘Look at this science thing that is definitely true because DNA!’ Narrator: ‘It wasn’t true’

Was this description meant to be ironic, or was that accidental?

Just a double-decker couch, nothing to worry about.

Probably both, except within the bounds of easily ‘random’ bounds. Supposing it were possible for a mammal to be green, it wouldn’t matter of green were ‘better’, unless it happened at the right time. Orange could have won out simply because it was good enough to do one thing (camoflauge for pretty) and didn’t have enough downside to message that benefit (high visibility to hunters or less valuable prey). Heck, a gene that turned a lion invisible could have turned up and it wouldn’t be guaranteed to carry forward even if it didn’t have any downsides if the random recipient also happened to be clumsy or unlucky and died of some random injury or disease.

Evolution doesn’t really have any tools that aren’t random, at least until intelligence came around to provide other ‘non natural’ paths, though of course those are just as natural as the others, just that we think we’re special and above nature.

Hard to follow. Are you saying you’re living with type A introverts, and that is causing some problems for you? You say this type prefers quiet activities but no concern for stillness…are you being distracted by their quiet but active activities or something?

I mean the math checks out, but holy crap, you’re 43, but at 19 ‘9/11 hadn’t happened yet…’

Yeah, or maybe mocking a group that is a little too gullible and full of itself with what is arguably a broadly harmless prank isn’t the same thing as tricking someone vulnerable into drinking bleach to make friends or something.

Honestly, tricking someone into eating something many people eat willingly isn’t the moral quagmire you seem to think it is.

Fair, but looking both ways would be like ‘watch out for wood that is discolored or seems sketchy in any way’, your comment was more like ‘it is absolute bullshit to encourage anyone to walk across the street for any reason and you should feel bad!’