Leaderboard

Thank you. Phrasing it that way made me think about this more deeply. I think I would agree with you if there were no context considered. That is, excluding someone based on race, without considering anything else, may very well be racist. When I consider all other factors that went into the decision though, it seems clear to me that Biden showed no racism when choosing a black woman based on her race. Other factors include treatment of blacks in America, history of the Supreme Court, racial make up of the country, politics, and many others. Choosing any minority of course increases the diversity of SCOTUS. Blacks are the largest racial minority so choosing a black person has a larger impact on addressing racial representation than would choosing any racial minority. Given that you can choose only one person for the job it seems reasonable to choose a black woman over other minority races. Given the politics of the country, getting elected was the country's best chance to increase racial diversity, and choosing a black woman made that more likely than pre-selecting, say, a Hmong candidate. And finally, what may look racist in seclusion, looks like just another stepping stone toward diversity when looking at the overall trend Democrats have shown when selecting judges for the courts. So basically, context matters when considering whether Biden acted in a racist manner, and based on the above reasoning, I don't think Biden's pick was racist.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I think the confusion here is in viewing the individual appointment rather than the whole body of the Court. The goal of appointment is to keep political promises and, for presidents who believe in the genuine virtue of diverse backgrounds, to keep and to further a broad demographic. If the body of the Court is largely white, then that demographic is well covered. Done. And if people who interact heavily with the American legal system, like Blacks (a category that is both an ethnicity and an experience), see someone who looks like them on the highest court, that adds to its credibility as representing the whole nation. Appointing KJB is to assign value to her experience of being Black in America - driving while black, shopping while black, buying housing while black, interacting with law enforcers while black, etc. Appointment simply recognizes being Black as a particular qualifying experience. (See my analogy of the mayor putting a homeless person on a task force to help the homeless - the mayor isn't being "anti-domiciled")

I reject your premise. I do get it. I’ve also shown, with evidence… with specific historical dates, and direct quotes from previous presidents… that the fury against Biden feels hypocritical in the way it ignores the long-standing precedent here. No matter what Biden does, even if he hadn’t mentioned a desire to appoint the first black woman, he’d be attacked by political enemies. He could cure cancer itself, and there’d be rage at him for taking away their freedom to get cancer. It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

Red hair is more correlated with very low melanin than other shades. Redheads are most prone to melanoma and other kinds of skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma, squamous, etc.) and sunburn very easily. The only way I can see values of attractiveness attached to this would be in cultures where people favor men looking outdoorsy and tanned and thus where more melanin would help to having that look. There was more tolerance for women having pale skin and culturally embedded steps for them to avoid sun - divisions of labor, sun bonnets and other protective hat fashions, parasols, etc. So a redheaded female would fare better, than a male who due to his very pale skin would spend a lot of time looking parboiled and peeling. At higher latitudes, however, this UV tolerance factor could flip over, as redheads can better absorb vitamin D from the weak sunlight and would be less likely to burn or have cancers. Also, redheads have a slightly higher pain tolerance, which might be of more use to men in traditional cultures. Here's a clip from wiki on that interesting link... The unexpected relationship of hair color to pain tolerance appears to exist because redheads have a mutation in a hormone receptor that can apparently respond to at least two types of hormones: the pigmentation-driving melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH), and the pain-relieving endorphins. (Both derive from the same precursor molecule, POMC, and are structurally similar.) Specifically, redheads have a mutated melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene that produces an altered receptor for MSH.[64] Melanocytes, the cells that produce pigment in skin and hair, use the MC1R to recognize and respond to MSH from the anterior pituitary gland. Melanocyte-stimulating hormone normally stimulates melanocytes to make black eumelanin, but if the melanocytes have a mutated receptor, they will make reddish pheomelanin instead. MC1R also occurs in the brain, where it is one of a large set of POMC-related receptors that are apparently involved not only in responding to MSH, but also in responses to endorphins and possibly other POMC-derived hormones.[64] Though the details are not clearly understood, it appears that there is some crosstalk between the POMC hormones; this may explain the link between red hair and pain tolerance.

It is also somewhat interesting that the issue of meritocracy rarely (if at all) gets raised when white men are under consideration.

Now seems like as good a time as any to repeat this post from the last time we spoke of this nomination: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126564-the-next-supreme-court-judge/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1198820 Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." Stop listening to the shit stirrers and propagandists.

Actual data! https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/redheads-psychology_b_1911771.html Which is surprising to me as redheaded women always catch my eye. On the other hand I would not have choosen red as my own hair color.

It is up to the executive branch to ultimately do what is best for everyone in the USA. If he hadn't kept to this promise, the narrative from the right would just be focused on how he broke a promise and would probably go so far as to accuse Biden of racism for not doing the very thing he is now being called racist for doing. This is why I feel bad for Biden and KBJ, damned if they do, damned if they don't. The real question we should ultimately be evaluating; Is KBJ a good choice for the USA as a whole? I say yes. For very non race related reasons. Because she has spent times as a public defender. Something that has been absent from the makeup of the Supreme Court. It's like an entire aspect of the law has long been neglected a voice on the highest court. Public defenders are overworked, under paid, under funded with a judicial system completely stacked against them. If you can make it through that shitstorm, and be qualified enough to be on the SC, why shouldn't you be given the nomination other motives aside?

When he was looming over a frightened young woman. SFAIK, JFK was never appointed to the Supreme Court and didn't resemble either of the other men.

Yes. Allele frequency changes in northern Europe have likely been mostly due to genetic drift. I don't think the attractiveness factors are significant enough to affect those frequencies. No intersexual preferences on hair would be significant because tastes are so varied and many phenotypic traits besides hair color attract the attention to the opposite sex. From a selective intrasexual competition perspective, the UV sensitivity and skin damage doesn't reduce fertility rates because most of the harm, like carcinomas, comes after people have passed reproductive age. And it certainly wouldn't nowadays, where sunblock is readily available.

I don't mean to be dense, but can you just give me a short summary of the RACIST aspects of Biden's actions? I'm trying to understand how you define racism, or at least the component of racism exhibited by Biden.

I just accepted that the young woman in the video who is worried about her dignity was also named Jordan Peterson or Petersen. That wouldn't be so hard to believe. The confusion was introduced by putting the name in with a presentation of an otherwise unidentified person. The Canadian guy also has a lot to say on this topic, which is, like many of his topics, is way outside his area of expertise.

Of course. I readily acknowledge that there is another sizable contingent of people who have arrived at their conclusions on this topic organically and authentically. No doubt, and in fact I (and I imagine most of us) agree that merit based selection and choices based on competence MUST be prioritized. We’re all totally on the same page there. Zero gap between us. Where things start to crumble for me, however, is why were all of these organic and authentic voices who favor selections based solely on merit and competence silent for the last 200+ years? At each step along the way when every single new justice was being chosen over the centuries… when there were SURELY better suited minority candidates or female jurists who were clearly more skilled, capable, and competent than the endless procession of white men that DID get chosen… where were all of these passionate voices arguing solely for fairness and integrity in the process then? Where was the outrage for presidents not choosing the most qualified candidate when the candidate they chose was a white guy? I mean… There were SURELY many more capable, more competent, more qualified female and minority jurists available to choose, yet not so much as a single “peep” from the “should be based on merit!” crowd that’s been so animated and agitated and outwardly expressive this time. I wonder what’s different this time. Why did all of these well intentioned citizens arguing in favor of a pure and fair process… defending the integrity of our system and the need for color blindness in our justice selection process… why have these same people remained so numbingly silent Every. Other. Time. All throughout our history… when SURELY better choices were available from other demographic groups? Why is it THIS time that they suddenly feel so compelled and called upon to speak out with such passion and such vigor and such holier-than-thou oratory? Gosh… what’s different THIS time? I just can’t put my finger on it. It may forever remain a mystery to us all. You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do.

I am not sure what the confusion here is. Biden needed South Carolina in the primaries. While campaigning there, he courted the Black vote and promised he would select a Black woman for SCOTUS (per the NON-HIRING process described here half a dozen times, would our Polish member please acquaint themselves with the appointment concept) for the purpose of adding a new demographic to the high court. He wasn't virtue signalling, he was making a political deal in order to gain votes and win a key primary state (which then turned the tide of a race where he had been trailing). It wasn't a sly signal, it was saying the intent with a bullhorn, in advance of taking office so voters would understand what they were getting. Then he won by 7 million votes.

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.

How could it be so clean and untarnished if it hadn't sped through the air toward that train station?

You're welcome. See you later. +1

I've been studying Physics on my own, and for the most part this has worked out fine, but every now and then I find myself stumbling into something that I think I understand but it turns out there is a whole bunch of knowledge behind what I'm looking at that I do not have. I appreciate you trying to help me but in reading your response I think this may be one of those times I thought I was playing in the shallow end but I didn't realize I swam out too far. I haven't studied field theory yet and I thought that without knowing a lot about fields I could understand my "electromagnet / permanent magnet " question by staying away from the details of fields and just sticking to the concept of " momentum ". This makes no sense to me. And I'm guessing it's because I don't understand fields and radiation and so on. And so perhaps I need to just tuck away my little question for now and go back and finally get around to studying the basics of field theory. Again, I appreciate you trying to help me, but I think I've swum out too far again on this one. Thank you.

In an ideal society it would be colour-blind, gender-blind etc and the apparent ratios of representation within the SC wouldn't matter, but historically, ethnically-based, gender-based selection bias has been the norm. It has always been and always will be. The difference this time is that the selection is geared towards those groups who appear to be under-represented, rather than the historical pattern. Every group should have a voice and representative on the highest offices of the land to the best available ability. The only really fair way to do it is Lotto-style, but given the extremely small number of 'balls', the outcome will likely not proportionally reflect that of society. People will only think things are fair when the opportunity and representation is equal or proportional. Pragmatically, he should have just have just shut his mouth and picked from his preferred demographic. By doing so he was virtue-signalling to his base and probably pissed off the excluded groups, giving ammunition to the opposition. Not a smart move really. All in all, it's not KBJ's fault, congratulations to her, and another part of society are happier.

I must say I find that argument disingenuous bullshit. I and several others have given good reasons why it makes sense for the make-up of the highest court to have representation from a variety of the social groups whose laws they have to interpret. There is no suggestion by anybody serious that a professionally inadequate candidate has been selected, because of skin colour. Not even Petersen alleges that this candidate is not fully competent to do the job. And the US Senate has agreed she is competent. So it is pure hysteria to suggest anyone is being "stripped of their dignity" by this process. What rot.

The factors pointed in the comments above are possible, and informative, explanations for why such a difference between sexes exists, if it exists. I just don't think it does.

Neither of them excluded on the basis of race. They just haven't been federal judges long enough. Once the third one - a Biden nominee, incidentally - is confirmed, the two older women will have a shot at the next opening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2021/05/13/just-two-native-american-federal-judges-serve-king-may-be-the-third/?sh=37b0d8ee5815

Didn't you make this error before in another thread, and I and others pointed out that this is not affirmative action because it is an APPOINTED POSITION. No one applies for the position, no one is hired. The president selects and can do so with an intent to create a court panel that is representing a full range of life experiences and broader demographic that is more like that of the country. Or, as in the case of Trump, to curry favor with conservative Christians. If Congress finds the candidate to be not qualified, they can vote to reject. Senators may also try tearing down the candidate while striking political poses for their constituents and vote against confirmation based on partisan slander... yet this seems to provoke no outcry from the high-minded Mr Peterson. How odd.

mistermack has been suspended for two weeks for continuing to violate our rule against disparaging whole groups of people.

I’m having trouble figuring out what it actually is you are trying to say, since parts of your posts contradict each other (one example above). I’ll just offer a few words from a GR perspective, since the issue of gravitational self-interaction is subtle and often misunderstood. The starting point is the law of energy-momentum conservation. This is well understood in Newtonian physics, and easily translatable to SR, so long as spacetime is flat. However, if we try to find such a law for curved spacetime, we run into trouble - replacing ordinary with covariant derivatives in the conservation law leaves us with extra curvature-related terms that do not, in general, vanish. Worse still, these terms aren’t themselves covariant, so they depend on the observer. Not good. One way to try and recover a meaningful conservation law is by taking into account not just the energy-momentum of matter and radiation, but also the energy inherent in their gravitational interactions, as well as that of gravity’s own self-coupling. However, there’s a problem - gravitational self-energy cannot be localised. The mathematical consequence of this is that there is no covariant (observer-independent) object that captures this quantity. The best we can do is use what’s called a pseudotensor, which isn’t quite the same as a full tensor, and thus not usually a ‘permissible’ object in GR. Even then, there is no unique choice of object - the one most commonly used is called the Landau-Lifschitz pseudotensor. So what we do is form a certain combination of the pseudotensor (representing the energy in the gravitational field) with the normal energy-momentum tensor (representing energy and momentum in matter and radiation) - and notice to our pleasant surprise that the divergence of the resulting object is covariant, and vanishes. So we aren’t looking at the field itself, but rather at the density of sources in a combination of gravity and matter/radiation. What does this mean? Suppose you have a small 4-volume that contains matter/radiation, as well as its gravitational field (in the form of spacetime curvature); the above means that the overall source density (divergence) of the combination of energy-momentum in matter/radiation and in the gravitational field within that volume comes out as zero, so that there is no net flow of energy-momentum through the boundary of the volume. Note the highlighted terms - we are talking about overall density of sources of a combination of the two contributions, resulting in no net flow through the boundary (Stokes theorem). The combination itself is a sum of tensors, one of which is a complicated function of the metric; nowhere are we implying that there are any exotic sources involved - we are just saying that one must account for both matter and gravity in order to write down a conservation law. We also aren’t saying at this point that ‘total energy is zero’ - only that the combination of the two is conserved in a certain precise sense. This is a subtle and somewhat counterintuitive matter, and easily misunderstood. That’s what is meant when we say that ‘the energy of the gravitational field is negative’. It’s essentially an accounting device that leads to a covariant conservation law in curved spacetime, and not an ontological statement about its nature. It’s a bit like debits and credits in accounting, which make the balance sheet balance; but the nature of money for each individual entry is of course not affected. The same with gravity - we are balancing the books, but the gravitational effect of the field’s non-linear self-coupling remains gravitationally attractive, as of course it must. You can see this in the fact that we get stable vacuum solutions to the field equations - scenarios where there is only gravitational self-energy, and no ordinary sources (T=0 everywhere). Geodesics still converge in these spacetimes, and there’s no inflation or expansion, unless you permit a non-zero gravitational constant (the above reasoning about conservation still holds even then). A trivial example is the ordinary Schwarzschild metric; a less trivial but far more striking example is the gravitational geon. Plus all other vacuum solutions without ordinary sources. These solutions wouldn’t exist if the self-coupling had repulsive gravitational effects.

Missed this...Nice post by the way. Came across an interesting article....... https://www.quantamagazine.org/arik-kershenbaum-on-why-alien-life-may-be-like-life-on-earth-20210318/ Why Extraterrestrial Life May Not Seem Entirely Alien The zoologist Arik Kershenbaum argues that because some evolutionary challenges are truly universal, life throughout the cosmos may share certain features. Arik Kershenbaum, a zoologist and animal communications researcher at the University of Cambridge, thinks that the evolutionary forces that shape life on Earth will produce many similar features in extraterrestrial life. On the website for the department of zoology of the University of Cambridge, the page for Arik Kershenbaum lists his three main areas of research, one of which stands out from the others. Kershenbaum studies “Wolves & other canids,” “Dolphins & cetaceans” — and “Aliens.” Granted, science hasn’t yet found any aliens to study, but Kershenbaum says that there are certain things we can still say about them with reasonable certainty. Topping the list: They evolved. “The bottom line — why animals do the things that they do, why they are the things that they are — is because of evolution,” said Kershenbaum, a lecturer and director of studies in the natural sciences at the university’s Girton College. He argues that evolution is a universal law of nature, like gravity — and that studies of plants and animals here can therefore tell us something useful about potential inhabitants of worlds far beyond Earth. He finds evidence for this in the process of evolutionary convergence, in which unrelated lineages of organisms evolve similar features as adaptations to similar environmental challenges. It’s an argument he presents in detail in his new book, The Zoologist’s Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens — and Ourselves, which draws on comparisons of animals’ physical adaptations as well as his own research (and that of others) into animal communications. more at link................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I sort of anyway see plenty of logic in that article. Particularly if we are inferring comparable intelligent advanced life forms that may reach space-faring capabilites. I made a comment supporting that stance a while back here, somewhere. Isn't basically the human form, two arms, fingers, opposing thumb, etc necessary for constructing cities, engineering projects etc, along of course with the necessary intelligence?

Yep, and that argument was specious, unfounded, and plainly wrong, too. Lol. You should worship Frankenstein, not Jesus or Mo

...including the current GPS location to within a few meters... ? https://www.newsweek.pl/polska/spoleczenstwo/intronizacja-jezusa-chrystusa-na-krola-polski-komentarz/e069lcm

Gotcha. I don’t know why I expected more than the ususal dishonesty when dealing with political subjects on this forum, I’m gullible in this case.

To have some fun with you guys, what the American Christian said, we must look at the written word. What does it tell us? You've been saying the same thing. Of course with Einstein's quote; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/276428-einstein-was-once-asked-how-many-feet-are-in-a If I am successful then you'll know who I am. I will be the guy who read a biography of Einstein at 13 and found it interesting that his father owned a dyno factory and at 17 he wondered what propagated the motion of light. After all, dynos generate electricity but where does it come from? After all, it's motion is propagated by the rotating armature and it's being ground in some location that uses electricity. How bizarre. p.s., American Christians want to know where it is written in their book. It is not written in the "book" to pursue surgery you need. They say I don't need it because doctors say I don't need it. And this is where I'll offer Spain my science experiment for surgery I want. And possibly being able to create jobs won't matter because if I am not allowed to pursue my own life. They might consider because I overcame what "real" Americans that I might know something. And if my science experiment is successful then one day you'll probably be reading about my work which isn't in your book....yet.

Oh boo hoo, leave him alone, let him incriminate himself. swansont isn’t helping either by deleteing sensei’s posts. Its a good thing that the forum has a backup which can always be accessed through a lawyer.

I lost all desire for discussing this with you.