Leaderboard

Because America has a precedent based judicial system maybe? Here are the facts of the situation as I see them: 1. Biden said that this time around, a black woman will be appointed. 2. Biden did not say, that ONLY black woman will be appointed in the future. 3. Most of the arguments used here to claim that this was an illegally and ethically problematic appointment via racial discrimination, came from Senator Ted Cruz. 4. Ted Cruz had NOTHING critical to say, when Trump explicitly told everyone that his nominee would be a woman. 5. Race and Gender are BOTH protected characteristics. 6. Biden only nominates, he doesn't confirm. Since Senators ultimately decide who gets the job, any claims of discrimination can only be directed at them. 7. So far, Republican senators have even admitted she is qualified enough for the job, but they will still vote against her. So if competency isn't the main stay of THEIR selection criteria, they can only be basing their decision on two things, Political Partisanship and Race. In conclusion, all I want from my friends here whom are on the opposite side of this to answer for me; How is the appointment of the FIRST Woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme Court, racist or discriminatory, when her appointment has not implicated in any way, that a white man will never get the nomination and confirmation again?

The world generally speaking, saw Trump as a coniving, crazy, raving right wing dangerous, blithering idiot. It certainly was not hard to expect the next President to be saner then the Trump rock bottom choice. As an Aussie, I quite like Biden and cannot understand why his popularity is so low in the poll. My only criticism, is that it would be far better if he were a younger man, or that the democrats did not have someone younger to handle the job. I have no qualms about Biden nominating a black woman, and again see it simply as a matter of public recognition for a large section of the American community. It seems a real non event from where I'm sitting.

By 'we', I mean us on this forum, not idiots like T Cruz. I am pretty sure most of us, on this forum ( Just to be clear ), expect a much saner Presidency with J Biden.

Who's we? The criticism largely comes from quarters that favoured Trump's decisions and style of leadership. The gist of the objection is not "He's not enough better than Trump." but that "He's doing what all presidents do."

Sorry. I meant the next-to-zeroth-order correction. If you Taylor-series expand you immediately see it's a maximum, because there0s no 1st-order correction and the 2nd-order correction is negative. That's what I mean, and sorry for the confusion.

This is so, if my understanding of what constitutes a religion is thrown away. What is a defining feature then? How do I know what is and what is not a religion? Can we apply that test to Marxism (because I know about it more than I ever wanted)?

It's no secret she loves Putin. Her party borrowed 9M Euros from a Russian bank to fund local elections in 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/08/vladimir-putin-viktor-orban-eu-marine-le-pen If she could withdraw from NATO, she'd be forced to buy weapons from Russian arms dealers to plug the gaps in French defense. Like Boris in the UK, Le Pen seems to want to ruin publicly funded programs in favor of capitalist opportunities for the wealthy. As an American, it looks all too familiar. Russian will certainly use international hackers to pollute the French elections with praise for Le Putin.

What-about-ism. Classy.

OK. This answers my questions clearly. You don't know arithmetic. And you don't know the meaning of being Newtonian. You don't know. You just talk. Talk and drink, drink and talk. Don't bother to apologize again - this was the second time already - or even reply. I will not talk to you anymore. Ever.

Determining death has considerable legal consequences so it is inevitable that death must in practice have a definition in law. This legal definition, drafted by legislators as it will be, may differ somewhat from one country to another. But you cannot use that to draw any scientific conclusions. The law is not science. The law sets up rules that society agrees to be bound by. As such it may have to take account of a range of human, social, religious and political factors as well as science. For science, you need reproducible evidence. Arguing about law is utterly irrelevant. You've been told several times how death is established scientifically, but you seem to want to cling on to the notion that a person can be revived after circulation has stopped and brain activity has ceased for an extended period. This is contrary to current understanding. It is you that needs to substantiate that claim, by producing well-attested evidence of people whose brain activity has definitively been established to have ceased for a period of time, but who nonetheless have been revived. So far you have not done so. All I have seen from you is a collection of anecdotes, not involving any proper scientific monitoring, taken from newspapers etc. and a lot of argument. That is nowhere near good enough. You have not made your case. Where is the data?

In what way "karma is practically Newtonian"?

The easiest way to visualise this since the circle is symmetric is to consider the simpler function f(p) = pe-p, where p = (x2 + y2) any plane section will have this form. When p = 0.5 f(p) is approximately 0.3 When p =1, f(p) is approximately 0.4 When p = 2 f(p) is approximately 0.2 and f(p) is continuous so there is a max between p = (x2 + y2) = 0.3 and p = (x2 + y2) = 2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+(x^2%2By^2)exp((-x^2-y^2)) The intuitive idea you can get from highlighting x=1 and y=1 curves: And another analytic tool is using polar coordinates, \[ \left(x^{2}+y^{2}\right)\exp\left(-x^{2}-y^{2}\right)=r^{2}\exp\left(-r^{2}\right) \] and then do a Taylor-series expansion around r=1 in a small positive parameter \( \varepsilon \), \[ r=1+\varepsilon \] \[ \varepsilon>0 \] \[ r^{2}\exp\left(-r^{2}\right)=\left(1+\varepsilon\right)^{2}\exp\left(-\left(1+\varepsilon\right)^{2}\right)=\left(1+2\varepsilon+\varepsilon^{2}\right)\exp\left(-1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{2}\right)= \] \[ =e^{-1}\left(1+2\varepsilon+\varepsilon^{2}\right)\exp\left(-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{2}\right)= \] \[ =e^{-1}\left(1+2\varepsilon+\textrm{order}\left(\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)\left(1-2\varepsilon+\textrm{order}\left(\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)= \] \[ =e^{-1}\left(1-4\varepsilon^{2}\right)+\textrm{order}\left(\varepsilon^{2}\right) \] And, as you see, the first-order correction is negative no matter what orientation with respect to the origin (just where the bump is) you place yourself. Same goes for 1-epsilon, of course.

ID isn't a feature of most religions. Like I mentioned above some religions don't have a creation myth, and some explicitly refuse to answer cosmological questions such as this. Even something like karma, which literally means action or more generally consequences of action, can be easily understood in a naturalist framework - recourse to the supernatural is not a defining feature to the belief, even if it is a common one.

Because creating it immediately requires making sure no one has any opportunity, short of some omnipresent God stepping in. On the topic at hand, how would you suggest it be done without throwing the 9 justices out on their asses? Or put another way, who do you trust to create and maintain your version of equal opportunity? Maybe it might be better to actually focus more on that, in a more equitable manner than currently exists. Not that it's easy, but actual progress can be made.

Not that Affirmative Action has much - or, really, anything - to do with Jackson's appointment, but so long as you're in selective favour of it, this bit's interesting: Toward, always moving, ever so slowly, toward. Why not just have equal opportunity now, stop bitching about it, and move on to fix the police, the infrastructure, the health care system and the slums?

You do this all the time. You are asked a simple question and refuse you answer. You said I claimed to "know" something and when I asked you to show me the quote, you started your dance. Would have been much simpler if you had just said "Well, it seems you didn't actually claim to KNOW that." Is it that hard to admit a mistake on your part?

Incorrect. I don’t actively believe in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy. I don’t actively in the nonexistence of flying unicorns. I just lack belief they DO exist. Same for your god and all of the countless other versions of god laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. I simply don’t believe in them. I don’t actively believe in their nonexistence. Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying “not collecting stamps” is a hobby or “not playing golf” is a sport. It’s plainly silly and remedially false.

@zak100 https://www.google.com/search?q=ERROR+1819+(HY000)%3A+Your+password+does+not+satisfy+the+current+policy+requirements

This is a thread where we are discussing an on-going war that has killed thousands and displaced millions from their homes. Yet some of us think it wise to devote a whole page to discussion about who knows what, or who didn't answer a question, in an attempt to one-up each other in a discussion forum. Petty squabbles should not be this important ( even to you guys involved ), stay focused on the big picture ( Ukrainian- Russian squabble ). Again ? Maybe LaurieAG will say "Make up your mind, France"

Let's not get into a mologistic argument.

You are definitely wrong. I recommend you to check out the NDE's literature.

I would too! People are treated like little creampuffs of innocence but they are not. Lots of people deserve to suffer greatly. Most people are really casual about having a "torture all the innocents" mentality and it's not a thing of saveth make If they're going to feed on the injustice of the government not punishing them, you know... *Mad scientist laugh* Maybe a bit of "justice" will toughen them up for the next time they're keeping secrets Besides, you never know how many magic spells you'll break but you can always assume that it's going to be lots and lots

We all have something we don't want to admit, but I forgive myself; seems more rational to me, than blaming someone else...

Then you ignore the question of life and it's value...