Leaderboard

To further clarify the point I didn't make very well earlier... By definition, conservatives tend to conserve and be somewhat averse to change, especially social change. Thus, I think the objections being raised by some about Biden's pre-selection announcement have something to do with the simple fact that we are progressing. Since conservatives tend to be somewhat averse to change they will often do a lot more analysis and questioning about all the trappings surrounding a change that is happening. When gay marriage was such a hotbed of debate, conservatives tended to question whether there could simply be a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, or whether or not gay marriage would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage', or why gay people couldn't take it slowly to let straight people get used to the idea over time. Progressives on the other hand were more inclined to simply say 'just let it be legal already!' And now that we've had gay marriage for a while, those concerns conservatives had no longer seem so significant to many. A more recent example is Hollywood's move to be more racially and culturally aware when choosing actors for a role. For example, not too distant arguments that you should pick the 'most qualified' candidate for the role regardless of skin color/culture were ignored, and very few people complained, when Steve Spielberg announced ahead of time that he would choose an Hispanic for the role of Maria in West Side Story. And just to show how important a qualification skin color was to Spielberg for the role, he chose Rachel Zegler, who had exactly two previous credits to her name, one of them being a podcast. Thus, I think that recent concerns raised regarding Biden's pre-announcement are part of the nature of the conservative mind, are part of the process we must go through as changes occur, and will not seem to be very important in the not too distant future. Similarly, I suspect that in the future conservatives will not be as concerned as they are today about trans-gender athletes, pronouns, politically correct language, and incandescent light bulbs.

Whataboutist arguments are hollow and feeble, especially this one. You're basically saying, "Better the devil you know...". Are devils all that Russia has to offer its people?

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with that, except that most folks involved in hiring know that if one wants to hire from a smaller pool (i.e. black woman) it is necessary to do focused searches. Entirely open searches simply favour the status quo. In that regard the process would not be more honest as it means that you suggest an open search, but are not actually using that process.

Dark matter works in conjunction with existing gravitational fields and modifies them as if 'hidden' ( dark ) additional matter is present. Dark energy works where there is scarce matter, and little, if any, gravitational bonding.

DM was proposed to explain the apparent anomolous rotation of galaxies. DE was proposed to explain the acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe/space/time.

Just reproduced the experiment with a capful of Ariel Original in a saucepan of freshly swirled water. The powder takes a significant time to wet thoroughly (about a minute). So while many of the individual components may well have densities equal to or exceeding that of water, under what I understand to be the OP's conditions, it appears that the detergent 'phase' while it exists retains a substantial air content, significantly suppressing its density. Putting numbers to this would be very difficult, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Until wetting and dissolution is complete, the detergent sits in the central vortex of the swirling liquid.

Ah ok, thanks for the summary Down with women's sports!! Apologies. You're right I shouldn't jump in on the end of an old thread without reading it all. I did read a fair chunk, then got tired and just posted. I find the whole subject a bit depressing sometimes and just vented.

https://theconversation.com/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports-89305 https://thevarsity.ca/2017/07/31/why-do-we-still-divide-sports-by-gender/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-race-to-replace-the-binary-of-mens-and-womens-sports-11583769636 In fact, it's rare for 'folks' to agree on anything at all.

It is so weird. Folks agree that there should be a women's league as there are physically different and therefore have disadvantages in many sports. Yet if one wants to target those differences as a criterion to create different leagues, suddenly it is impossible to classify those differences. Apparently only the classifiers used in the past, are the only ones we can use forever. Well, it would explain why Americans still use imperial units, I assume.

If you are going to resort to hyperbole please start reading the thread from the beginning. This is a serious discussion and we are treating it as such.

If one chooses to ignore easily-obtained facts, presenting one’s view as informed opinion is not a position arrived at in good faith. Propaganda is not presented in good faith. Positions where you hold different groups to a different set of standards are not held in good faith. People are entitled to their opinions, but opinions are generally based on underlying facts. If you arrive at a different position that I do, that’s one thing. But if someone bases their opinion on things that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny, I am entitled to think they are full of crap. And people doing this professionally are advancing an agenda. They know they’re full of crap (or they’re just incredibly incompetent) You deleted the example I gave, so perhaps you could provide a counterexample of how supportive the GOP is in this regard. I’ll save you some time - their views on immigration and education probably won’t be helpful

I'm just happy I know enough to call it a receptacle and not an outlet.

He's wrong. They're all lamps, but some are configured as bulbs (the bulbous ones), some as floods or spots or reflectors. They're either incandescent or luminescent.

With the exception of an Polish attempt all assassination attempts on Hitler were IIRC conducted by Germans and in the later years increasingly as an attempt to save Germany. The big issue is of course that alternative history speculations are just that. It is unclear what the result would be. One might even speculate on wildly successful eugenics (and genocide) plans throughout the world (which were heavily promoted and were very popular in the USA and Canada) without the horrors of the holocaust laid bare. Hitler wasn't an outlier, he just happened to be the one getting into power. As Phi mentioned, what if nazis in the US became more influential? America First was coined by US Nazis, afterwards, who rapidly lost influence once the US entered the war.

I appreciate the clarification, because the pre-announcement was strictly about skin color and gender. Nothing else was mentioned. I still don't see how an interpretation, or subjective perception, can be in 'bad faith'. You don't get to judge other's perceptions in that way, even if they don't agree with yours. All of them ? Do I need to ask for evidence.or at least a citation ? That seems a rather broad generalization. It could also be that some people ( not conservative or liberal ) feel that a party and President who champions diversity and equality, without discriminating according to skin color and gender, would choose to give the impression of discriminating, according to those very factors, in the pre-announcement. While not being a big deal ( to me, anyway ) it does seem to be a poor choice.

How would an immoral win in Germany have affected the path of the Allied countries? Would the US have stopped with just two atomic bombs in Japan? With worldwide approval of using immoral tactics to win wars, I'd imagine the US would swing towards authoritarianism much sooner than it has. We'd have had a Trump in office instead of an Eisenhower, or a Kennedy, or a Carter. There's very little that's moral about warfare, but when you defend your country's borders, you're also defending it's fundamental values.

You are unclear on the concept, yet presume to speak for everyone; your 'reasonable' values authorize you to be the sole spokesman for the social norms of the entire 'westernized world. (Which has cast up some real doozies in bossmanship lately.) You interpret 'criminal' as 'bad' and run with your own misconception. Sentence by sentence, you can twist another person's words --- and if the other person disagrees, they are the ones being dishonest.

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

Why thank you iNow, you've always balanced your arguments so well through bias free rhetoric that I will give your recommendation a thought. Maybe later.

Youre right, I missplaced the word ethinicity I should have used environment instead. I don’t think we did this formally Stringy, I must ask you what pronouns you use, I don’t want to insult you by mistake. Mine are he/him today. I will also inform you what sex I am when this thread runs its course and I finally find out.

Transgender seems to be something that can be honored, not disparaged, as something unusual and having unique attributes. Trans-women and cis-women are not the same. They do share something, in terms of a culturally-mediated femaleness, but I see no reason they couldn't recognize and respect each other's differences while still having solidarity on some matters. It's odd to live in a society that spends so much time declaring the virtues of diversity, yet at the same time wants to stuff everyone into two simplistic categories. Of course, few people really want true diversity. They want a world where everyone is conservative or liberal, Dem or Repub, gay or straight, elite or common, etc. Saves time and brain-strain. Humans have a positive fetish for dichotomies and saying faux-pearls of wisdom that start with "there are two kinds of people in the world." I suspect that is why some people go for the SA surgery, because they know being a chick with a dick will be too weird for their peer group. If we were really open to diverse forms of sexuality, then being a chick with dick would be cool and identity wouldn't have to be so firmly attached to particular anatomy. Gender dysphoria can be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed with physical alterations until the person is grown. Before you all jump on that: 1. Just my opinion. I'm not declaring any final or scientific insight here. What I do know is that decisions made during the turbulence of adolescence are not always great decisions. 2. Also the opinion of mental health professionals I've known and respected in my work, and I will add quite progressive in their views on other matters. So, no, being opposed to 14 year olds getting a sex change is in no way being opposed to sex change or thinking it's ungodly. Disclaimer: this is, for me, a very rough and off-the-cuff post, so take this as coming from someone still trying out all the concepts and having reached no solid answers on the sports league/division questions. (I doubt there are enough trans people at most high schools to form a separate league, though...)

😅Gee dimreeper, I know you can do so much better! I mean that besides being irrelevant, is so wrong, even I can dismantle it sentence by sentence. Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians? Like I said, sentence by sentence.

Is that your attempt to dismantle Kipling's poem, line by line? (very grown up)... To you maybe, but then you're not of that culture, so how do you know what they mean by the word criminal? If they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's, just banished people i.e. no bad Indian's, in their society. We have thieves because we have poverty and we have jail's because we have thieves. As you said in your Anzac thread "Lest we forget"... If a culture makes a business out of prisons, they'll need an excuse to populate them.