Ten oz

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. No one in this thread has stated that anyone should be prevent by law from saying "stupid woman". Anyone can say it. As a consequence of saying it people might be offended and call them out for it.

Where in any of my posts since we found agreement did I attack your character or motive? Do you no longer agree that individuals should be treated individually?

I don't think Holder would win the nomination. I do think the way Holder deals with the whataboutism and crying wolf from the right would help every other candidate fortify their own campaigns.So I see benefit in it. I also think that Holder running will help dispel the idea that there's difference in policy goal between the black community Holder, Obama, or Democrats at large regarding criminal justice. The Right will help Holder deliver that message by labeling him anti-police. The Black community isn't anti-police. Democrats are not anti-police.

An ad hominem is when one directs arguments towards a person rather than a position. Stating we found agreement on something doesn't direct an argument against you in any way shape or form. If you feel it did please explain how so and I will try to clarify. Do you no longer agree that individuals should be treated individually? A person can mention anything they want. They just don't get to play the victim if it gets them in trouble.

In my experience the internet is far more racist, sexist, and all around combative than the real world. I see arguments launched, even here in this thread, that I do not believe people would launch in person. Outside of the anonymity of the internet I can't think of a better reason for this. You concede that in real life most would just apologise and move on. Yet here we are 23 pages in with people arguing otherwise to varying degrees. I am in the U.S. and am not well versed on all of May's political positions. From what I am familiar with I don't like her. Had Corbyn just called her Stupid I would have no opinion on the matter. No offense every has to be taken by anyone and nothing every has to be made public. People do get offended and things do become public. That is just a reality of life. If it never rained I wouldn't need to owe an umbrella but it does rain so I do. Corbyn is not obligated to do anything. He can call her a "stupid woman" again if he chooses. I am not implying otherwise. The arguments here are going back and forth about whether or not people should be offended. Considering people are offended Corbyn should expect more people to be offend if he were to do it again. Whether or not people should be or should not be offended is irrelevant to me. According to a Sky News poll in the UK 56% of people feel the comment was NOT sexist and 70% of people think an apologise is in order, Link,

We agreed that despite averages it is best to treat individuals individually. I accept that agreement without needing to understand or comment on the rest.

At the time of his election (landscape has changed since) Bill Clinton was moderate as they come. Looking back there really wasn't much ideological difference between Clinton, Dole, and H.W. Bush. It didn't help Clinton pull support across the aisle. Likewise with Uber pragmatic Obama. In 2008 Edwards and Richards represented the liberal wing of the party. On key issues like marriage equally Obama and Hillary Clinton were the most conservative among the field. Let's not forget that the ACA (Obamacare) was previously a Republican proposal Obama selected because he thought it could win support across the aisle. It didn't win Obama support across the aisle. Republicans screamed bloody murder over the ACA. Whomever the next Democratic President is, whenever they serve, it is safe to assume they will face combative Republicans in Congress determined to subvert them on everything. Cory Booker isn't going to win any support across the aisle on anything. Cory Booker is great on Criminal Justice. I have seen him address the issue in person on a two occasions and was impressed both times. He is able to personalize the issue for a broad audience. However I don't think any of his policy ideas on the issue differ from Warren or Harris. I also think with Harris's background she is far more qualified to oversee a criminal justice policy change that would have the biggest impact. She was the Attorney General of the countries most populated state. Cory Booker might have a softer touch discussing Criminal Justice issue but I doubt that would translate into policy the same way Harris's no fuss experienced approach would. Then there is Holder. He was the Attorney General for the whole country. If Holder runs I can not imagine Booker bringing anything but fluff to a serious Criminal Justice debate between himself, Harris,and Holder. Don't get me wrong; If Booker is the nominee I will send his campaign money and vote for him. I like Cory Booker.

I don't really understand your post as it is a step backwards. I thought we had already found agreement and moved past all this?

I hope neither run. Biden handled Anita Hill poorly and in the wake of Kavanaugh I think it is best he doesn't run. He had his day. As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running. His policy positions are already fully represented. I don't want the primary to turn into a circus with a hundred candidates. Harris and Warren are both A+ candidates in my opinion. From a tactical standpoint I hope Holder runs. I suspect the right would love to pile on and obsess over him. That would provide a window for others to get going prior to fielding full scale attacks. I also think Holder would remind some moderates of how much better things use to be just a couple years ago. Holder is a seasoned veteran at dealing with the rights propaganda and others can learn a thing or two from him if he runs.

Harris, Warren, and Castro are the only ones I know much about. I am aware of Gillbrand but not much more than that.

Here in the U.S. we do not have a Sec of Defense or Chief of Staff, the National Security Director has mixed messages about Syria, and there is a partial Government shutdown. We don't seem to have a clear direction for U.S. policy regarding Syria. Meanwhile Russia seems to be imposing it's authority in Syria.

I think J.C.'s last post put our side discuss back on track. If it absolutely matters gender specifically. I don't think it matters absolutely does with regards to strength as some women are stronger than men. One shouldn't be using averages to make individual determinations about individuals.

When interacting with individuals objective truths about the average man or woman doesn't really matter. It is best to focus on them individually. It is an objective truth that most people in North America are Christian but that doesn't mean one should assume anything. Religion is a sensitive subject and people will get offended. I am sorry I failed to give you the last word. Your last post clarrifed your position better for so I felt should respond.

I think on some level this is a bit of a contrivance. You are trying to imply that men are naturally stronger and therefore may potentially have some advantage over a woman in certain career fields and asking a hypothetical about what would happen if a woman may objected to it. Not all men are stronger than all women and you're ignoring experience, skill, education, and etc. In my opinion any welder, electrician, or so on who needs to muscle a project is doing something wrong. I would rather work with a skinny & weak electrician who knows what they are doing than a big and strong one who doesn't. I have never found myself wishing the people working with me or for me were stronger. Strength of individual personnel has never been a limiting factor for me at work. Size overall has been limiting factor before. I have been is situations where I was too large to comfortably/safely fit between or behind pieces of equipment to inspect or complete work. For electrical and electronic work in particular small hands can make a project easier. On average across a individual ethnic population a female would have smaller hands but here in North America we don't live in isolated ethnic populations. The average woman in the Netherlands is larger than the average male in India for example. Depending on one's genetics they may be bigger or smaller. These aren't things which should change how one is treated. Anyway I will let you have the last word on this as I fail to see what difference how much a man vs a woman can lift makes with regards to using language which offends people.

Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., announced on Wednesday that he was entering the Democratic presidential primary. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-south-bend-president.html

@Raider5678, here is a link list all the bill AOC has co-sponsored, Link . What specific policies she supports do you have a problem with?

I am an Engineer and I have worked in many Shipyards as a matter of fact. I have also worked underway on a few ships. I will be working on a Ship out of Puerto Rico starting this summer. For safety reasons people are not encourage to lift things they are not comfortable lifting and there is a variety of equipment available to assist with moving heavy stuff. The "Get'er done" attitude only leads to people getting hurt. I get the impression that perhaps (correct me if I am wrong) you have not worked in such environments or perhaps only at amateur levels . An injury slows things down and costs money. "Fast is slow and slow is fast" is a common saying where I work. It is a take on the Marine Corps "slow is smooth and smooth is fast". Both the men and women I work with are expected to know best practices and follow all safety procedures.

In every environment I have worked people are not encourage to lift anything alone. The liability of someone getting hurt outways the potential benefit. So in my experience when I oversee projects that involve physicality I assign spotters, safety personnel, and outline equipment (Jack's, chain falls, carts, etc) to be used. Otherwise I am opening myself up to criticism if someone gets hurt. I am not avoiding your question it is just too hypothetical for me. I can't relate to it.

People are all individuals. A book outlining how to speak to everyone without causing offense will never successfully be written. I think it is best to accept people as individuals and treat them accordingly. If a person says they are offended just apologise and move on. Failure to do so will result in some sort of animosity.

So we agree that you are attacking her? She is small potatoes. A junior member who represents a district you have no affiliation with. Why are you taking the time to read up on her and launch attacks. Lots of other stuff going on which does effect you. The govt is shutdown at the moment for example.

Of course Right, but since you are attacking AOC you do. I didn't mention the media so I don't owe you an answer to that question.

I would apologise and leave it at that. People are at work to work and not have lengthy discussions about such matters.

Relative to those you are arguing with it does.

I never implied politicians weren't at each other's throats. Rather I implied it is part of Corbyn's chosen profession to deal with such publicity and opposition. Whether the offense is feigned or deeply felt doesn't matter in my opinion. You are agruing no one was offended at all yet there was public outcry in Parliament follow by international debate over it. Clearly people were offended. Apologizing and moving on would've been the best response in my opinion. What if you said "strong woman" at work and a co-worker pulled you aside and said it made them uncomfortable, how would you respond? I think it would be foolish to argue with them that they have no right to feel uncomfortable.

You for example. Relative to the posters you are going back and forth with in this thread do you not lean more Conservative?