J.C.MacSwell

1 what?

I certainly welcome it being discussed here. My objections are based more on the politicization of it in the wider forum (quite prominently in the Democrat Primaries) and a belief that it is a waste of time and effort to look at the past on that basis (slavery ended essentially with the civil war...few would wish to look at the civil war with the view of potentially ascertaining reparations in 2019) I had asked...Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners? I don't believe anyone would disagree with that. I can't add much more other than to state that I would agree this disadvantage should be reduced where it still exists, if possible, if it can be done in a way that does considerably less harm than good; and to state I believe there are likely better ways to accomplish this than reparations as they are being discussed currently in the US...most of which I see as being promoted for political reasons, and with intent to be divisive for self serving reasons. ...and of course discussing other ways (Universal Basic Income etc) would be getting off topic here.

Frankly. That is a crock. How are questions on implementation not part of the investigation?

If it is recent enough to have directly affected an individual or identifiable group then this might be something for the Courts. If not then it might be something for politicians to address, but I would suggest direct reparations cannot be accomplished equitably. In any case, the reparations issue seems to be quite focused on slavery. (google "reparations" and see what comes up)

OK. Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners? Let's hypothesize that 'x' amount of compensation should be provided to someone 100% descended from slaves, based on slavery alone (setting aside other effects from Jim Crow Laws etc, for now, to have them determined later) How much do I get, as a percentage of 'x', if I am say 75% descended? 50%? 25%? What if I am 25% descended from slaves, and 75% from slave owners? What about 25% each and 50% from more recent immigration? Etc. Etc. Now how much should 'x' be? Then we consider Jim Crow Law affects... Mortgages and access to business loans... How much, if any, I have benefitted from affirmative action... Wouldn't it be more productive for all concerned to focus on doing better going forward?

What obstacles am I putting up? I'm just recognizing some that are there, hidden or otherwise. There are pitfalls that should be avoided if you want to improve outcomes for African Americans. If you can't see, or admit, or accept that then it might not turn out as dandy as you intend. I would hate to see Trump re-elected based on overreach and miscalculation, or a similar backlash after someone gets elected based on it. My concerns are not the obstacles. I have no direct stake in this, nor any say in it.

And vice versa. There is more than one way to view the same thing. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect everyone to subscribe to your viewpoint, especially when you are intentionally framing it in a particular way, regardless of how well intended (or not). Resetting a system to make it perfectly fair for everyone is impractical, even if you could fully trust those charged with doing it. What can be practically accomplished is not always clear, but improvements have certainly been made in the last couple centuries (though sometimes at great cost) ..."you" should not be read as "you" in particular...it applies to all of us

When you accelerate yourself with respect to everyday common frames the amount of energy used may not be very high, and the amount of acceleration with respect to those frames may seem quite considerable. But these same accelerations with respect to your suggested muon frame? The energies measured (calculated) would be very high and the accelerations measured (calculated) relatively minor with respect to that frame.

I think you are unlikely to find anyone here disagree with that. My slippery slope comment was with regard to affirmative action, which I'm not absolutely against, but believe should be applied with caution. It involves favouring some people over others based on their race or gender.

..actually just to get it to "c" It can be useful in some respect...it represents the contribution to the mass of a system, by a particle of the system, when measured wrt the frame of the system. I'm not sure why that tends to be confusing but it's use has certainly has fallen out of favour...as Swansont points out it is redundant if you use total energy.

Right. This is the type of place for discussing it. Again, my remarks were with regard to those who wish to use it for political gain (no one here I would suspect), and my belief that it will result in more negative than positive results in that wider forum...or as you put it...the taking up of shallow positions. Would you like to see Trump win an election over this? Serious question. Obama, in part, won because he refused to get sucked down that road.

Carefully...no running out onto the minefield...AKA triggering the worst of human nature ...AKA acting like a typical politician circa 2019...

Agree...and let's do it carefully...they're minefields!

Just to be clear...my analogy is for comparing to the reparations issue on the American National stage...any reflection on those discussing it here is not intended.

I find it analogous...just add self righteous adults that feels their opinions are more important than the kids. How is it as analogies go?

Yeah. Lets take those kids playing happily in the sandbox and find out what happened yesterday. Let's interrogate them to find out what lead to that scuffle...let's get to the bottom of this...

Looking forward, and trying to avoid repeating the sins of the past, is not the same as "doing nothing". Looking back to access levels of wide scale victimhood and blame, for the purpose of compensation, is not the only way to improve racial equality... and certainly no guarantee of improving racial harmony.

Do you include any one, of any race?

Touche...but emphasizes MGL's point I think the reparations issue has been brought to the for front primarily by the Democrat Primaries, predominantly for political reasons. I trust them more when they are genuinely looking forward, than when looking backward for self serving reasons. One of the few with a consistently positive message (reparations discussed around 10 minute mark):

Surely...the irony of that statement cannot be lost on you...

How favoured? Who gets disfavoured to allow for it? This can create future (and present) discriminatory events (which I can agree with implementing to some extent, but only in the most egregious circumstances...it's a slippery slope)

For the quick maybe...but never for the dead. These are old wounds...efforts should be focused on avoiding similar ones happening in the future IMO.

I think that many would simply prefer to look forward, rather than look back and do all the accounting, or fully trust those attempting to do it. Like reparations after war, it is something that can never be done equitably. No one can ever fairly compensate for the evils of the past on this scale. Picking at scabs isn't going to get the healing done any faster IMO, and I think there is as much of a chance to increase racism as reduce it.

Maybe that... Not the type of people you want let loose in a lab...