Raider5678

Bank Accounts, not social security. Slip up of words.

You'd think they could do the same with social security.......

Like? I mean, I see people lose their life savings every day because their stuff gets hacked. Not sure if I trust the level of security we have so far with literally all the money I have.

There are 63 genders, including things like male, female, chimeras, and micro-penises. https://apath.org/63-genders/ What are tell-tale signs of all 63 of these genders? I'd say no. There would really be no point to it. I mean, if you want to express your gender in any meaningful way, the only ones that the majority of people will even comprehend are male/female related. If I were to put Chimera into the gender section, I don't think it would mean anything to anyone here. It's kinda pointless. I also don't feel we should remove it, because it's an option, not a requirement. Don't want people to know your gender? Don't bother saying it. Problem solved.

Politics and Ethics haven't? It seems more like simply stating a fact. I don't think many people on here are going to get emotional by the fact that the Italians were annoyed at the Scandinavian Vikings . They have a hard time staying out of potentially political discussions in other topics as well. We still have them. Ethics, for example. And I'm saying we already have those, and they don't cause massive problems that I'm aware of. Why can't we have a history section?

But it's not really about human history.

Why is there no forum for History?

I'm not sure I follow exactly. Could you elaborate? Do you mean it's hard to make, you don't want to have to figure out a history section, or etc?

Hello guys, So, a lot of my time is spent reading about history, studying it, writing about it, etc. And I mean a vast majority of my time. And while I know this is a science forum, I feel that if we can have a politics section, which arguably has less to do with science and politics then it does with pure politics at this moment, it wouldn't overly hurt us to have a history section. Would anyone else agree that having a section open about history would be good as well? I mean the same basic rules could apply. You have to have evidence, you have to list sources, you can't preach, etc. Just my personal suggestion and I'm curious what other's on this forum think. I personally would love to start a discussion about Christopher Columbus.

I wouldn't agree with your sentiment that just because someone in the campaign breaks the law the person running should be disqualified. Presidential campaigns are huge. Tens of thousands of people, including volunteers, can participate. If you based it off of what those people did then you're going to have a hard time. Hillary Clinton's campaign was convicted of illegally using the funding she was donated to fund research into the Trump Dossier. As far as we know, Hillary didn't order it specifically. Should she have been immediately eliminated from the campaign as well as Trump? If you agree with that, then you're being consistent and I don't mind. The part I'd disagree with is if you don't think it should apply to Hillary Clinton as well, because that indicates to me that it'll be biased if we did this. There is a difference between stating what you think it should be and how it should be. I'll take your word that you meant that that's just how you think it should be. That being said, when I said "As far as I know, if you're convicted of doing a crime...." I was referring directly to the current law. Then you say "No, if members of a campaign break the law..." I read that as you saying no, which is how it'd grammatically be translated. We had a misunderstanding, moving on.

Some scientists interpret the same data in different ways. Why would science let that happen? In the Christian religion, according to the general consensus, God gave them a choice to do right or wrong, etc. Another question you could ask which would have just as much merit would be "Why didn't god just make a race of people who wanted to do nothing but worship him?" It basically ignores the very foundation of what the religion is, and pretends the religion doesn't have any possible explanation for that. I've participated in many discussions with the mention of God. I personally believe in God and I haven't gotten in trouble a single time in regards to being a Christian, mentioning scripture, etc. "There is a time and place for everything under the heavens." (Ecclesiastes 3:1)

She did say that it was also about posts prior to that one as well.

I think Trump has a very clear position on it. I also suspect it's a highly simplistic one.

Yes. If you're convicted, you're removed from office. If members of your campaign are convicted, you are not. Unless they can prove that you knew it was going on, you supported it, you ordered it, etc. Trump, despite you and I believe it's true, has not been proven guilty in a court of law. You're wrong.

After it is known or after it is proven? Additionally, what about conspiracy as well? Not the idea of a conspiracy theory, but that the person in question knew and took part in it. As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office. The problem though is that we have a hard time proving they knew it was going on, that they supported it, etc.

Let me pull a dimreeper: You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Okay, yeah. I could definitely see misconduct, and thinking back now, about half the articles I said used misconduct and I should have realized those were the more carefully worded ones.

Agreed, it was poor, but what if it had been a guy? If Mr. Tyson had pulled aside a guys shirt collar for example, to look at the tattoo, would that be considered the same thing? Or is it just women? And if it's just women, would that constitute treating them different on the basis of sex, which would then mean sexism? I'm not implying something, these are genuine questions.

I'd agree what he did was unwise, probably inappropriate, etc. Regarding the alleged groping though. Really now we have to ask if that should be constituting sexual harassment. I mean, if his intent was not to harass her, and his intent was not sexual, and(No, this is not me trying to blame the victim) since she didn't stop him or resist(according to her own words), should we categorize it as being sexual harassment or just him being a creepy guy? I mean, if his intent was to harras her, I could see it. If it was sexual, I could see it. If she said no and he ignored it, I could see it. In fact, even if it had simply been done in private, I could see it. But I really don't think in this situation it'd constitute sexual harassment. Additionally, he's apologized for it and said that he wouldn't do something like that again, and simply didn't realize it. He didn't try to deny that he did it, he simply explained what his motivations were.

What is your proposed lens? Thanks again for the one line input.

Most of the people in my church really like him simply because his voice is relaxing.

Granted maybe my post was uncalled for. You put it a lot more..........cleanly.

LMAO. Armed? "Honey! Go grab the hockey stick!" *(This is a joke and not intended to be taken seriously in any context. I remove myself from any responsibility of proving why or why not someone may say this in Canada)

The point made by Ten Oz earlier is that Syria is being largely ignored by the media and such. I thought that was a prime example to back up his point. Or if you're refferring to the stuff before that, I don't see how it could be taken ad whataboutism.

It's interesting that they've changed their strategy. Prior to Trump launching missiles at them, during Trump's term alone, they had used chemical attacks 8 times, all relatively open compared to this. Since then, there was silence until now, where suddenly the rebels are accused of using the chemical weapons instead. The dynamics have changed. Regardless guys, let's focus on the real monster in the middle east, Israel. They received 68 human rights condemnations from the UN Human Rights Council. Syria received 20.