mistermack

So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim. Meaning that he's guilty. Two people have opposite versions of an event, and you decide that he's lying and she's not. At least when I said what I thought, I made it plain that an opinion is all it was, and gave reasons. And I stated god knows how many times that only the two involved can actually know. But to you, a woman who makes a complaint is a victim. Case decided! In the real world, there are two possibilities. Either she's a victim of a sexual assault. Or HE'S a victim of a serious false allegation. But no, you establish that SHE'S the victim with a hand wave. If it goes to court, one side will argue that she was the victim. The other will argue that she wasn't. Obviously a case of "indecent victim blaming" . For a person who regularly warns posters for hand waving, you're remarkably ready to do the same yourself.

So when you get rid of the flim flam of the first premise, you end up with the ludicrous argument that "nothing can come from nothing" but GOD can make that same thing happen because he's wonderful. Just say the magic word "GOD" and it can happen. But without the magic word, it can not. No mention of HOW god conjures something from nothing. And no reasons's given why if he can do it, why can't it just happen? If it's possible, it's possible. If it's not possible, it's not. What this argument boils down to, is "it's impossible, but god can do it, and that proves that god did it."

It's a thing in everyday speech. In reality, it's an event. It's a human illusion, that these events seem to be "things". We set the boundaries, timewise and spacewise, in our heads. It's a bit like saying that a crowd is a "thing".

Well, your first and presumably most important statement was "Things without a start can't exist.." so you should have had "things" and "start" nailed. Your suggestion " How about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole?" describes an event. Matter comes together in a certain form, for a certain time. That's an event. The Sun is an event. Your car is an event. In five billion years time, your car will be vapour and plasma in an enlarged Sun. It's a "thing" for a time. That's an event.

The FRONT fender? Why not the rear fender? Or the floor or roof? What's special about the front fender? And like the loaf of bread, the car is just ingredients that hang together for a tiny scrap of time. In other words, it's an EVENT, not a thing. It gives the illusion of being a thing, but it's constantly changing. ( tyre wear, gases in and out, liquids in and out etc etc) So like a loaf of bread, the car is an event involving matter. Of course you can say that an EVENT has a start. But you haven't named a THING that had a start.

You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply.

Name one thing that has a start.

Since the cause is unknown, I'll feel free to speculate. I don't think it's due to stars colliding. I remember reading somewhere that when galaxies collide, the space between the stars is so vast, compared to the size of the stars, that the whole galaxies just pass through each other with no collisions being likely. And anyway, surely the clue is in the briefness of the FRB ? Stars colliding might happen quick, but surely not milliseconds? My guess is that it's something to do with gravitational lensing. Just for an instant, the conditions might be just right to perfectly concentrate a lot of energy in our direction. Milliseconds later, it's pointing elsewhere. But I can't imagine why it's coming from other regions and not ours. Maybe it's due to conditions that prevailed in the past, which are rare now.

Eating large quantities of high carbohydrate foods, and lots of fats, over an extended period, will inevitably make you jolly. Unless you are female, in which case it will make you bubbly.

They might be, at times, but not a lot. If they do, it will get jumped on by their peers, and anyone else with an interest. That's how science generally works. Criticism is almost as important as original work. When you publish you are putting your reputation on the line. It might happen now and again, that the consensus is so overwhelming that critical thinking gets frowned on. I don't think there's any danger of that in Paleoanthropology.

Buy a classic motorcycle, and look after it. If you are sensible when you buy it, and don't pay way over market price, you will have an asset that will grow in value, be cheap to insure, and give pleasure on nice days. I have a Triumph Speed Twin that I've had for about 20 years. Never regretted it. It doesn't even need to be taxed or tested on the road, just insurance, which is lumped in with the policy for my Honda 800.

Marciano wouldn't even be in the top 30. He never fought anyone of note, and only defended the title six times, against very old fighters, or light heavies. And one of the fights was a fix, the pundits had him losing. He was slow and crude, he wouldn't have stood a chance against the likes of Ali. Anthony Joshua already has a better record than Marciano. Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis put Mike Tyson in his place, so he wouldn't be number one. Hardest hitter? Maybe, but that's against lesser fighters. All big punchers look amazing against lesser opponents. It's how they do against the top ones that counts. I would say that George Foreman in his day would have been the hardest hitter. And he knocked out Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, both inside two rounds, legends, not a bunch of nobodies. And Evander Holyfield must be the greatest of all for me. He's the only man in history to hold the undisputed cruiserweight title, then move up to heavyweight, and win the undisputed title at that weight as well. And he didn't lose a fight at any weight till he was past 30. Not a chance. The human hand breaks when humans hit humans, sometimes even inside boxing gloves. The bones of Gorillas are much bigger and stronger than any human, and their neck is three or four times the size. No contest.

I also read somewhere that dna studies showed that Polar Bears are evolved from the Kamchatka strain, not the American Grizzlies.

Brown Bears also hunt Moose, Caribou and Deer. They also have to fight other bears, and roll huge rocks looking for food, and tear logs apart looking for grubs so they use a lot of muscle. So I doubt if there's much in it. Interestingly, I've read accounts that say that Polar Bears normally give way to Brown Bears in a confrontation, the Brown Bears appear more aggressive.

That's a fair point. I actually meant that their credentials are impeccable, (especially compared to those in a lot of conspiracy cases) not their testimony.

We don't use the expression "animals of prey". Yes we say "birds of prey" but for other animals we normally say "predator". The Polar Bear is the strongest, possibly matched by the Kodiak Brown Bears. The Sperm Whale is the strongest of all predators. I wouldn't personally count the Baleen Whales as predators, they are more like gigantic vacuum cleaners. But if you do, then it's obviously the Blue Whale.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is widely used as mockery. But of course, lots of conspiracies DO happen, and then they become history. Like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was going to be portrayed as a glorious liberation, and the multiple attempts by the CIA to kill Castro would have been a 'popular uprising'. Or the famous weapons of mass destruction. Then there's the Watergate episode. If they had succeeded, anybody making an allegation would have been labelled a "conspiracy theorist" and mocked. But they were all true, and they happened. So if you think that you know of a TRUE one, list it here, and give your reasoning. Of course, if one gives rise to a debate, there's nothing stopping it being split off for in depth discussion. Just to start the list off, I'm nominating the Kennedy Assassination. I believe that the fatal shot was fired by a secret service agent, ACCIDENTALLY, when he pulled out his machine gun, hearing the shots from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun. The Secret Service then conspired to cover it up, and the Warren Commission went along with it for the sake of the national reputation. That might sound like another crazy conspiracy theory, but I think the evidence is overwhelming, and it all comes from impeccable eye witnesses. It's covered here on youtube and it's well worth watching, if you haven't seen it :

Not if being your ally means degrading the principle of innocent till proven guilty. It took a long time to get that far, and the yardstick of "beyond reasonable doubt" is still the best we have. After all, that's what the thread's about. I detest the crime of rape, but I can't see being vocal and supportive cutting much ice when the clubs are kicking out and people are heading off with a belly full of alcohol, and a million different agendas in their heads. My own approach is to advocate practical things that might actually make a difference. Desiree Washington, Mike Tyson's victim, did just that, and I give her full credit for it. She not only stopped him in his tracks, she must have had a big real-world effect on the millions of young men who idolised him at the time, and quite possibly made some of them think twice. But she very nearly didn't report it. Prof. Ford's example, on the other hand, of doing nothing for decades, and then getting nowhere when she did come out with it, is the absolute worst example for women faced with a similar dilemma.

It's not Pollyanish, but to me it's rather stating the obvious, and I don't see where change is going to come from. Good thinking people already fully support that kind of reasoning, I don't hear anyone saying any different. I'll bet Mike Tyson would have signed up to those sentiments, earlier in the day. Sexual violence is usually a heat of the moment thing, and so long as women and men interact, those moments will always arise. I think that schools could do a lot more, both in discussing it, and education in how it gets out of hand, and the lifelong consequences for both sexes. If you have some mental preparation, you might spot the signs early, and take a different path.

Wishful thinking should get the job done. But in case it doesn't, I still say get the message across to report every incident promptly. I know that a high proportion will not go all the way, but even if they don't, the pattern is established, if it happens again. If a woman reports an attempted rape, and there have been two previous alleged assaults, it gives the police a heads up as to who's telling the truth. If nobody reports any of it for years, the police have to work in the dark. The most memorable case that I remember was Mike Tyson. He'd split with his wife earlier in the year, (amidst allegations of violence) and had a reputation from multiple sources for unwanted, crude, and sometimes violent advances toward women wherever he went. But up to that point nobody had complained. Going from memory, I believe that Desiree Washington, the woman he raped, wasn't going to report it either, but she was persuaded to by her best friend. She was examined 24 hours after the incident, and Tyson's defence made a big thing of that in court. (god knows what they would have done with 36 years). Wiki says : Partial corroboration of Washington's story came via testimony from Tyson's chauffeur, Virginia Foster, who confirmed Desiree Washington's state of shock after the incident. Further testimony came from Thomas Richardson, the emergency room physician who examined Washington more than 24 hours after the incident and confirmed that Washington's physical condition was consistent with rape.[71] Under lead defense lawyer Vincent J. Fuller's direct examination, Tyson claimed that everything had taken place with Washington's full cooperation and he claimed not to have forced himself upon her. When he was cross-examined by lead prosecutor Gregory Garrison, Tyson denied claims that he had misled Washington and insisted that she wanted to have sex with him.[72] Tyson was convicted on the rape charge on February 10, 1992 after the jury deliberated for nearly 10 hours.[73] That case was touch and go, but the evidence was fresh. But if he'd been reported earlier for some of the "unwanted, crude, and sometimes violent advances toward women wherever he went." it's possible that that rape might never have taken place. On the other hand, who can doubt that if Desiree Washington had done nothing, he would have carried on raping? Or even a lot worse.

Just the four front incisors keep growing. It's a fair bet that our very early ancestors spent a lot of time in trees, ate a lot of fruit, and had thin enamel to suit. When we became bipedal, it's likely that we increased the consumption of roots, using digging sticks, and so needed thicker enamel. I haven't seen the reports of worn enamel, but eating roots will naturally include grit, so it's not a huge surprise. There was one branch of the family, Paranthropus robustus, that were closely related to our own branch, being bipedal apes, but which had specialised in heavy chewing, so were probably more dependent on roots and fibrous food than our own line. They had much more robust jaws and teeth, and a big crest of bone on top of their heads, for the solid anchoring of very powerful chewing muscles. It's possible they ate some grasses and sedges, which need a lot of grinding up. They became extinct a million years ago, but were a successful line for about a million years.

My message to her is don't worry. Be happy. Well, that's what the original song said. And it was done a lot better.

In my experience, there's no particular racial smell. But there are lots of individual smells, with a lot of different causes. The strongest smells I find come from clothes, not skin. If I change my clothes regularly, I never get stinky, no matter how long I leave it between baths or washes. But if I pick up a shirt that I wore a few days ago and put it on, it smells as soon as it gets warm. Even if I only wore it for a few hours. It might smell ok when I sniff it, but it won't once it's been on for half an hour. I think that the bacteria get to work on it, once you've worn it. I can't imagine a reason why the same thing doesn't happen on the skin, If I don't bath, but it definitely doesn't. I had a Mauritian girlfriend, of mixed race, but mostly African, and she smelt of nothing different to white girls. I find that women rarely smell bad, I think they change their undies more promptly than men. Maybe what people think of as racial might be more to do with laundry habits, of different cultures. Diet definitely DOES have an affect too. I had a very nice (white) flatmate years ago, who was pretty addicted to garlic, and you always got a faint whiff while she was around. We did get intimate once, and up close, her skin was exuding garlic aroma really strongly. You might think that sounds, unpleasant, but it was really a sort of modified version, having gone through her body, and it smelt pretty wonderful, actually. She was aware of it and not bothered, she'd probably had previous favourable reactions from boyfriends. The worst smelling person I ever met was a (white) guy with an amputated leg. It was absolutely horrendous, but nobody wanted to bring the subject up, as it might have been to do with his disability. So no, I don't think there's a racial reason for a different smell. Cultural, from diet or laundry habits possibly. But that can apply to all races.

Kavanaugh didn't necessarily lie. The text messages could easily be in response to rumours. His answer, "In the New Yorker" could have been accurate for when he first learned of the actual allegations. The proof will be if he gets charged. It doesn't look very likely right now.

I didn't say they had. But how do you argue the other side of the case without her lying? To not ruffle feathers on this thread, there are only three options. Agree with Ford's version, or shut up, or like the Senators, pretend that nobody's lying. (which is probably more derogatory than saying she's been lying) My own inclination is to doubt Ford's version, going on the timing, her telling of it, and the details. And I'm not prepared to pretend, like the Senators have, that somehow, nobody's lying. What they are effectively saying is that the "poor little woman got confused" which is actually more demeaning in my book.