Peterkin

Biological replication of DNA is properly reproduction, yes. But I didn't restrict my comments to that function, since humans are not driven solely by biology. The need to raise only a biological child is not the standard in humans, many of whom are both more intelligent and more social than male lions (lionesses are far more affectionate and tolerant). It's not uncommon for humans to take responsibility and feel love for offspring other than their own, unrelated by blood or even ethnicity. Indeed, it's not all that uncommon for females of several other species to adopt orphaned young, of their own or another species. Less common for males to be nurturing, but socialized domestic animals sometimes are, and not only toward their own genetic offspring.

I'm often surprised at how much one can learn about oneself from belligerent, semi-coherent zealots.

Need, no. Urge, yes. But it is by no means universal, nor its intensity evenly distributed. Some people are desperate for a child or children of their own (which is biological offspring, and for many women, this includes the whole gestation and birthing process; for many men, the absolute assurance that they alone could have contributed the sperm) Personally - and this is a subjective opinion - I think this is more a psychological drive than a biological one. Some people are nurturing by temperament and thrive on parenthood, but don't mind whose DNA went into the product. Some people [like me] are allergic to infants but quite like children. Some want children and discover too late that they hate parenthood; some don't want children, but when presented with one, find themselves falling in love. Society is always a factor in influencing our assumptions and attitudes. Our society conditions our responses, shapes our desires, values and expectations. It also imposes rules and placements: allows and provides a defined range of options; individual choice is limited to those. Internal influences would include many factors from physiology and hormones, through instincts, sentiments and pragmatism to tax calculations. All of those play a part. I think you may have placed the question in too large a frame. If you narrowed the terms of inquiry, you might get more meaningful answers.

I hope you don't get nose-bleeds.

Nope. Yup. I know.

Those are your problems, not God's. Yeah, as to that - I'm not opening it. Get Mikey. The gods various people believe in all have different attitudes and desires. None of them, or their gods, care what you believe. Ultimately, the universe is just one more member of the audience that doesn't care what you believe.

Why? I never claimed that any society had no members who did bad things, and things that their society considered wrong, of who did not adjust well to some aspect or demand of their society. But if their own society does not consider that a single forbidden act turns a person into something other than himself, I respect that. I am not 'playing' with words. I take their precision, meaning and significance very seriously. You say so. Not everyone agrees. Why they disagree is psychological, sociological, anthropological and philosophical.

Solved what?

That's more or less my take. Something happens, but we don't know what caused it or how to interpret it. Some people claim to know all about the supernatural, the paranormal, the unexplained - but they're unconvincing, their motives suspect. Others claim absolute certainty regarding the scientific psychological causes. I have a problem with that, because I'm quite sure there is still a great deal that nobody knows about how brains and minds work; so, to me this certainty is as suspect as the other: though it may not have sinister motives, scientific presumption has had some pretty bad outcomes. So, mostly, people just don't talk about it. I suppose that's okay; nothing much will be changed by these isolated subjective experiences. How well the people who experience them fare depends - or seems to depend - on how much confidence they have in their own judgment.

Citation? Each nation had its own laws and justice. Some lenient, some harsh, and different means of enforcement - all according to their particular set of values. It was different from the European values and the European methods. Mostly, it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point however, is not that they had no infractions, wrongdoing, or retribution (all of which they had, and were prepared to deal with), but that they had no "criminals". And, yes, that is - unavoidably - a philosophical concept which determines the attitude of a society to its members, its values and the [philosophical] concept of "justice". Overview; not specific to the Lakota or John Fire Lame Deer's comments. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html

Hey, that's right!

Just started The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow. My Kindle can't hold a charge anymore, so I'm restricted to bedtime reading when it can stay plugged in. (Not in a hurry to replace, since i prefer paper books anyway.)

Not precisely accurate. You challenged the validity of John Fire Lame Deer's statement that the natives of North America had no criminals or law enforcement, and your argument against it was that they had wars, thus equating aggression with criminality. I challenged that assertion, citing the legality of war and illegality of refusal of military service in all modern westernized societies. You then cited a pacifist-draftee-turned-killer-hero as a testament to the law of the land. Now you repudiate that by claiming to have taken a couple of walks against involvement in one particular war, then re-embrace it by respecting the people who did not stand against that war. Yet the legality of all wars and even conscription goes unquestioned, while at the same time you want me to do something practical - presumably more practical than marching, which didn't work - against any laws I consider unjust. And yet, the Lakota did manage without a prison system or criminal justice system, and I think it was, as the man said, because they did not set as much store by property and the accumulation of things as the Europeans did. They had wars; the Europeans had more and bigger wars, and the Europeans also had public trials and executions, prisons, indentured servitude, transportation of criminals to distant colonies - and the Indians didn't. Now, I have a little rhetoric.

I put none in. They all came out.

In this instance, only those who are too young to remember what-all went down in 60's and 70's have the excuse of not knowing what sounds bigoted. And all the innocent Europeans, of course, who are so eager to defend Canadian ignorance from American arrogance - whether we need defending or not.

unless it's good an heroic So the only thing that's good and right is The Law

How, and in what context is the question posed? Maybe you're not supposed to get the answer from a book, but are expected to just think about it and come up with your own answer. What factors would you consider? What measurements would you take? What calculations would you make?

You do not know the sport. It's not a question of over or under; it's simply lack of basic knowledge. You do not have a foundation for your skepticism.

Is that what you've been on about? 1963 was the last year anyone in either country had an excuse to say "I didn't know any better." After MLK, Lenny Bruce and Selma, nobody in north America could possibly think it's fine to relegate people to 'colored' status.

There is a lot of $$$ tied up in professional sport. It tends to influence how sporting competitions are conducted. If one is running a business for profit, one must, at all times, be mindful of the consumer. Fair play is pretty low on the list of sports consumer demand.

They are our own! Slightly different forms, same mix of population, same prejudices, plenty of overflow. No excuse at all to be unaware of gaffes in labelling. I don't know how you got hold of that idea, but it's incorrect. The same people, and similar groups of people, and for similar reason, are sensitive to certain language. We all know that in the same way that Americans all know it, but some of us just don't care. Some of us, like some Americans, consider their own right to be disdainful and rude is worth the damage than they do. In most cases, they are allowed to do so. Sometimes, somebody tells them it's wrong - no repercussions, no loss of privilege, just a mild reprimand... and somebody else gets all mimosa'd up in their behalf. Yeah. We and the Brits helped with some of that. A lot of that. You're barking up the wrong telephone pole. It's not about Americans or favours. It's about awareness that people - real ones, living among us right now, hate being called certain names, or regarded in certain ways, and that using those words is crass, insensitive and rude. I would be happy to address any of her concerns, but not through an intermediary. (How did gender suddenly come into it? Have you appointed yourself advocate for yet another underrepresented group?) Stop acting like it!

I am duly chastened. (I would never be sarcastic to someone I consider stupid.) I thought your reference to French and German was inappropriate and, no, I do not agree that the analogy holds. Spelling, pronunciation and vernacular differences are no excuse to remain oblivious to a dominant close neighbour's internal conflicts. No doubt the Spanish use the same word, without the capital, for all those examples I mentioned, just as we use the word black for colour in various ways. I very much doubt he would borrow - as the English-speakers borrowed his word - the word 'black' from English just for the racial designation - unless it was in the sense I have mentioned, as a people's name for their own shared identity. Again, the analogy is poor. I have no idea what that will turn out to be. Frankly, it's not my deepest concern regarding North America culture. None of the above pertain to my comments. It is simply this: we Canadians receive so much American news, television programming, magazine and movie content, as well as much personal contact among the citizenry, traveling back and forth for business, education and pleasure and have so many internal discussions of how events and economics in the US affect us, that it's near impossible for a Canadian who has not been in a religious retreat or coma for that least 60 years not to have some of idea of the factions, moods and conflicts which regularly and inevitably spill over the border. You don't? I'm afraid to say, in case you feel disrespected. They simply have more - by a factor of 10 - of everything. And it's not a question of favour: Canada has always been a willing market for American culture, produce, processed foods, retail and restaurant franchises, cars, drugs, armaments, fashion and ideas. It's not very much like a European country in terms of national distinctiveness - can't be, given the colonial history. I don't think either of those things happened.

I think that's been done a number of times. Some people don't get it, some simply reject it. As to the colour thing, I'll try one more approach. In post-abolition US terminology, 'colored' was anyone of African descent, no matter how diluted by white um... interaction. It did not refer to the spectrum of light, but of race. Resources, civil rights, housing, access to government services, property, credit, legal recourse and employment, everything was allocated on the basis of one's designation of 'white' or 'colored'. I did not find it surprising when African-Americans repudiated the term. In Canada, the situation was different, as was the history and public policy - very colourful, but too complicated to go into here - and so was the terminology. However, as that border is extremely porous, especially to movies and television broadcasting, Canadians of at least four generations have had access to the relevant information. It's not about skin pigmentation. People who identify as Black may be any shade from ebony to ivory, with spread into the ocher, copper and spice range. It is an ethno-political identity. And that is why, by convention if not grammar, we capitalize the word in that context. If someone buys a black car, or refers to black ops or invites you to a black-tie dinner, or fears black helicopters or imposes a news blackout on a sequestered jury or blackballs an applicant to their club or takes their orange pekoe tea black, they are talking about quite different things. Even Canadians of a certain age know this.

I mentioned two. The other is a better padded and distributed seat. These are very minor advantages, partly because of protective gear but mostly because, as i also mentioned, jockeys spend the majority of a race not sitting on the horse. https://www.churchilldowns.com/ Might count for more in cross country. But there, too, the sport being traditional to the cavalry, systemic bias kept women out for a long time. https://eventingnation.com/iwd2020-eight-fearless-women-who-changed-the-face-of-eventing/ When an animal does the actual work, the physique of the handler, trainer and rider matter far less than their rapport with the animal. If one of those those little robots communicates more effectively with the camel than a camleer does, it will win more races. (They used monkeys at one time.)

You do know they speak different languages and use the same units of measurement? I'm older and I was able to learn the difference in usage, even while sticking to the English spelling. It's not a function of age or nationality; it's a matter of selective attention. I see the effort as being directed at persuading the majority of people to be mindful of one another's rughts, dignity and sensibility. To a surprising degree, despite voiceferous denunciation from some concentrated factions, it's worked. There are many hurtful, objectifying and divisive expressions that were in common usage in 1960 that almost nobody would consider using anymore. As to solving the real problem... well, I personally find it easier to tell one of my peers "I don't find that joke funny." than to arrest a 300lb gun-totin' white supremacist. I'd like to be a hero, just don't have what it takes. One reason is, when the Canadians - old or young doesn't make any difference refers to a person as 'coloured', they generally mean non-white, not like us, other - it may refer to anyone from Asia, Africa, Micronesia, the Middle east or south of the Rio Grande. When a Spanish speaker asks for his coffee black, he's not talking about all 'other' races. There may be other reasons...