Peterkin

Stop using the Supreme Court as a political arena. I'm not averse to throwing this lot (though I quite like a couple of them) out (Not on asses, or even assets: there is graceful retirement, emeritus professorships, consultation or stepping back to a lower court vacancy.) and starting fresh with a Supreme court selected by jurists in good standing. The Canadian and Danish systems are examples of the advice-and-consent process, though quite different in their composition. The French one is very different again and more complicated. In all cases, jurisprudence is not so insanely political as in the United States - and (?coincidentally?) works better. Bernie Sanders. I'd've been happy with Jack Layton, but he went and died on us, so I have to trust Trudeau the Younger. As the falling man said at the 17th floor, "Okay so far!" Can't be done as long as mad, bad legislation is adjudicated by political appointees.

Laws are not based on science; they are based on morality, and the morality of a society is largely dictated by its dominant religion. And, of course, the state of science changes from day to day, as witness the bases for determination of death in 1900 CE as compared to 2000 CE, while the law lags decades behind and rarely on the same track.

Not that Affirmative Action has much - or, really, anything - to do with Jackson's appointment, but so long as you're in selective favour of it, this bit's interesting: Toward, always moving, ever so slowly, toward. Why not just have equal opportunity now, stop bitching about it, and move on to fix the police, the infrastructure, the health care system and the slums?

Not to mention, there is a football field between near death and after death.

Same misconceptions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations and fallacious deductions, all packaged up with bolded headings. I particularly appreciated the sheer mass of bogus math.

Ethics is about what is right or wrong in a social context: it's a guide for interactions among people. Whether it's in work, politics, sport, commercial transactions or demeanour in public places. Morals are another aspect of 'right' and 'wrong'. Morality is a set of convictions that people have regarding their personal relationship to the world and other living things. Morals may be imposed by an established authority, such as a religion or ideology, or they may be personal to an individual. The world-view of a group of people provides the moral tenets of a shared belief, which in turn becomes the foundation of their ethical precepts, which is the central pillar of their legal code. The question posed there is too vague to answer, but if the specifics were filled in, every society would have an answer according to their moral, ethical and legal rules. So could every individual. But you would get a wide range of answers. If we're 'supposed' to discuss whether ethics is an intuitive and/or emotional (No way do I accept that mashed-up word!) impulse, as distinguished from a rational answer to a rational problem, then I think I'm in the right place, on the right page, and have the right answer, even if it's not the most simplistic one. I don't know. Chemical and mathematical formulae can penetrate pretty deep into physical processes, and I have no proof that humans behaviour is something other than physical processes. I believe it's more, but I don't know that. But what have love, compassion, art or tragedy to do with ethics?

For the very same reason nobody should bother looking for an answer to your question about Biden. The fact that they've also made social justice synonymous with class warfare. Apparently both are unAmerican concepts. There is a lovely scene in Babylon 5 (S3 E5 Voices of Authority) where the political envoy from Earth explains that they no longer have problems like homelessness and unemployment; all those problems had been solved. Sheridan asks "When did all this happen?" The reply "When we rewrote the dictionary."

Can you provide a link to any candidate, ever, clearly stating who was in their mind before the election for all the appointments they might have the power to make after the election?

Nope. Never. Not even once when I had a really bad hangover.

In neither case should it be an obstacle to the placing the appropriate person in each responsible position. Anyone arguing 'the optics' of a political appointment is waving a dead fish and calling it a red flag.

'Optics' (by which meant not the branch of physics that studies the behaviour and properties of light, but a branch of public relations that studies how political actions appear in mass media) really shouldn't be a criterion for selecting the judges who rule on the constitutionality of legislation or make the final decision in landmark legal cases.

They don't need to be any good at it. The Republicans commit so many real and palpable injustices, behave so outrageously, piss off so many people that nobody has to fake anger at them.

Generally, comparatively, relatively of what to what? It was an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that women are more attractive to you than men are? Or that men are more attracted to women than women are to men? Or what, in fact, does it have to do with hair colour at all, at all?

Their outrage at some imagined injustice. But it's not that hard; they've had plenty of practice.

I believe he quoted the relevant paragraphs.

Three posts up^^^, by Zapatos. http:// https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/redheads-psychology_b_1911771.html

The above cited research contradicts this.

Plus, they're Supreme Court judges, which is a big plus, relevance-wise. What for? They not relevant in any sense. No, they're not representing any people. Elected office-holders are supposed to to do that. Supreme courts are supposed to serve the constitution and law of the land, without fear or favour. Scientifically speaking, both black and white are fictions. Skin pigmentation comes an interesting and bewildering variety of hues shades.

I wonder if the experiment would have been different if it measured number of eye movements, rather than approaches. There is some folklore in play here: a long-standing widely held notion that red hair indicates a fiery temperament. So I have to wonder whether more men looked at the redheads and chickened out. The women's reaction is more telling. Naturally ginger men may have some disadvantages (pale skin, freckles, invisible eyelashes and pink-rimmed eyes), when the man is wearing a wig, none of these characteristics are evident: the women must be reacting to the association in their own minds. Ah! Having read the full article - interesting BTW; thanks! - I see where some of the prejudices come from. Some are the same in France, the UK and the US. The persistent stereotyping: red-haired women are wild and dangerous; dark-haired women are smart and dangerous; fair-haired women are soft and weak. Scotsmen are industrious, dour and frugal. Red-haired boys are cut-ups and rascals. Folklore that's been carried through to children's books, novels and cinema is not losing on grip on people's imagination.

Yes. Unless the topic was societal attitudes to this particular trait, which is the more interesting aspect of the topic. I'm aware of the very strong bias in medieval Europe. I would presume an absence of such bias in modern North America and slight positive bias in, say 19th century Canada. I haven't looked any farther afield. One way to check would be a photo gallery of movie stars. Assuming an equal number of red-haired babies of either sex are born and reach adulthood in a given population, and further given that theatrical talent is spread evenly, how many men and how women become celebrities. I think I do see a suggestive ratio 7 women/3men,without any consideration of the kind of roles they play. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066580547/

When he was looming over a frightened young woman. SFAIK, JFK was never appointed to the Supreme Court and didn't resemble either of the other men.

Okay, and I agree, but why make a point of it? Same with the general conditions, which don't exist. Seems like an unnecessary distraction.

What outrage? Kavenaugh got the job. And the issue was not infidelity. None of which, of course, is in play in the current situation, so no kind of outrage is applicable. It's just the usual misdirected, randomized rage of the floundering dinosaur.

Then no general mechanism can be considered for human reproduction, which never takes place in general conditions. Both of which take place in a given population. If there is only one type to select from, that's the type that will be selected. If there is a bigger genetic pool to select from, more choices are available and more variations can occur. If they are allowed to, young people choose according to personal fancy, rather than cultural norm, so there will be more mixing. That's why tribalism, racialism, etc. is always enforced with legal and moral sanctions, up to and including pain of death: sexual attraction is natural and cosmopolitan. and play no part in selection or regional preference or cultural bias, which is why I ignored it.

I can remember back when the controversy over Clarence Thomas was not over his race, his sex, his religion or his inexperience, but sexual conduct. The objections and protests are as fluid and ephemeral as the politics behind each appointment.