Peterkin

Would be appropriate, after all this time, to ask what is pre-announced? In the case in point, back in May 2020, the presidential candidate promised that, if elected, he would put a Black woman on the Supreme court - at some time during his administration. A promise can be broken, be impossible to fulfill, or changed by changing circumstances. No announcement was made at that time. At the end of January, 2022 the president announced his intention of appointing a Black Woman to the recently opened Supreme Court position. (By this time, he had had opportunity to discover how practicable that earlier promise was; whether he would need to rescind, alter, modify or postpone it, or whether he could go ahead with a viable nomination.) Intentions can be thwarted by circumstance, in which case a new, different intention would be announced. But that did not happen. At the end of February, he announced his intention to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson. At that point, the intention was still not a fact; something could still have changed, but the identity of the intended nominee became known, and the nomination was all but certain. On February 25, the president announced the nomination, and the ratification process began. So, why all the angst over a pre-announcement that never happened?

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples? When the man says they didn't have criminals, he does not say there was no bad in people; he does not say there was no aggression in people; he does not say there were no conflicts between people. He says they viewed persons as persons, not classes or categories. That is a distinction many civilized people are unable to perceive. Then there is also the question of who makes and enforces what laws for what reasons. But as far as the Indian goes, he was referring specifically to property crime, which occurs in a propertied and property-oriented societies. And there are plenty of grocery thefts motivated by hunger; they just don't make it into the headlines the way sex scandals do.

Oh, those kind of folks. That should not matter in most sports - rugby and American football, maybe. Most sports have rules, which, if respected and enforced, are meant to keep players from injuring one another. And where body size and shape does matter, the physically less suited players - and if most of those are one sex or another, so be it - will simply not qualify for the A league and might for the B or C league. Maybe the top leagues will be predominantly male and the bottom leagues will be predominantly female, but at least small, slim men will finally get a chance to play. It certainly does not matter in horseback riding. All that the prejudice accomplished was that women had to be much better at handling horses in fox hunting or point-to-point , because the side-saddle position kept them at a disadvantage for six hundred years. Control of a horse is not about the rider's muscle-mass: relative to the horse's, the difference between humans is negligible; it's about timing and communication.

https://theconversation.com/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports-89305 https://thevarsity.ca/2017/07/31/why-do-we-still-divide-sports-by-gender/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-race-to-replace-the-binary-of-mens-and-womens-sports-11583769636 In fact, it's rare for 'folks' to agree on anything at all.

Not all folks agree.

Very good idea. And possibly amusing, watching the organizes try to assemble a short American soccer team and a tall Korean one. Mostly American women would probably end up playing mostly Korean men - which might well be a fairer, cleaner and more enjoyable game all around.

Maybe the old guy was talking about time within his own memory, which didn't go back before 1560. He doesn't look a day over 100. Then again, maybe what everybody [in modern westernized society] knows isn't true .... https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

You are unclear on the concept, yet presume to speak for everyone; your 'reasonable' values authorize you to be the sole spokesman for the social norms of the entire 'westernized world. (Which has cast up some real doozies in bossmanship lately.) You interpret 'criminal' as 'bad' and run with your own misconception. Sentence by sentence, you can twist another person's words --- and if the other person disagrees, they are the ones being dishonest.

This is not something i need to lie about. I used to have bosses (and it never once occurred to me that they should be capitalized) I was lucky to work in health care: most of them were doctors and pretty okay. But they had bosses who were administrators and less okay, but still nowhere as crazy-making as corporate executive bosses, of whom I heard much from friends and lovers, mostly in their cups. Then I became my own boss, which was much better. And you speak for 'most', by virtue of....? 'bosses or higher authorities' are not interchangeable concepts, nor are their positions established in the same way, by the same means, or with the same limitations on their power. And now, you also speak for me? Why do you need a boss?

Why do you need a boss?

I would not need to answer questions, even if any had been put to me. If you would like to me to answer questions, give them in the form of a question and I will answer the ones I consider relevant. Sure, just thought I should reiterate it, in case you missed it in on Pg. 3 Out of curiosity, why you need a boss? I've managed without one for over 40 years and feel no worse for the loss.

By some logic, that follows from the preceding quote.

I still do not see the relevance of attitude to climate change as regards the radicalization of extreme political factions. Bu that's okay; I'm obtuse. I was asking what those good points, bad points and common agendas are. Do I? Perhaps. Morocco and The Gambia https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve That's admirable. So, the ice caps are no longer melting? California, Washington, Oregon, BC, Siberia, Spain and Australia will not be burning this year? Relieved to hear it! Plastics are no longer choking sea creatures? Butterflies are back? Good! The moderates are taking care of it. To all environmental extremists: stand back and stand by. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I do not consider this a left-right political issue - the government agencies that compile lists of potential terrorist elements do. They classify all groups driven by ecological and ethical concerns on the left end of the spectrum. Maybe it's a subconscious association. To me, political issues center on power structure, form and method of governance, economic principles, jurisdiction, responsibilities and limits of government, taxation, regulation, legislation, the prerogatives and obligations of citizenship. Again, I suggested no such thing. One may exist and shoot up a church, another may exist and draw pictures on a wall. The existence is equal; the action is not. The effect is not. The extremism is not. But if one end of the spectrum grows more violent, it does stand to reason that the other end will make some attempt to defend itself. In that sense, you're absolutely right: violence does beget violence. The alternative: lying down and allowing oneself to be killed has appealed to some people, but it seems not universally popular.

If you told me the meaning of that sentence, my understanding would be increased.

How do any of those citations about stuff you don't like show that the extreme right includes many well-meaning, and desired agendas held by moderates? That the Black panthers are 1. comparable to Qanon and 2. current and 3. contributing to an escalation of extremism? Oh, you mean this? No, I don't believe you have. OK... So, does that mean 'the moderates' have failed to solve a problem that has been known globally for at least half a century, during which moderates had more power than they have now, and that 'making some progress' amounts to SFA insofar as the fate of the planet is concerned, and is it therefore possible that the disgruntled greens have some basis to believe that moderates will not solve it through moderate means in time to prevent disaster? You mean the thing about some unspecified people screaming on a jet plane about 12 years? No, that really didn't show me the good will of the far right. Of course, it didn't show me anything much, since all I understood of it was that failing to correct inaccurate statements is only almost as bad as mass shootings.

Show me. Show me. (the operative term being 'current') Show me.

In fairness, 'almost' is one of the 10 longest words in the English language.

Thank you! It's thoughtful and intelligent; more in the realm of prediction than depiction. And it offers no path to solution - other than the one she hoped to nudge people into: voting. (However, given what's been done to voting practices....) I have a serious quibble with only one line: They were squeezed out decades before, which is what made room for a Trump; all he did was push overboard the last 5 conservatives who retained a vestige of decency.

I guess lying down in front of tanks is more effective. Just, you know, some people refuse easy martyrdom. AKA the story of mankind.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was asking for examples of public manifestation by which to compare the two. And now I'm saying that the 'extreme left' in the US, officially includes animals rights and environmental activists - neither of which is a political stance - as well as anarchists, communists etc, most of them diffuse and unorganized. The right, otoh, is organized, highly visible, intensely active in mainstream political processes, heavily armed and far more numerous. https://www.counterextremism.com/content/extreme-left-groups-united-states A response, as you said. It all started when the designated victim hit back.... (I don't think you can use the Black Panthers - themselves, a reaction to discriminatory and violent action by agencies of the state, as a manifestation of currently rising extremism.) Had that been the case, and the moderate centrists lefts and rights been at all effective, those would no longer be issues of contention in the Unites States (which, with respect, is not in your experience, and only peripherally in mine, so we're neither of us in any position to adjudicate how Americans ought to address their severely damaged political system. If the state is unable or unwilling to protect citizens from violence by the far right, or to ensure their liberty, those citizens very few options but to defend themselves.)

Clearly. That's just my subjective view of how the radicalism manifests in public demonstrations.

Ok. People in the US demanding the rights and services we're accustomed to in Canada, Australia, France, Norway, Japan, etc. equate to people storming the Capitol with lead pipes and explosives to overturn a legitimate election. It's all very subjective. I don't subscribe to the Atlantic.

I have seen many public examples of how the right manifests its radicalization. Can you point out public manifestations of left radicalism in the US?

It's the only one each of us has to answer to. Seeing another's POV is fine; siding with every other POV is impossible. How many ways can you divide you convictions?

What do you suppose happens to the guy who gets off his high horse and walks among them? And why do you think 'the left' is generally perceived as soft, weak and lame? There is a distinction - however subtle - between scientific open-mindedness and abandoning one's principles. Science is relatively clear and well defined. Politics, philosophy and sociology are muddy. Unfortunately, it's the muddy bits that need a conscience.