Peterkin

When did this "present" era begin? When did the modern moral lens take effect? The day after the odious Kavenough was confirmed? Or the day before nobody had a problem with Barrett. https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights Politicians make political appointments for political reasons. Go, figure!

Sexual selection can only be considered in specific contexts. The northern Celtic tribes were able to preserve a sizeable presence of red-haired people simply because there was little infusion of more dominant genetic strains. So the red-haired people (who, yes, do tend to freckle everywhere on their bodies, especially if exposed to sunlight. This is sometimes considered endearing in small children, alluring in young women, off-putting in men and repulsive in the elderly. People have fickle tastes in other people's appearance!) continued. In a large, diverse population like the US for or UK, the selection would have to be very selective, to insure a the long-term prevalence of a recessive trait. This has been the case among some aristocracies, as well as elite pockets. In the general population, however, there is more genetic mixing. There has been speculation that this phenotype will disappear, either in response to the climate https://www.irishcentral.com/news/are-redheads-in-danger-of-extinction-scientists-say-yes or genetic pressure from more dominant traits https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-redheads-blue-eyes-extinct.html but as the recessive trait persist for generations, it will keep popping up.

I just accepted that the young woman in the video who is worried about her dignity was also named Jordan Peterson or Petersen. That wouldn't be so hard to believe. The confusion was introduced by putting the name in with a presentation of an otherwise unidentified person. The Canadian guy also has a lot to say on this topic, which is, like many of his topics, is way outside his area of expertise.

May I add, in the case of this Jordan Petersen, that it's also a hand-biting exercise. The beneficiary of previous affirmative action speaking out against affirmative action on behalf of future beneficiaries. Like a landed immigrant opposing new immigration, or Craig T. Nelson condemning welfare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U The only acceptable SCOTUS nominee would have been a self-taught asexual person with eight differently coloured great grandparents. How many of these qualified 'applicants' were there? In any other situation, all races, ages and sexes but one are discriminated against.

Well, that's all right then.

Coz it's distractionary BS. I don't know and it doesn't signify. A political agenda calls for a particular set of criteria, from the available pool of candidates. Everything that doesn't fit into those criteria is automatically excluded. That means nobody is excluded specifically for any particular reason; they're just all included in the general exclusion. You can't get a whole lot more inclusive than " everything else".

I'm not preaching to anyone. You wanna sing, go ahead.

You seem very convinced.

Can you not get this? Nobody has a reason to give a flying fig. A little more substance instead of self-pity and dust in the wind might get you farther.

Neither of them excluded on the basis of race. They just haven't been federal judges long enough. Once the third one - a Biden nominee, incidentally - is confirmed, the two older women will have a shot at the next opening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2021/05/13/just-two-native-american-federal-judges-serve-king-may-be-the-third/?sh=37b0d8ee5815

Numbers. Not a lot to choose from. Something to do with the US education system and tuition fees, I would guess.

There is some reason to think so. In the middle ages in Europe, apparently, red hair was associated with witchcraft http://www.themythsandhistoryofredhair.co.uk/heresy.html Both men and women were equally suspect, but more women were prosecuted - for several reasons having to do with the times. I think the reason is rather about ethnicity and religion: the Celts were pagan longer and more stubbornly than other subject peoples; they kept their language and religion, in spite of the power of Holy Roman Empire. OTOH, in modern aesthetic tastes, the situation is entirely different. The phenotype usually includes pale, sensitive skin, very fine facial hair, freckles and susceptibility to sunburn. Women can use makeup and parasols to improve their facial definition and protect their complexion; for men, it would be considered effeminate, so they fade out in winter, burn and flake in summer, have spots and inconsiderable eyebrows and lashes. Also, many women who have red hair were not born with it: brunettes, even olive-skinned ones, can have flaming hair colour without the genetic price. Wow! I did not know that!

Like the kitten thing? It means something to you, but people who have never met you before and have no reason to care are not going to start off by asking for your long, complicated back-stories, are they? They will respond to what you post. If they like that, they'll put up with a dumb name (I should know!) and eventually, if they have reason to believe you, they might even care about your tale of woes. We? The mods are not so easily angered. They've dealt with much bigger problems with perfect equanimity.

it may just have been a poor choice of coloured font; after all, there are just too many to choose from. I'm okay with plain ol' charcoal on white.

The difference between excluding men and excluding women? Yes. The difference between excluding blacks and excluding whites? Also yes. The difference is who complains about it.

If it's not working, you might want to re-examine your working assumptions. It's not going to be assuaged if you keep pissing people off. (Come to think of it - How did that desolation and loneliness come about?) The choice of handle - however hilarious you may find the back-story - is a little off-putting to begin with. Maybe hold back on the humour until you get the feel of the place. Walk down the main street of Jerusalem gesticulating with a bacon and cheeseburger, you're bound to raise a few hackles.

There does seem to be a misconception at the heart of that nearly unreadable post.

You must be aware that there is only one (1) vacancy. This guarantees that whoever is chosen, everyone else, of every ethnicity, creed, gender, age, proclivity or taste in bowties is excluded.

As to qualifications, there are qualified judges to fit all possible criteria of gender, race and political leaning, but the people making the selection are in no position to assess the relative legal merits of a candidate; all they have is a record of academic attainments, career path and bench rulings. It's nothing to do with representation or diversity or even the Constitution (which is what it's nominally meant to serve). The people making the appointment are not jurists; they're politicians. It's a political appointment through a political process. Whether the appointments are affirmative in one term and retrogressive in another, it's always because of their respective political agendas. Meanwhile, of course, the judges themselves may not identify with their own gender or skin colour and it's quite possible to be a competent judge without the mirror influencing one's every legal decision.

What kind of appointee they prefer is always decided by every administration that has an opportunity to make a Supreme Court appointment. The general criteria (ie. militant transgender feminist; young progressive Hispanic male; mature fiscal conservative female; old white misogynist fathead) determine the short-listed candidates; which one is most politically viable for confirmation determines the nominee chosen. If that's a problem, it's endemic and unavoidable.

Experiment while flat-lining? Improbable. Perceive while flat-lining? Improbable. Cases described as near death experience are of people have almost died, but didn't. Nobody has described the approaching death experience of people who actually did die. Therefore, the data collected in studies of near death experience are from people who have a memory of surviving.

We have defined it until we are all the colour of Picts on the warpath. Death occurs when brain activity ceases. That frickin simple. Even if the heart is still pumping, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. Even if the lungs are still bellowing, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. There is no "process" of death. There are processes of life, the most essential and irreplaceable of which is the firing of neurons. When neurons stop, life stops. That's it. Now, ffs, leave them alone. Stop digging them them up to check for freshness. The "conversation" consists entirely of pointless remarks.

No, I don't define it as death unless it is death. But some people, including, apparently, yourself, seem to have trouble accepting the presence of death even after it occurs, or, indeed, the inevitability of death. I merely offered an alternative to forcing badly damaged brains to keep inhabiting bodies they can no longer operate or enjoy. Even more than that: undamaged brains shouldn't be forced to inhabit bodies they cannot operate or enjoy.

If by 'that', you mean telling the family it's time to turn off the life support, it's a problem because of psychology. People don't want their loved ones to be dead. They want to cling to hope, so they deny the evidence put before them. This is facilitated by the equipment which artificially mimics the obvious signs of life - heartbeat and breathing - even when the less obvious, but most important functions of life - brain activity - has ceased. These relatives often behave like a a mother dog who refuses to believe her pup is dead, and will keep digging it up and trying to lick it back to life (an instinctive behaviour, which is actually useful in cases where a newborn fails to start breathing right away) People, like other animals, have a hard time accepting the fact of death. Does any of this sound familiar? Yes, it is. In fact, I'll push this boat a little farther out. In some cases, even before all brain activity ceases, it is better to let the patient go than to pull him back into an untenable travesty of life.

While cessation of neural activity is easy to detect with state-of-the-art equipment, such equipment may be unavailable or incompetently used. Since human error cannot be ruled out entirely, vigilance is advised, and usually applied. That is why incorrect pronunciation of death is very rare, as we both said. After a period of monitoring borderline patients, a determination can be made on the basis of multiple readings. The problem is not telling when the patient's brain stopped working, but telling the family to pull the plug. The confusion of advanced medical technology is that it's reversed the termination determination. A century ago, if you failed the wrist and mirror test, you were off to the morgue, even if your brain was still working. Now, you can be dead for months, yet your heart keeps beating and you keep breathing.