StringJunky

Putin clearly has bit off more than he can chew. It's a bit like a community football team winning all their matches and thinking they are good enough for the UK premier league or one of the other top national football divisions. This conflict, even if he gets what wants, will surely make him think twice about attacking a NATO country. I suspect China has thought/is thinking like Russia too; that it is invincible by sheer numbers. If you don't have committed soldiers and citizens, that strength is just an illusion. Ukraine has shown that handily, with material support from the West.

I read a few days ago, Ukraine were going to get anti-ship missiles, then one is on fire yesterday; coincidence? Russia has stated it will attack weapons imports from NATO, butI imagine that's been a Russian priority anyway, and they are just saying it now.

Do you think she's dyed her eyebrows

That one-way natural understanding is probably useful for the Ukrainians. Hopefully, it gives them an edge in spontaneous intelligence gathering that doesn't require interpreters.

No, she's known for her blemish-free skin. WYSIWYG. She's dyed blonde most of the time though. I suppose it's whatever her job dictates.

Nicole Kidman carries red hair well . Unusually, she has no freckles.

It was relevant to my point, which you seem to be immune to understanding. Never mind. We'll let that talking point go.

It's the set of justices that represents the needs of the people, with each particular justice bringing a viewpoint/speciality from a particular demographic. One cannot do it all. The important thing is that each trusts the veracity of their colleagues contributions, so that they can make considered judgements. The political element is a serious flaw and probably negatively influences the free exchange of expertise between them.

They aren't showing off about it now though. This is one of those cases where society has moved on and some are still alive. They could theoretically still get publicly pilloried.

Why did you bring up Kavanaugh when I was responding about Clarence Thomas? You are attacking something I'm not even talking about. I was talking about how values change over time. Yes, Kavanaugh is relevant, yes Thomas is relevant... because they are part of our time. Go back to JFK's time, and Rolling Stones, Bowie etc, with random fornication, not so much, and was actually deemed ok, and even cool.

When did 'Kavanaugh' look like 'Clarence Thomas'? Look at what I quoted.

Yes, it was within our time and the social rules on sexual misconduct have not changed, so ones moral outrage is applicable. Go further back, sexual fidelity wasn't even an issue in making high office appointments and philandering was even admired. JFK comes to mind.

I thought that was quite straight forward, but I'll spell it out out for you: within ones living memory. Beyond that, the boat has sailed. But even then, I realize, at 60 years old, that some of my postions are increasingly antiquated in the eyes of the present youth. Social values are not immortal and unchanging... on multi-decade scales they are fluid and ephemeral.

It's not described to that level of finesse.

We can judge those things with our modern lens because they are modern events to us. The effects of those choices are tangible in our present. Our judgement is pertinent.

You are pointing back to less equitable times, when societal hierarchical stratification was a thing to be promoted and lauded. I think we just have to say that it was 'right and just' for those times. We shouldn't apply our modern moral mores on times so long since gone. In a couple of hundred years time, some things that we consider moral and just now may be anathema to a future society in the same location. Societal life is like a dictionary, it's meanings are pertinent only to the times they were written.

We must not exclude the minority sensible part of that demographic.

OK, I wasn't aware of that. It's not manufactured, it's just not seeing the whole picture. You used this argument before and it annoyed me greatly... it is unjustifiably superimposing an attitude on a perceived 'group'... they are not monolithic.

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.

That they are represented. Even when KJB retires and there are no black female SC judges sitting, they have historically been represented, and can be content. History matters, it guides the future. Another time in the future it can be another group's turn to be represented. I meant black females.

In an ideal society it would be colour-blind, gender-blind etc and the apparent ratios of representation within the SC wouldn't matter, but historically, ethnically-based, gender-based selection bias has been the norm. It has always been and always will be. The difference this time is that the selection is geared towards those groups who appear to be under-represented, rather than the historical pattern. Every group should have a voice and representative on the highest offices of the land to the best available ability. The only really fair way to do it is Lotto-style, but given the extremely small number of 'balls', the outcome will likely not proportionally reflect that of society. People will only think things are fair when the opportunity and representation is equal or proportional. Pragmatically, he should have just have just shut his mouth and picked from his preferred demographic. By doing so he was virtue-signalling to his base and probably pissed off the excluded groups, giving ammunition to the opposition. Not a smart move really. All in all, it's not KBJ's fault, congratulations to her, and another part of society are happier.

That shallow we can't see you sideways on.

I don't need to. Anecdotes are not data. If the totality of a person's cognitive experience is in the brain, and science supports that view, there is no signal from said brain, in 4 minutes without circulation, irreversible damage will commence. If you are going to start hypothesising about some metaphysical existence, you are in the wrong place. This is a science forum and that is not science.

If there's no electyrical activity in the brain, that person no longer exists. NDE obviously means that there is stll electrical activity in the brain, and therefore the person is not devoid of life.

Like the Chinese model.