MigL

Cyanoacrylate adhesive ( superglue ) is often used to 'seal' open wounds, where stitches might be too obtrusive. Doctors don't seem to be worried about absorption and toxicity. And superglue might keep your hairpiece on for months at a time. Better yet, shave your head and grow a beard.

Umm, windows are one thing, Zap. Would you feel better if you were one of the 5 killed at the Capital, or on of the 18 killed during the BLM protests? And lets not confuse the issue with self defense; we are discussing perpetrating violence, up to and including the death of innocent bystanders. At both protests people were there by choice, and some ( not all ) willfully harmed ( and killed ) innocents. In my opinion, violence is violence, no qualifiers. I recognize that others may have a different opinion, as you've stated ( personally, I would have used hate crimes as an example ) But it's like pulling teeth trying to get others ( hi, INow ) to admit they qualify their violence. Ahh, but here's the rub, those 'rapscallions' ( interesting choice of word ) firmly believe they were saving the country from an insurrection mounted by the Democrats, to steal an election which D Trump actually won. In their minds, they were modern day G Washingtons, rebelling against an attempt to install an illegitimate Government. They were told so by their/your President !

And I don't want to split hairs either, but this is another example of the 'whataboutism' that I previously accused you of. You claim that you've done a search, but cannot find any instances in your previous posts, but I don't think you realize you are doing it. You are trying to justify that one violence is worse than the other by invoking motivation. Whereas I lump all violence together as unwarranted and bad, you compare different instances of violence, and proclaim one is worse, and the other, better. Maybe we could just ask the victims which is better 🙂 . ( I added the smiley face so Zapatos doesn't get overly concerned ) Well, since INow wants to look at motivation, all those idiots at the Capital did, in fact, believe that the election was illegally 'stolen', and so, their 'cause was ( to them ) just and legal. And, as INow says of the BLM protests, that was their central strategy; the B+E, property damage, and violence was only at the 'margins'. Hell, most of the idiots from the Capital, captured on video, look like they're sightseeing. Indeed. Never mind that D Trump is a power-hungry moron, and they are idiots for believing him; they had the support of the sitting President! If the President orders you to go to war, do you question the legality, and refuse ? That would have been great for all those who didn't want to go to Vietnam; they had to come to Canada instead.

The only part I focused on was the violence. And this applies to Swansont also; the two protest events DO have violence in common. That applies to both, and, and, in that respect they ARE equivalent. As a matter of fact, one could argue that there has been much more violence perpetrated during the Summer's BLM protests than there was at the Capital. See here https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/ It is the 'symbolism' of the events that makes the Capital insurrection much more damaging. If you have any doubt about my meaning, I suggest a re-reading of the OP; it focuses on the violence of current protests, NOT comparisons between different protests. I will throw you a bone, INow, this part is accurate. There was a disproportionate response to the two protests in question, but, as I did not set out to compare, or equate, the two, did not mention it. The two different protests were only mentioned in the OP as they both involve violence. And, almost as if to prove the point, Beecee has posted about the relatively peaceful protests in Australia. We used to have protests like that in the US; what has happened ? ( that was the intent of the OP )

Such a misnomer... Well, that's that then. Into the rubbish with my Pink Floyd album ...

Erastosthenes' method/writings are lost to history. What is preserved is Cleomedes' method/writings. Unfortunately, his lifetime is not known accurately; somewhere between 100BCE and 400CE. So assuming Cleomedes' lived about 200CE, John would be right.

That seems like a 'loaded' question to me. Almost an accusation. I would think it was your question that had ( not so ) hidden meaning. So you explanation is that ALL the violence at BLM protests was perpetrated by 'planted' fascists, who want to discredit the BLM movement ? Or do you mean that they had signs which stated their intent, but the violence happened 'accidentally' ? If the former, you had better provide some credible evidence, or are you gonna go Trump on us, and claim 'fake news'? If the latter, the next time I punch someone out, I'l be holding a sign that says " Friendly Discussion"; I'll let you know how it holds up in court.

Yes. Where my ( or those I care about ) life and liberty is threatened; otherwise, no. No, you have groups 'protesting' against 'blacks being killed for no reason', by hurting innocent people, destroying property, and taking over cities. I think I have made my stance against any kind of violent protests well known on this forum. Everyone has the right to protest, but that right ends when it starts infringing on the rights of others. PS The certificate for the site seems to have expired ? Company firewall wouldn't let me on at work. Had to wait till I got home

Not to worry Zap, friends should be able to talk about this sort of stuff. Well, you're willing to excuse violence perpetrated in the BLM protests, because those protesters feel they are being discriminated against by Police/Justice System. When did violence gain a case sensitive meaning ? Violence IS violence. Whether there is an equivalence ( or not ), is immaterial. And I never made any such claim, I was accused of doing so. Complaining of me misinterpreting you, when you misinterpret me, seems a little one-sided. Would it help alleviate Zapatos' concerns if I included 'smiley faces' with my posts ?

Thanks JC. ( I'm at work, so I don't have much time. Other than that example with regards to INow, there is also Swansont's from the top of the last page. I commented on the uncharacteristic behavior of American protesters, both at the Capital and during the Summer BLM/G Floyd protests; I expect those kind of violent protests in other countries. Swansont immediately commented that I was making an equivalence, when, in effect, HE was. And someone liked his comment. A If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way. I interpret it the same as JC. You claim that some violence is good if it's for the right cause; and some is bad if it's for the wrong cause. And of course, YOU (and those who think like you ) are the arbiters of right and wrong.

If you had stopped there, I would have given you a +1 also. Unfortunately you misguidedly went on about 'whataboutism', when some of you guys are the biggest offenders. Anytime JC or I ( and a few others ) mention mis-steps by American progressives/Democrats, your first answer ( as well as Swansont, Phi, and a few others ) is always "But the Republicans do much much worse; they can't even be compared. So why are you even bringing it up ?" If you can't think of the times you've done this, I can post numerous examples/quotes. If that is your attitude, it is going to be a boring 4 years in the Politics Forum. Everytime someone criticized the new Government, your first response will be "But D Trump did much worse during his Presidency." And then I'm told I have biases

I didn't compare the actions. I compared the mindset of the perpetrators. Don't let your biases misinterpret my meaning.

Haven't seen this type of behavior since ( video clips of ) the late 60s. Seems violent protest is the new normal for American society. This past year has seen an insurrection on the elected Government of the Country, as well as a Summer of violent protests against authority/Judicial system, while cities were taken over, and held, by unlawful protesters. D Trump just lit the fuse ( or recognized the flaw ), it can't all be blamed on him; this is uncharacteristic behavior for the American people, on both sides of the political spectrum. Does the end justify the means now? Is violence and destruction warranted when you think your cause is just ? Whatever happened to reasoning and discourse ? Has it been replaced by emotional response ? You guys better tone it down, before you actually tear your country apart ( remember 1861 ? )

I would think that a 'cure' is any process which moves you closer to the center of the 'spectrum', or, what is considered normal. Psychopathic thoughts are common to a wide range of people; we all have 'dark' thoughts from time to time. ( I have often thought of going to England to beat up Dimreepr, when he makes one word/obscure posts ) The difference is that most people's psyche has built-in checks to control those 'dark' thoughts; people who get diagnosed as 'psychopaths' are missing those checks ( in various degrees ), and act on those 'dark' thoughts. For mild cases of psychotic behavior the 'cure' is as simple as therapy which allows the person to recognize the harm they do by acting on those 'dark' thoughts. Imprisoned criminals are usually asked if they regret the harm they caused to others; an indication they have been rehabilitated, when they're up for early release/parole

You were right then, and you are still right now, Zap. Information without evidence, or rational reason, is Religion. Based solely on belief, and can be 'twisted' subjectively by the believer. No need for a deity; a cult of personality will do. And while you expect it of people in the Middle Ages, it's really surprising how many people still fall for 'cults' to this day.

I see no problem with what Australia is doing. Any country has the right to favor local information providers over foreign ones. No different than import taxes or tariffs. Or "Buy American". Google then choosing ( or threatening ) to withdraw their service is shooting themselves in the foot. I suppose it all depends on HOW the Aussie Government implements this revenue sharing ( with News Organizations ),

Exactly. There is a wide range of mental conditions, some of which overlap, and the reason we call it a spectrum. All of us belong on this spectrum, and therefore human behaviour, even with 'normals' or 'typicals' is a largely unpredictive science, compared to math, physics or chemistry. There are also a wide range of 'cures', ranging from operable tumors, to medication, or even therapy. A blanket 'no' to all cures, forced or not, seems shortsighted. What is jail ( supposed to be ) other than rehabilitative therapy for wide-range psychopaths ? Similarly a blanket 'yes' is also problematical, because in some cases of mental conditions, it makes things worse by re-enforcing the problem. That has been my position from the beginning; this is not a simple question. ( actually, one could argue our current prison system does the same )

That seems to be a misconception of what you consider a 'cure' ( lobotomies ? really ? ) I know one really nice homeless guy, Frank M., who hangs around the area. He lost his way when his sister committed suicide, is paranoid, and hears voices. His dad worked with mine, and he has a fantastic memory, recalling events from when we were both young in the 70s. I have often given him money, and when his Government check comes in, he always insists on repaying it. He could live at home with his mother and live a fairly 'normal' life ( he has at times ), but he chooses to live on the streets and not take his 'cure'. His cure consists of medication, not a lobotomy. Often times the 'cure' may only consist of counselling.

I don't know how cold it gets in Iowa during the winter INow, but in the Great Lakes region, I have seen it get to -25o C at night, close to -40o with the wind chill. If you ever walk by a mentally ill homeless person, who will not go to the homeless shelter down the street, but would rather sleep on the sewer grate in those temperatures, because he's afraid they will steal the dolls he has in his bags,at the shelter, and you decide that it's a good idea to leave him to do as he wants, and you can feel good about your actions, you are a better man than I am. True story, incidentally. Never did convince him to go to the shelter, but took him to Tim Horton's and we had hot coffees for an hour or two. Still feel bad about it to this day ( almost 20 years later )

Exactly why this is not a simple question, and needs both sides to be considered at length. The 'typicals' should not have the right to force 'atypicals' into doing things they don't want, and I certainly understand your viewpoint, INow. But what if the 'atypicals' cannot make an informed decision ( and who decides if they can, or not ), or if the decisions they make are detrimental to their well being, or even dangerous to their, or other's lives ? Is it more compassionate to take away their rights, and force them to do things for their own safety, or more compassionate to let them be who they are, and do what they choose, and watch as they hurt themselves, or possibly die? This is similar to the ongoing assisted suicide thread, "Is Suicide Right or Wrong ?", in Ethics. You could make the argument that a person who's in great pain ( akin to being tortured continuously ), cannot make the informed decision to end their own life. Should we let them ?

Well, the previous President does have an excuse. He's been busy trying to overturn an election, and plotting insurrections, since Nov 3, and hasn't really had any time to do his actual job.

Bill Maher is especially funny at about the 8th minute. Talking about QAnon, he asks " If K Harris really is a lizard person, why didn't she eat the fly on M Pence's head, during the debate ?"

Society is often able to forcibly do all sorts of things to people through Government legislation; and I'm sure you agree with lot of them. They are able to confine you to a cell or house, if you are imprisoned or quarantined. They are able to tie you up, whenever you drive your vehicle, with a seat/shoulder belt. And many more. We don't protest these laws because we realize it is for our own good. Why are we so squeamish about forcing a mentally sick person off the street, and into a shelter, so he doesn't freeze to death, simply because his sick mind is telling him he doesn't want to go there ? Should we let him die in the cold ? ( this is not specifically about psychopaths anymore, but all mental conditions, or, the 'spectrum' in fashionable speak )

There are two ways to look at it... 1 - It is a deviation from the normal, and, being unpredictable, could result in danger to themselves, or others. 2 - It is part of a 'spectrum', and until there is demonstrated danger to themselves, or others, they should be left to live as they see fit. The first way, results in people trying to 'cure' homosexuality, as it is also a deviation from the norm. The second results in mentally challenged, homeless people being left on the streets to freeze in -20o temps, because they refuse to go to homeless shelters. I don't know which of th two is more cruel, but I do know that this is not a simple question with a yes/no answer.

The strong equivalence principle suggests gravity is geometric in nature, only the metric determines its effects, and does not have any extra external fields associated with it. The strong equivalence principle can be tested by several methods. Variations in the mass of fundamental particles, or the variation of G over the life of the universe, have determined that the upper range in the variation of G cannot be more than 10%. It can also be tested by looking for extra forces, deviations from the forces predicted by GR, or the inverse square law. This is, in effect, what this study has done. It looked for the effects from the large scale gravitational field from an all-sky galaxy catalog, and concluded that there was statistically significant evidence of violation of the strong equivalence principle in weak gravitational fields in the vicinity of rotationally supported galaxies. They observed an external field ( Machian ) effect of the MOND type, a theory of gravity inconsistent with tidal effects and the Lambda-CDM model. Their paper Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies - IOPscience and a quote from the abstract "The strong equivalence principle (SEP) distinguishes general relativity (GR) from other viable theories of gravity. The SEP demands that the internal dynamics of a self-gravitating system under freefall in an external gravitational field should not depend on the external field strength. We test the SEP by investigating the external field effect (EFE) in Milgromian dynamics (MOND), proposed as an alternative to dark matter in interpreting galactic kinematics. We report a detection of this EFE using galaxies from the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) sample together with estimates of the large-scale external gravitational field from an all-sky galaxy catalog."