MigL

Where have I, or JCM ever blamed or assigned fault to Democrats. We are Canadian. We expect our government to work. Maybe Americans have different expectations, and expect their government to fight their ideological battles for them. You guys don't seem to read posts by others ( I don't even know what Rangerx is reading ), but you keep repeating the same things over again. And nothing gets resolved. If you're happy with that, no government, and 800000 of your countrymen going without pay, then, great. But if you think there's a problem that needs resolving, then you should consider all options. ( cause you know D Trump won't solve anything )

The folly of applying a fictional science to fictional literature...

So are you saying that because one parent won't feed the kids, the other shouldn't either, as that would be 'giving in' ? In my opinion ( for what its worth ) parents, and governments, shouldn't be about assigning blame. Rather, taking care of those they are responsible for. Am I being naïve ?

Bad analogy INow. How about a couple with kids, getting divorced, and using custody as a weapon against each other ( even if one of them started it, and should get all the blame ) The very children they should be taking care of, are the ones suffering the most. At least, that's how I see it. But I'm not American.

Possibly. But not if there was any question as to who he was referring to.

I wonder, if you were one of the 800,000 who hasn't got paid in a month, would you still be so resolute in your opposition to D Trump ? I fail to see why Congress can't get the message out that they would be the ones helping people, not simply giving in. People that D Trump isn't willing to help, doesn't give a sh*t about and,is using as pawns to satisfy his ego.

Personally, INow, I wouldn't care if he called her a 'stupid bi*ch'. The term was MEANT to be offensive, and it was. I have a problem with calling it sexist, because it can be 'weaponized' by some unscrupulous people, who then use the term to label people who disagree with them, and who may not necessarily be sexist. It has happened with the 'racist' and 'homophobe' labels. Even on this forum where we all expect more reasoned thoughts and discussion.

That's a pretty long stretch, Raider. As far as I'm concerned, D Trump is totally responsible for the wall mess ( and many others ). Not the Democrats, nor most Republicans. However, both Democrats, and most Republicans have it in their power to help 800,000 people affected by the Government shutdown, 600,000 DACA immigrants and another 300,000 ( not my numbers, I'm assuming they're correct ) affected by the TPS extension. Instead of playing D Trump's game, why don't the Democrats release a statement saying... " We are going to do what governments are supposed to do. Help people. We, and some of our fellow Republicans are going to give in to that idiot's demands for the good of the country. We will not hold the American people hostage because of ideology or ego ( in D Trump's case ) " But that's just an opinion as I'm not one of the people affected by the government shutdown, or who could be helped by this deal. ( just wondering if anyone on this forum hasn't received any pay for the last month )

Saying a person 'j*wed you out of a quarter' is associating a trait with a religion/culture. It is racist because it unjustly associates that trait with all people of that religion/culture. That we both agree on. Calling T May a '****** woman' is associating the trait of being a woman, with all women. Certainly not the same thing. ( I can go into more detail regarding racism, or women, if you wish )

Soooo... Are we getting T-shirts ?

No, it was not used correctly, Zap. The person you were referring to, was not Jewish. ( that makes a huge difference ) In this case T May IS a woman.

So, who, in the US government, is considering the well being of those 800,000 people ? Is everyone going to join D Trump in the 'mud' ? Or is someone going to take the 'high ground' ?

I'm not playing at all ( and if you think that's stupid, it is your right ) In all the above quotes, I've never questioned whether the comment was offensive. I simply don't have the justification to claim it was SEXIST. Apparently, you being NOT stupid, have clear justification. How about presenting it to the rest of us, and not simply your interpretation ????

I'm glad you think I made a humorous comment. I assure you it was meant to be serious. Ten oz has constantly repeated that if someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is. I can agree with that. But does that make it sexist ???? You may have been offended by my treatment of your "suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously". And that is your right. But again, does that make it sexist ????? So why not cut the rest of the cr*p, and the accusations ( which I find offensive, by the way, but certainly NOT sexist ), and discuss the OP. What about " stupid woman' makes it SEXIST ???

Even 'offensive' people say decent things. And while he may be anti-religion, he is NOT anti-religious people. IE don't be so sensitive. But, do we really need a slogan or mission statement ? What's next ? T-shirts ? ( YES, I want one )

For a distant observer the temperature of a BH is related to its entropy, which is directly proportional to the EH surface area. Temperature is also a measure of energy, and energy is frame dependant. The FoR of a distant observer is different for that at the EH, inside the EH, or at the possible singularity. Talking about temperature of a BH makes no sense unless you specify your FoR.

You are not the only one involved in this discussion, Ten oz. If JCM is responding to Rangerx's accusations, here is no need for you to quote him out of context and question the relevance to the OP. It is becoming annoying. I still find it amusing that ANYONE expects D Trump to do the 'civil and bipartisan" thing, it is simply not in his nature. I do expect the rest of Congressional and Senate elected officials to do what is best for the people. That means, either forcing a vote, or giving in for the greater good. Not posturing for ideological position. ( and in some people's eyes, that makes me 'far right', since that is 'false equivalence' and I actually give a sh*t about the people )

What roadblocks Zap ? I have often said that sexism exists, and have told that I don't like offending people. Yet you and others continuously confuse offense with sexism. The two are different. There is no doubt that calling someone a stupid 'whatever' is offensive. how about trying to prove it is sexist. That's where everyone has failed ( for 19 pages now )

So, that original point ( at time t=0 ), which was then surrounded by 26 points ( at time t=1 unit ) is the center of the universe ? That's what Mordred is saying doesn't match observational evidence. Also you keep comparing space to a pond. In a pond, water 'waves' to transfer energy from one point to another. What exactly waves in 3D space, or a simple volume ?

When he gets here, maybe you can also ask him if we shouldn't talk/teach religious schoolchildren about evolution, as that may offend then. Creation it is then ! No wait, that may offend atheist schoolchildren. You know what, let's not teach them anything at all; it seems anything may offend people. edit: IE where do you draw the line ? ( this is not rhetorical; try to answer, please )

I have never claimed "stupid woman" wasn't offensive. It is. And so I choose not to use it, whatever you might think, Ten oz. But you seem hung up on the belief that 'offensive' and 'sexist' mean the same thing, and are interchangeable. Not everything offensive is sexist. And all I've ever claimed is that the term 'stupid woman' might not be SEXIST. AS for climate change ( whatever that may have to do with anything ?), it is neither sexist, nor offensive; but a scientific fact. If you're going to claim that scientific facts can offend some people, we had better stop teaching evolution. We can't offend a huge group like religious people; that's religious discrimination ( the words mean the same, don't they ? ) We should make every attempt not to bring it up as it is a bias and may offend some delicate sensibilities. Edit: I'm glad you agree that the term '****** woman' isn't necessarily sexist, INow. ( at least that's what I got from your post, and have never disagreed that sexism exists )

So, are you going to tell us the mathematical definition, or keep us in suspense ?

Its a far stretch from offensive to sexist, Zapatos. I change my speech so as not to offend anyone. But that does not mean saying "stupid woman" is sexist. Yes it is rude, mostly because of the 'stupid' part,and I wouldn't say that to anyone ( although I may think it ), because I'm not a confrontational type ( haven't you noticed ? ). So yes the argument has been made that some see this expression as offensive, and various contortions of arguments have been made that it is sexist. However, I'm not convinced of the latter ( but feel free to keep trying to convince me ) And that has nothing to do with whether I or JCM think sexism exists or not. We just happen to disagree on what exactly IS sexist. So why does everyone keep making statements like "If you don't think sexism exists" ? That was never the argument.