MigL

I change MY speech because I consider it good social behavior. ( and I'm a nice guy ) I don't suggest everyone should change theirs because it's sexist. How is that a conflicted position ? And how does it not answer Zap's question ?

I said, I, personally, don't like to make others feel uncomfortable. But I will not dictate to others what the limits of offensive speech are.

Well then, it seems we've wasted 17 pages.

Then why are you telling me I should find the term offensive ?

Seems to me that, if hiding the truth about whether a stain on a blue dress was due to sex or not, is enough cause to start impeachment proceedings, after all of D Trump's lies and unlawful dealings, there must be enough also. If only for the fact that he surrounded himself with people who have been shown to be involved in criminal activities. I say start rolling out the findings of the investigation, while continuing with it. It may sway some Senator's minds, especially the ones who realize the ship is sinking, and may want to jump off.

You can even confirm it with a single detector. If you overlay the photographic plates of single detections, done at different locations ( say NY and LA ), and at different times, you will note a diffraction pattern. ( another 'funny' aspect of QM )

Zapatos previously said "MigL seems to either not know that the term "stupid woman" might be offensive to some" and that is a mis-characterization. I have stated my personal stance on the subject. If I say or do something offensive to another, and I am informed, I will do my best to avoid doing or saying it again. That is how I think. However, every thinking person has the option of considering other viewpoints, and I've often done this in the past. Even viewpoints that I don't personally agree with are worth consideration and exploring. This is after all, a discussion forum, with differing opinions. Not a blog. I understand that some words may cause perceived offence ( for a multitude if reasons, including historical ), and I certainly don't like to make anyone uncomfortable, however I'm also a firm believer in free speech. And changing what you can say, in a free society, according to someone's constantly changing sensibilities seems like going too far. When even saying 'intelligent woman' or 'handsome man' is considered sexist, maybe we need to look at the cult of 'victimhood' which has taken over our Western societies, where everybody is a victim, and offended by the most trivial slight.

This was my 'offensive' post. "Well, that particular 'stupid woman' ( T May )has just lost the vote on the BREXIT deal and may face a no-confidence vote. But at least she's not as bad as that particular 'stupid man' ( D Trump ) in the White House." I don't see how much clearer I can make it, to identify one specific woman and one specific man. NOT all womankind or mankind. Are we going to toss context out the window too ? Some are so focussed on sexism that they'll find it no matter what. And even go to the extent of being sexist in their criteria. ( also, you 'll notice a lot of objections to 'stupid woman' but not a single complaint about " stupid man' )

QM is 'funny' that way... If your experimental set up looks for wave properties you will detect waves. If it looks for particle properties, then, that is what you'll detect.

You still don't get it. ( or maybe I'm not explaining properly ) I make a statement that is both factual and properly uses the English language. You have the option of interpreting it as you will. Either as a factual statement or a sexist statement. If you choose the latter interpretation, is it not because you have an inherent bias towards men and think that they are ALL sexist ? ( and this applies to racism and other biases. If you expect to find it, you will ) And is this not sexist itself ? And yes you can call that 'victim' blaming. But only if you and the interpreter ( victim ) share the same sexist bias.

No, the disclaimer was there for exactly this type of nonsense reaction. My post specifically identified one woman and one man that are, in my opinion, acting stupid, including their names. Why would you take that as offensive to women or men ? Your thinking that I was using sarcasm to make a point, is colored by your impression of me, because up to that point, I hadn't been sarcastic at all, but seriously giving my opinion. Now this is where the sarcasm comes in... Your pre-judgemental attitude towards my opinions is demonstrably biased and obviously offensive. What do you propose to do about it ?

My use of the term wasn't meant to be sarcastic. The two choices analyzing your thinking about me, on the other hand, were.

You made a very profound statement, Jajrussel… " I am assuming that you are not implying that one has to know what they are measuring in order to measure it? " That is precisely what wave-particle duality implies. ( Swansont has already alluded to this )

Essentially correct for the GR definition. Except I would say, it approaches Euclidian at a sufficiently local level. The mathematical definition will differ.

Maybe that's what the US needs after the Trump disaster. A little more navel gazing and less foreign involvement.

The only one I'm familiar with to any extent, is E Warren. She would make an excellent candidate. If the bar is only as high as to who would be a better POTUS than D Trump, I'm sure any of them would be ( and even a few Republicans ). But why wait. Impeach now !

You could be right, or, you could be wrong. If you think I'm the kind of person who would do that, then, yes, you'd be right. If, on the other hand, you think I'm a decent person and wouldn't stoop to that, then, you'd be wrong. Does whether you're offended by my behavior depend on your pre-judgement of me ? ( and yes, I'm sarcastically making a point )

I was simply posting news. But I did add a disclaimer, in case anyone was offended with my opinions of the people involved. Or are you saying that people may be offended by my apologizing beforehand for any perceived offence ?

My 'self' must be in real life then. Because I often feel unaccepted on this forum.

Well, that particular 'stupid woman' ( T May )has just lost the vote on the BREXIT deal and may face a no-confidence vote. But at least she's not as bad as that particular 'stupid man' ( D Trump ) in the White House. Hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities.

But which is the real self ? The one we are not afraid to display on-line ? Or the 'masks' we wear in decent society ? Or is it the other way around ?

I beg to differ, John. As a Canadian we have a lower incarceration rate and prison population than the UK does. ( as per your link )

Are we discussing Black Holes or the German language ? The 'strictly science" forums are rarely, if ever ridiculed here. Belief/opinion based forums such as religion/politics sometimes are. ( or when a poster develops an attachment to an idea bordering on faith, and cannot be convinced otherwise with facts )

The US has a huge problem with their government ( or lack of ) at the moment, and people are suffering Some on this forum ( and Democrats ), seem to think that we need to be tough and eventually D Trump will change his mind, give in to the will of the people, act for their benefit, and be rational. Does no-one else see how ludicrous that is ???

Crime, and prisons, were much less prevalent in the former USSR than in Western countries. I suppose it's because J Stalin didn't punish just the criminal, but rather, his whole family was sent to the gulag, or executed. ( and their dog, too ) Is that the kind of society we want to be ?