MigL

I suggested that about a week ago ... The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws. They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe. Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

I know what the stsndard definition of solipsism is, but I'm not sure I know what it is. And I'm sure if you asked 25 people you would get 25 different definitions. Physics doesn't work like that.

For what it's worth, I have repeatedly said the subject of the OP was not particularly upsetting to me. Ultimately J Biden made a good choice in KBJ, but could have handled the preannounced selection criteria in a more politically correct fashion. This has now gone completely off topic, with some telling me they are offended by my use of certain words which may ( depending on location ) offend a third party. MSC then berates them because he is offended that they are offending me. When did being offended for other people become a 'thing' ? Well I am not offended, so can we all take a deep breath and calm down. @MSC While I appreciate you sticking up for me, I assure you, it is not needed. INow and I are constantly tussling, and we both seem to enjoy it. Also keep in mind that INow ( and Peterkin ) are probably older than I am. ( and not as good looking, intelligent, or modest 😄 )

Peterkin has all the facts, but can't seem to draw the proper conclusion from them. That is correct. And especially in the Southern US, the term 'colored' was associated with black people, and eventually came to be seen as a racisl slur. This is all explained in INow link, if you are so interested. That is also correct. But in Canada the term still refers to People of Color, or anyone who is visibly not a white Caucasian. It does not refer only to Black Canadians, and I suspect, the situation is similar in other parts of the World that don't share US southern history. The conclusion he draws, that the border is 'porous', and we slowly embrace American characteristics, is false. I don't own a gun, even though every American TV show depicts gun use. We don't project power ( and attitude ) around the world, mostly because we have no equipment for our Armed Forces, but we do watch a lot of American war movies. Almost half of us don't think D Trump's Presidency was the 'second coming', and almost all of us Canadians think he's an idiot, even though Fox News is available in Canada. And even our Prime Minister, who likes to 'signal virtue', ( but then wears black face make-up ) has used the term 'coloured' ( notice the Canadian spelling ). Are you trying to 'out-signal' Justin, Peterkin ?

"There's only two thisngs I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch." Austin Powers

Now that I know it offends you, I will try not to use the term in conversation with you. But in Canada the term 'colored' still means of a visibly different skin color than a white Caucasian, and does not have the 'racist' connotations of the southern American States. Your response to me would be similar to me, going to India, and upon hearing one person call another 'Indian', correcting them and telling then they should use the term indigenous, or native American. Or going to the UK, and being shocked when String Junky asks for a packet of 'fags' at the store. As a matter of fact, it could be considered discriminatory to push your American sensibilities and biases on me and the rest of the world. America stops at the 49th parallel. ( would it have made a difference had I written 'coloured' nstead of 'colored' ? ) Peterkin, for one, is still confusing the discriminatory nature of the pre-announcement, or communicated intention, with the non-discriminatory selection of KBJ. So, I'm not 'railing' against your position, which I agree with ( J Biden used many more criteria than skin color and gender to make his selection ), but arguing that the prior announced selection criteria give the impression of being discriminatory. ( did not want to use 'optics' as he might go off on a tangent about its meaning again ) Then you also suffered from a false positive. I don't consider it a 'dig'. Case closed. ( besides, INow has said much worse to me 😄 )

I know. Here is the pertinent quote from your provided link "The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations," And I bolded and underlined the section that applies to me.

The other part was And of course we have thieves for many reasons other than poverty. I even gave one; greed ( 2 hrs ago ). So please explain your objection.

In what version of English is the term 'colored people' different from 'people of color' ? Or does the abbreviation make it more palatable ? Please explain.

Because he said Did you miss that in my previous post ?

Funny how you don't admonish others who have previously used the term PoC. What did you think the C stood for ? Try to make a better argument ...

What do you mean it never happened? According to your timeline he twice made the announcement that he would choose a candidate who is colored and a female. If he had said he would pick a 'white male' everyone here, including JC and I, would agree he used discriminatory language/criteria. I fail to understand how anyone can consider the appearance of his two pre-announcements, based on skin color and gender, not discriminatory.

Sure; but thieves are not the only criminals. And despite the fact that they can afford good lawyers to get them off, a large number of thieves are actually wealthy. I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

So why make the claim that if there were no jails, there would be no criminals ? and Bad choice of wording ? Or inability to distinguish between cause and consequence ?

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ? Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim. Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks. Some steal because they are greedy. You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

Better to appear a bigot than to appear a liar ???

I can imagine movements of the Earth's core affecting its magnetic field, with resultant variation in its ability to 'screen' cosmic rays.

Dark matter works in conjunction with existing gravitational fields and modifies them as if 'hidden' ( dark ) additional matter is present. Dark energy works where there is scarce matter, and little, if any, gravitational bonding.

I appreciate the clarification, because the pre-announcement was strictly about skin color and gender. Nothing else was mentioned. I still don't see how an interpretation, or subjective perception, can be in 'bad faith'. You don't get to judge other's perceptions in that way, even if they don't agree with yours. All of them ? Do I need to ask for evidence.or at least a citation ? That seems a rather broad generalization. It could also be that some people ( not conservative or liberal ) feel that a party and President who champions diversity and equality, without discriminating according to skin color and gender, would choose to give the impression of discriminating, according to those very factors, in the pre-announcement. While not being a big deal ( to me, anyway ) it does seem to be a poor choice.

Right above Beecee's words was the quote from JC which does just that. Advocating violence is never the solution; but you are right, it's not 'current'. Well, black Americans don't feel the need to advocate violence to obtain equal rights, and Democrats are not eating babies anymore. So some progress has been made.

It's going to be a hell of a job to relocate all the polar bears whose habitat is shrinking/disappearing in the Arctic, to Antartica.

I tested positive ( PCR ) for the original strain April 16th of last year. I got over it just about one year ago, and, you know, I don't feel quite the same yet. I feel like I've aged about a year. ( but my sense of humor has improved 😄 )

Never mind the Star Trek teleporters, which should be called disintegrators ... I was thinking more along the lines of Vincent Price ( 1958 ) and Jeff Goldblum ( 1986 ). ( ok, I watch a lot of movies )

Only in America ... A gun club to protect against those who advocate for the proliferation of guns. Didn't D Trump want to do the same, by arming teachers to combat gun violence in schools ? Seems a bit like trying to put out a fire with gasoline I don't usually consider it a 'far right' or 'far left' problem, just a problem with people, some of whom are nuts. Same as there is no such thing as extreme Communism or extreme Fascism. In the extreme, both systems use similar methods, and people suffer and die. I can be argued that as many, if not more, people suffered and died due to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, than did during WW2 against the Fascists/Nazis and South American Juntas.

Did somebody say "What does Lui think about this" ? I think this thread should be split off ( @ yesterday 6:34 pm ) because it currently has little to do with the troll who prompted the OP. I resisted posting in this thread simply to avoid feeding him. I would certainly welcome a discussion as to why a lot of us are obstinate and hard-headed. As long as we keep it friendly while trying to point out each other's character flaws.