Leaderboard

Slavery was/is not the whole story though. What about all the acts of violent discrimination not covered by that act? Black people were still getting lynched in the 60's. Black people, as a collective, are reaching out and want to be equal in every aspect of society and playing by the same rules. This is in stark contrast to Jewish society which is still insular.... and some Islamic societies.

I read a kind of public letter or lecture by Netanyahu from 2015 that had strong elements then of what has been decided now. Quite honestly, I think that Islamists and Jews have the same attitude and problems. They are both quite alien to Western sensibilities and vice versa and yet we treat Israel as philosophically the same. We treat Israel as though they are on our side but I don't think they are any more so than the Islamic nations. What I'm saying, is that Israel should be treated with the same degree of wariness. We are helping the Israelis, via supplying arms etc, against a nation that is no worse and no better than they are. As has been said, they can't play the victim card forever. They are going to have to be held accountable for their actions by the same rules as everybody else is held.

That is a valid point Ten oz. I don't consider the settlements lawful either. Israel should not expand beyond its mandated lands. It has no right to force others out; but the ones who have been in Israel since/after 1948 don't seem to be in any hurry to leave. As a matter of fact they are steadily increasing in numbers. Maybe Israel offers them an opportunity they can't get in neighboring Arab countries ? Yes CharonY, when those policies involve forced relocation or extermination, they are rightfully called 'fascist'. When they are more in line with what Quebec is doing to its English minority, then that term is a bit much. Or are you gonna call French-Canadians fascists also ? Sorry Stringy, I failed to notice the 'slippery slope' part of your argument. You are right. But Israel has a long way to go before it descends to the level of its neighbors, who want to destroy it.

Imagination is what puts you on the shoulders of giants to see further but first you have to know what they knew.

Or it wouldn't be football, and fewer people would be interested.

Ooof, the differences are huge and are politically or not just not comparable. But if one wanted to do such a comparison: As others have mentioned, policies (laws as well as practices such as redlining) persisted well into the 80s and other, perhaps unintended policies disproportionately affected (and still affect) black communities disproportionately. As a consequence generational wealth was not increasing resulting of disproportionate amount of black folks staying in poverty. The economic trajectories in Jewish communities was quite different, of course. And, again, as Zapatos mentioned, in online fora crime in black communities are not discussed in good faith. I doubt that anyone denies that black communities are more affected by crime than white communities. But it is also quite clear that poverty is a big driving factor. The talking point that slavery ended and thus they should have ample time to be successful glaringly overlooks the history of black communities post-slavery and reveals an underlying agenda. It is based on the assumption that black folks are inherently different/inferior and as such the lack of success is solely down to their deficiencies. It does not really matter if they mention genetics or culture, all they mean is something inherent, relatively unchangeable that is somehow also connected to dark skin colour. It is really just a skin-deep veneer over a bigoted world view. If you look at poverty levels among black communities, you'll see that only since the mid-90s a more sustained drop in black poverty was observed. And part of it is due to acknowledging the special issues black communities and the role racism (intentional or not) played in it. In contrast, post-holocaust there was a rather immediate recognition of how horrible the deeds were and Germany negotiated reparations. Sure the anti-semites did not suddenly vanished, but being openly anti-Jewish (Jewish, mind you, not Israel) was much more frowned upon than it used to be. As we all know that did not happen in the US for the black folks. So no, there are not many points were a comparison could be justified. Now touching on the situation in Quebec. The situation is quite different (though the francophone situations does not seem to be trivial either) as it is not merely promoting Hebrew to the national language but also quite clearly says that Israel is a Jewish nation. I.e. it is a specific exclusions of Arabic citizens. And that is quite a worrisome aspect as I would imagine that under Canadian law someone obtaining Canadian citizenship would be considered a full member of society, regardless of their heritage.

A semi-chicxulub event at some random place on the Earth. We don't have the will or the means to determine how it's done and be done fairly, so let chance and nature do it for us.

What was wrong with Hitler wanting to preserve German culture from Jewish culture? Israel is killing the Palestinians that try to enter Israel. They have their own way of ethnic cleansing. Israel wants to be 'pure', just like the Nazis did. If it walks like a duck....

I have no objection to the Jews being given a homeland. What I object to, it them being given Palestine, as if it was empty and belonged to nobody. To me, it's not the Jews who are of interest, but the Palestinians. Would people in the United States have stood for a Jewish homeland being created, in Colorado or Texas? Not a chance. Would the Brits have allowed it, in Kent? Ludicrous. But that's exactly what they did to the Palestinians. And then they started killing them, when they unsurprisingly protested. And they've never stopped since. Just a few weeks ago, the Israeli Army were using Palestinian protesters for target practice, because they were protesting and throwing stones. Adolf Hitler would have approved. During Nazi occupation, if one German got attacked, they would wipe out a whole village. Sometimes even a town. The Israelis use the same tactic. Throw stones, and they shoot a dozen dead. Disgusting. And in politics, they have teams of attackers, who round on anyone who says a wrong word about Israel. They are immediately labelled as anti semitic in a very organised and pre-planned way. I can't think of a single good thing about the State of Israel, or it's supporters.

Keeping in mind that I'm making an attempt to drive discussion ( civil please )... Why do we question how long the Israeli Jews are going to play the victim card when their distress happened 70 odd years ago, and have since been involved in several wars with aggressive neighbors, and a constant state of siege by said neighbors. Meanwhile, slavery was abolished in the US over 150 yrs ago, yet Black Americans still play the victim card. Everything is to do with racism. Correct the 'path of the ship by steering in the opposite direction' as Phi once put it ( affirmative action ? ) Black lives matter, but if you mention the two orders of magnitude greater murder rate of Black on Black violence, then you're a racist. If we as a society agree that these steps are necessary to correct past wrongs, make the field more level, and prevent future wrongs, then, why doesn't this apply to the Jews in Israel ?

Compressing the outside air before it is used in the ventilation system raises the partial pressure of the oxygen. The percentage of oxygen doesn't lower with altitude ( it still makes up ~21% of the gas mixture), there just are fewer gas molecules per given volume at high altitude. At sea level the partial pressure of oxygen is ~3 lb/in3. An atmosphere of pure oxygen at 3 lb/in3 is perfectly breathable. (This is what early astronauts used to breathe). At 1/3 atm, the partial pressure of oxygen is 1 lb.in3. If you take such air and compress it up to 1 atm, you also bring the oxygen partial pressure back up to 3 lb/in3. At an equivalent pressure of 3000 ft, air is still quite breathable even for fairly strenuous activity, so for sitting in an aircraft it is quite sufficient, as it only lowers the partial pressure to 2.6 lb/in3.

In the 'death zone', above 25000-26000ft where it's 7%, a seasoned mountaineer won't last more than 48 hours there without supplementary oxygen. Basically, you are slowly dying over that period until you do die.

I agree, but sometimes it's difficult to distinguish an excuse from a reason, especially when it's used to deflect criticism.

Just to be 'cheeky'... That's Christians who believe in "turn the other cheek', Stringy. Jews believe " an eye for an eye'.

I think they do because their experience in the second world war, given that it happened over a relatively short time, intensifies and focuses the evils of fascist tendencies and the US, GB etc bent over backwards to carve out a piece of Palestine for them. They should be setting an example that is the opposite of what they went thorough in the 30's and war years. I may have misinterpreted what you wrote but I'm open to being corrected.

While I realise you have a good reason for your biased view of religion, but you're conflating what people do with what religion intended.

No, we've jumped from fire use to inventions to leisure time. Going back to fire, though, I think it's very relevant to cave dwelling. I am personally convinced that the big attraction of a cave was the ease of keeping a fire going for long periods, which was surely a lifesaver to Neanderthals. If you picture the problems that they faced, in the absence of a cave, in keeping a fire going 24/7 in the very worst winter weather, you can get an idea of what difference a cave would make. It's so easy for us to throw wood in a shed, it's hard to imagine what it would be like for them. Your fuel could be soaking wet for weeks on end, and there can be torrential storms that would blow your fire away, and douse it. A cave makes it all so much easier. No high winds, no downpours, and your stored firewood dries out fairly rapidly. If they had the technology to light fires at will, then caves wouldn't be so vital. But it seems to be highly unlikely that they did. It's more likely that, if they lost their fire, they would have some technique of carrying smouldering embers, so they could maybe send someone to the next settlement, to get fire, and carry it back long distances as a smokey bundle, eventually getting fire restarted at home.

You write like you knew my uncle ??? In reality, what you describe was only true for a few days or weeks a year, on the odd days when there was good dry weather, and they made hay while the sun shone. The rest of the time, if you knew the weather in the West of Ireland, you would know that they had long spells of ENFORCED leisure time, when the weather prevented them from doing useful work. There were routine tasks, but also plenty of time for sitting round the fire, smoking and putting the world to rights and moaning about the weather. And that was in the summer. The winters are long with short days, and the enforced leisure time can last weeks on end. Not that they sat around all the time, they would find things to do, as most people do.

First, what historically has been done to Jewish people is unconscionable. They were mistreated in Russia prior to the first world war and the holocaust is among the ugly things inhuman history. Today antisemitism continues to exist and in still a real problem to varying degrees all over the world. That said Jewish peoples are not alone in being a historically disenfranchised peoples. Africans have experiences many of the same abuses and continue to be discriminated against around the world. Many Native peoples in the Americas and throughout Asia have been decimated to level where their culture is now unsustainable as anything other than reflection of what they once were. Past wrongs are should influence perspective but should be rubber stamp justifications for any and all behavior. In the the U.S. despite over a hundred years of slavery and an couple hundred years of segregation African Americans are still held to the same mutual (we the people) laws. In African The French, England, Dutch, U.S. and etc still exercise influence within various countries which they have economic interests. So when the historical treatment of Jewish people is used as a justification for modern political choices within Israel I cringe a bit. I cannot think of another group which has had their most coveted lands returned to them along with the full support and protection of the militarily and economically most power nations in the world. Jerusalem is the epicenter of Arabahamic Religion (3.7 billion people world wide). No group would be able to control the land free of conflict. The challenges Israel, the nation, faces today have nothing to do with Germany. Palestinian people are not German. Using Germany as an justification for treatment of Palestinians is an error in my opinion. Palestinian people have a historical and cultural relationship to the region and it is wrong to deny that. It is wrong to just ignore that they are there as if there is somewhere else for they belong. Israel is so preoccupied with codifying their own control that the needs of the Palestinians are being totally ignored and it is wrong.

We now get to the point that we always seem to get to when this comes up: which sense of "real" are you applying? Because it gets very muddled if one jumps back and forth between them. 1) Real, as in not an illusion? or 2) Real, as in it physically exists, i.e. is not a model or abstraction. They Feynman quote is using #2, and in that sense electric fields aren't. Even though nature behaves in a way that they seem to actually exist. I'm not sure color fits into this, since it's not really physics; it's a perception and at best, a property of something (and not necessarily an inherent quality), so that may not be a proper analogy. And I have no desire to follow anyone down that particular rabbit hole.

I don't think it's a lack of free time that stifles invention. It's resistance to change, which seems to be an inherited part of the human character. When I was a kid, I used to go to my Uncle's farm in Ireland in the school holidays. I was amazed at how some things were done, and would make suggestions that I knew would be better, but there was no chance of getting my uncle or grandfather to change. They were absolutely determined that that is how we've always done it, and we're not going to change now. That was more than fifty years ago, times have changed now. We're swamped with new inventions, and people see the value in them every day so it's almost a different world now. You might also have the influence of religion and spirits in ancient times. There might be ritual involved in flint knapping, or fire making, and mystic communication with the ancestors. To change it might be the equivalent of religious heresy.

Multiple universes need not be composed of the same building blocks and so could coexist in the same space. As an analogy, a room could be a 'universe' of light, while at the same time being a 'universe' of sound.

I think many people underestimate the amount of intelligence it requires to live as a hunter gatherer. Humans do not have fur, claws, great night vision, and etc. We lack the physical ability of our predator peers like Bears and Cougars. The average person today would die from some combination of dehydration, hunger, infection, and exposure inside a couple weeks if left on their own in a natural environment. The fact early humans thrived in the locations they did at all speaks to have intelligent they were.

The Observable Universe is finite. Anything outside of that may as well not exist, because it can never affect us in any way.

No one knows. Except for me, and I'm not saying.

Yes: comparing the Sapiens Sapiens' activity 45,000y ago with Neanderthals' 176,500y ago brings little, and the stalagmites as their are arranged obviously didn't serve to support a tent. The orange spots on the nice picture you linked show spots that have been hot. Only the red spot is charred. I suggest that the processing of the stalagmites, especially cutting them, involved heat as a means or a consequence. These stalagmites are 10-20cm diameter stones, so breaking or cutting them needs some doing. A camp fire would not have been made on the stalagmites, and the effect of heat would be observable on the ground too. 20cm spots are also small for a camp fire. By any means, the stalagmites and bones were heated before being assembled.

WOW I am up to -24 now. I wonder how many of the scientists here have been briefed on some of the things I am talking about and choose to try to discredit me? I don't care...

And you accepted that as a literal fact without questioning your instructor's wild accusations that he/she would have no knowledge whatsoever about the daily life of Neolithic hunter/gathers. Iffen those Neolithic hunter/gathers were hunting and gathering their daily food needs from an aquatic habitat (rivers, lakes, tidal zones) then 2-4 hours per day would surely be sufficient time. "HA", you just proved me correct. Your Uncle was far too busy just trying to survive to even think about paying any attention to someone like you who didn't have to work to survive and had plenty of free time for thinking up what your Uncle considered crazy ideas.

Predictably, schools and life teach us what we want and need to learn. I want to also learn the unpredictable. Science without imagination is like toast without butter. I prefer homemade apple butter on mine. There are many great minds here but some of them remind me of the first video games that came out...stuck with what they were "programmed" with.