Intoscience

I can see your point and understand the premise. But I think there are ways to go about it that would sit more comfortably with the majority. Singling out whether it be positively or negatively can have repercussions, especially if there is a larger agenda or the motives are unclear. So in your example I would question whether the additional pay was because you actually realised that I deserved the bonus or whether you did it because you wanted to look good and be seeing to be doing the right thing? Of course giving me the bonus is the right thing to do (assuming my efforts warrant it) if I was mistreated or discriminated against in the past. However, the way that this is dealt with needs consideration. Pre-announcing to the everyone else that I would be getting a bonus and no one else will be, may not be the most tactful way. This singling out may make things uncomfortable for both me and my work colleagues and may put a question mark over your management skills, and motives. A much better way maybe would have been to keep it low key, then pay the bonus, and then explain to me and possibly my colleagues in detail why this had been done. There would still be some unhappy people who felt it unjust, but for the majority based on your actions, your motive would have been clear - you genuinely wanted to set things right for the person who had been previously discriminated against, rather than trying to look good or gain popularity for yourself. Ironically you would most likely gain more popularity and respect by being more tactful anyhow.

Does it matter? Any decision made that appears pre-determined before the final process based on criteria which is biased towards gender and/or colour can be considered wrongly discriminative, whether you want to consider it positive or negative. Maybe it was that there were other candidates equally as qualified to do the job and KBJ was chosen at that point because she happened to be a female black lady, or maybe she was just the best person for the job. If either was the case then why did Biden not just say this? It would be quite simple to have done so. Yeah, but was there a need to do it? What was the purpose of the announcement other than for political gains?

I couldn't give a rats ass about over sensitive people in general, especially the "white privileged males". I was actually pointing to the possibility that the "pre-selection" could and has been perceived as discrimination in a bad way, since it was based on colour and gender, which is exactly why (so it appears) the selection was made in the first place - To show that the previously wrong acts of discrimination throughout history by suppressing certain groups needs to end. So in an act of ending colour and gender discrimination, he pre-announces that he will choose a person based on their skin colour and gender. All sounds rather hypercritical wouldn't you say? So, just to reiterate again, I support, welcome and applaud the appointment of KBJ. However, (in my humble opinion) the act of pre announcing that the next Judge is going to be... "a person of a certain gender and of a certain colour" is the very discrimination tactic that modern western society is trying to eliminate.

Yes, no one is arguing his choice. We (or so it appears) all agree that KBJ was an excellent choice and a long time coming!! All we are saying, is that it would have been wiser to have kept his mouth shut. In my opinion it would have given his choice even more strength and credibility if he hadn't "pre selected" publicly. I just think that his announcement prior potentially undermines his choice, or at least provides fuel to encourage or create a different perspective which could undermine his choice. In modern society people want to feel that there is totally unbiased equal opportunity (maybe just an idealism). So many groups have been supressed throughout history, be it race, creed or gender driven. The key is to give the previously supressed groups that unbiased opportunity without appearing biased, be that positive or negative. My son's wife is Afro Caribbean, she works in the legal system, I have had this discussion with her and though delighted by Biden's choice, she agrees that his announcement prior could be perceived negatively, which potentially takes the "shine" off KBJ's appointment.

This is something I'm currently dealing with in my work. I have a number of younger staff who feel they have been discriminated against because non have been selected for promotion and the person who was successful was of a "senior" age. They fail to accept that the promotion was given using a well established points scoring system based on an extensive criteria non of which considers age, gender... I'm now coming under pressure from the HR department to reconsider my decision (in fear of an age discrimination lawsuit) even though I can demonstrate that the person selected was the most capable and qualified for the position. To be clear, I'm an advocate of equally opportunity, but I also understand and appreciate that logically there cannot always be an equal outcome. I'm sure KJB is the most capable and the most qualified for the job, and I'm sure she will demonstrate this during her service. No one is questioning the decision on whether she is the right person or not, what is in question is whether or not the decision was pre conceived and for what purpose. As zapatos said (see below) maybe this was the reason? That is a good point, and I'd like to believe the motivation around his statement was to show his feelings, thoughts, and consideration towards honesty and integrity. If so, Good for Joe also.

As Genady stated, why does he need to prove a nonexistence? It's for those who claim god is real to prove existence. He points his finger at those who claim beyond doubt at the same time contradicting/ignoring or not providing scientific evidence. He only claims the people delusional who actually for all intent are delusional when they make unfounded and absurd claims with nothing but blind faith to back it up. From the talks and interviews I have seen him in he shows the upmost respect for people who have religious faiths & beliefs but at the same time respect the scientific method. If I were to proclaim that I believe in the flying, 2 headed, pig god, who talks to me all the time and is the creator of all things and that the science is wrong, would you consider me delusional? Should I ask you to prove the non existence of such a being?

I'm not sure this is true (my bold) any selection criteria ignored in favour of skin colour, gender, race, religion... could be considered negative discrimination.

Yes, she is a very attractive lady. I wonder if she has more freckles than she appears to but hides them well with make up? I know some redheads have many freckles while others have few. I also notice that there seems to be a correlation with the "gingerness" of the hair and the number of freckles. Those that appear very ginger tend to have more freckles where those that are closer to blonde have fewer?

Do you mind, I was just taking a sip off coffee whilst reading this and spat it out in laughter! My first love was a fiery red head, she had freckles everywhere, I found them rather attractive myself. To be fair though, I'm not sure about other cultures but certainly in mine a red headed male would not feature very high on a list of physical "attractiveness" from any general survey conducted. It's generally the usual cliché of - tall, dark and handsome as top contenders. A short, "ugly" redheaded male doesn't stand much of a chance and would generally have to recruit his charm, wit and comedy skills to gain attention. I know this from experience because a good friend of mine fits this description and he is under no illusion when it comes to attracting potential partners. He has honed his personality and social skills to some success. On the other hand I have known and even dated some very attractive redheaded women. There is a redheaded lady that attends the gym where I currently work out, she is very attractive and gains much attention.

+1 Well if you're happy then I'm happy... Ok I'll bite and have a go. Yes, its rational to be an atheist and believe in religion. I'm an atheist and also consider myself a rationalist, who also believes in the concepts and some ideas of most religions.

Maybe, I don't claim to be correct, its just my opinion I shared on this forum. I have my own views on the joke, again I'm sure many would disagree with. Personally my opinion is, the joke was lame, but quite tame. Will's reaction was understandable but his actions wrong and unjust.

I don't know, maybe some folk that support Will might think so. It just "seemed" to me that's all. Will has obviously got personal issues and the out burst could well be (likely) part of his frustration. All I was saying is that the joke (in my opinion) did not justify Will's reaction. Where others may feel the slap was deserving, or at least understandable due to Chris's "insulting" remarks. But the matter is, Chris was just doing his job and Will was out of order. Lets face it, would people even be questioning the joke if Will hadn't reacted the way he did? I think not. +1, Will appeared to be laughing quite calmly at Chris's jokes including the one aimed at Jada until he saw her reaction. This then sparked his reaction, maybe this was an attempt by Will to prove something to Jada?

Personally... I couldn't give a shit, I don't want anything. I was just saying, as it seems to me some people are focusing on the joke as if to justify Will's actions. It was a crap joke and a bit insensitive, but not so bad it deserved a slap.

I'll take that anytime as a compliment, since I'd like to think I'm in this group. Nice post by the way +1

I share your sentiment, Either way life started somewhere, and that somewhere had to have specific conditions and chemistry and probably a whole other factors for that life to begin (life as we know it). Earth seems to be ideal, so why invoke panspermia? Even if life originated elsewhere, and was miraculously transported to Earth, the conditions on Earth still had to be so that the life could thrive and evolve. Unless of course we discover that there has to be something specially adapt for abiogenesis that Earth did not originally long ago have, but it did have the capability to support life, rather than create life. But to me this seems rather unlikely.

We have all had those moments, I've had plenty of sudden outbursts and regretted them afterwards. Doesn't make them right, that's all I was saying.

In hindsight the joke was probably in bad taste, I don't believe it was intended as a dig at Jada's condition or to purposefully demean her in anyway. Will's reaction however was totally wrong, so I believe there is a difference. Nice PR stunt though.

Yes, and based on our current technological development, especially AI, I can easily see a logical evolution towards an electro-mechanical dominant intelligence. This currently seems to be a route that might take a natural course, since this type of "life" (assuming we define it that way) face much less challenges than our feeble biological bodies can endure and can go on to evolve at a far greater rate than we ever could. It will far easier for this intelligence to spread out across the galaxy and maybe further still into galaxies throughout the universe. It would be a major breakthrough in our understanding of how life comes to being, or at least our definition of what we consider life.

I agree, the slap looked either staged or pulled. The resulting force which would have happened from the way Will drew his arm back would have been much harder and louder than what was received and Chris would have reacted much more and with more pain. Also it appeared Will found the joke quite funny until he saw the reaction of his wife, whereby he then changed his attitude. In my opinion the joke good or bad was rather tame and I'm not sure if Chris was aware of Jada's medical condition or not. If he was then the joke was in poor taste, but if not I can see why he would consider it ok. Jada is (rightly so) going to be very sensitive whilst dealing with her condition, so her reaction was understandable. However Will's action was completely out of order and was a mistake. I doubt very much Chris's life was ever in danger, the blow was very weak, so unless he was unlucky enough to fall or have a medical condition of his own that would be vulnerable to such a weak blow then I think this episode has been (as expected for show biss) blown out of all proportion.

Ok, fair enough. I was just stating that my opinion could be wrong and that I would happily change my opinion should I be convinced to do so. I could have worded it better, I didn't expect it to be interpreted as the way you did so.

Yep, it was just an observation from me not an argument. Exactly and this is why calculating the odds can be very ambiguous especially since they are strongly based on assumptions and the one and only example we have. I didn't do the calculation myself, the figure I mentioned was just from memory and was from a documentary I watched. The reason it stuck with me is because of the comparison to the number of observable stars. Oh and this figure was for the likelihood of humans or similar developing not just simple life as we know it. I'll try and find a link to the documentary should anyone be interested.

I don't consider this thread (or any for that matter) a competition so I'm not sure where you got that idea. But I see it as a moral choice, yes it could be one that I may have voluntary chosen to make, or one that was forced on me as part of my job and responsibility. Yes, and like I said, I see it as a moral duty to try and save lives and if the situation becomes so unfortunate that I have to inflict pain on another to do that then I see this as a necessary evil for the greater good.

True, though I was talking specifically about humans since we are the only known example of technological capable life. Humans became technological starting with using basic tools and then developing from there. Of course this is life as we know it and based on the only sample which we currently have. But what else can we do? until we / if we discover life elsewhere in any other form or similar we only have one example to compare to. So if we want to speculate using at least some evidence then we currently have no choice but to try and understand how life may have begun here and then develop into us.

Yeah, I believe that's the crux of it. The resulting low odds are are calculated from a vast number of assumptions rather than facts which could be convincing should the assumptions become facts. It all starts with the odds of a planet similar to earth being born, along with the formation of the moon and the protection from the gas giants and the size and age and sustainability of the sun... all the way through up to the chances of a species developing tools etc... When you look at the sequence of events that happened for us to be here its quite mind numbing and based on this premise you can easily see how the odds of us ever existing is quite remarkable. As I said the vast majority is based on assumptions rather than facts, but it gets you thinking!

Fair enough, I don't agree though, I did state "all available methods within the time frame" which I appreciate can be open to interpretation and a bit ambiguous. When I consider this approach I'm imaging a situation where things are a little desperate and this creates a rather chaotic environment. Obviously a calm and calculated approach should be adopted as much as possible. Math is not my strong suit either, though I wasn't counting, it was more of a flippant comment from me because quickly reading it I felt the list was biased towards all the "maybe" negatives. Which in my very humble opinion are out weighed by the one possible positive of saving innocent lives. Maybe my approach to all this is just wrong and you folk are trying desperately to educate me in my error. I don't know and never claim to do so, but my opinion is that the act of torture is a far lesser wrong that the act of taking innocent lives. I cant get over this (my under lined).