StringJunky

Antibiotics are indiscriminate killers of anything that is sensitive to them. Target nutrients or the good guys and they'll reduce the habitat possibilities for the bad ones

And the conscience is subjective with many flavours. The trouble is too many think there's only one worth considering: their own.

Those same people one opposes may be applying the same qualities, in their minds, to their argument as oneself. There is no almighty referee to decide who is the most morally superior. Winning arguments doesn't change your opponent, but meeting in the middle might.`There are people who find ones beliefs genuinely repugnant, and that may well be positions we hold dear. Politics, ethics, morality are not based on a level of objective facts that we can all agree on much of the , like in science. In the light of that, getting on ones high horse and never dismounting will only ever foster continued dischordance. It's funny really, being in science forum. All these intelligent people trained in or desire to follow the scientific method and who have an inherent appreciation of uncertainly, leave it behind when they enter the humanity forums.

Affirmative appears to be polarising amongst African-American scholars as well: It appears that they have the same problems as we do discussing this.

Don't be a fossil, and seek to endeavour to understand what's changing. This has happened since the beginning of civilisation, and it is we, as aging people, that are stuck in a culture and manners that is passing by to become history... and so it will be for those who are making the waves now.

I would imagine they prefer 'American-Asian'. I don't know, but maybe 'Oriental' has negative Colonial-era connotations for them .

It is not fair to call people that are born in a culture, and identify as part of that culture, something which they are not. For instance a person with Oriental heritage, born in the US, is not 'Oriental'... they are American. Unlike an indigenous Oriental person, who I think, don't regard it as offensive, creates a sense of discrimination from their fellow Americans. You are not what your skin tells people, but the way you behave culturally to which you identify. If you called an Inuit an 'Eskimo', when they aren't, you will annoy them because even though an Eskimo is an Inuit, they are not Eskimos. In the UK, in the past, anybody from up that part of the world was described as an Eskimo. This change in cultural sensitivity has come to the fore because of the increased exposure via the internet. These mistakes are being replicated many more times than pre-internet, so it's become a more prominent issue. It has forced us to see more shades of grey than we did before... much less black and white.... in ethnic terms and figuratively.

WALOB, Phil. First thing I do is check out the authors... fresh out of the Republican echo chamber. WTH do economists know about epidemiology? I can't parse how you think these authors are worthy of your attention, as a microbiologist yourself. A critique: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/

His consolation prize will be Mariupol, probably. The other thing is, does his nuclear chain of command even work? Might there not be more logical generals around him or commanders in the chain to thwart such ideas? The same thing happened with Trump... there was no way he was going to execute such a command towards the end of his presidency, if he had wanted to.

When one is going around in circles, it's best to stop.

@ Because 'most' don't agree, doesn't necessarily mean the majority are in the right. There is no objective sense of what is right/wrong, only that which aligns with our respective personal agendas. In this case, there are more posters with similarly aligned personal agendas.

This AP piece on how China might be viewing the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and what it might be learning from it seems pertinent to the topic at this point:

@CharonY The method of determining the veracity of facts has changed: one must be conversant in Youtube and Twitter. The written word is so 'yesterday', even long-time posters here tend to present videos rather than papers or articles now. The written word as a medium for evidence seems to be going the way of the hieroglyph. What I don't get is video is so slooow to input... I thought the world was getting faster and less patient. #LudditesRock

I found this that may interest some by Carl Sagan from his The Demon-Haunted World: 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight—“authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. 4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. 6. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. 7. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. 8. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)—not just most of them. 9. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. 10. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable, are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Yeah, trying to follow where Trump led.

But not smart enough he can handle that many balls in the air at the same time. Putin has up until now appeared shrewed and smart by fostering a state of personal elusivenes and mystique. Now his actions are visible, the reality of his true neptness is there for all to see. He's a gangster with a mentality to match. Putin has singlehandedly destroyed the decades-long Russian illusion of being a superpower in a few weeks. It's my personal opinion that only US can claim that handle. I think China is the same as Russia. Only their nukes give them any real military status. The US can fight on any level to a high level of competence and commitment by its servicemen. They aren't oppressed.

You are crediting him with too much intelligence.

Putin clearly has bit off more than he can chew. It's a bit like a community football team winning all their matches and thinking they are good enough for the UK premier league or one of the other top national football divisions. This conflict, even if he gets what wants, will surely make him think twice about attacking a NATO country. I suspect China has thought/is thinking like Russia too; that it is invincible by sheer numbers. If you don't have committed soldiers and citizens, that strength is just an illusion. Ukraine has shown that handily, with material support from the West.

I read a few days ago, Ukraine were going to get anti-ship missiles, then one is on fire yesterday; coincidence? Russia has stated it will attack weapons imports from NATO, butI imagine that's been a Russian priority anyway, and they are just saying it now.

Do you think she's dyed her eyebrows

That one-way natural understanding is probably useful for the Ukrainians. Hopefully, it gives them an edge in spontaneous intelligence gathering that doesn't require interpreters.

No, she's known for her blemish-free skin. WYSIWYG. She's dyed blonde most of the time though. I suppose it's whatever her job dictates.

Nicole Kidman carries red hair well . Unusually, she has no freckles.

It was relevant to my point, which you seem to be immune to understanding. Never mind. We'll let that talking point go.