swansont

Which is an electromagnetic interaction. Unless you are claiming dark matter is actually photons, and it isn't, what is the relevance? All of which has been done - people look at/through empty space all the time, when they look at something far away. If there was something there that interacted, we would have seen it. IOW, you're saying dark matter is not dark - it should give off photons. So where are these photons?

A number of people in the thread have agreed that it is, under a strict dictionary definition. Skin color was used a a criterion. Gender was used as a criterion. Two of many criteria used. You continue to rail against a position nobody seems to be taking. Nobody has given a pithy "yes, it's discrimination" answer, likely because of the danger of someone jumping in and using the equivocation fallacy; a couple of people have explained in detail the different applications of the word. The final selection, yes. But it has been implied or stated that some think this was the beginning of the process, and have not provided any evidence that this is the case.

If you can counter the biological claims you are free to do so. No, it's crap. It lack the support you were demanding of CharonY

Dark matter is dark because it lacks these things. If it had them we'd be detecting it. If the dark matter is detecting baryonic matter because of the electric or magnetic field, then it interacts electromagnetically, which we have concluded that it doesn't do, because we'd be able to detect it.

How does it “know” it’s in the presence of baryonic matter?

We’re discussing physics so the implication is we are applying Newton’s laws of motion. You can analyze the problem in an accelerating frame, but to use the laws the centrifugal force is still a pseudoforce.

They are not. There is no (real) force away from the center. Objects move in a straight line unless a force is exerted, which only happens once they reach the edge, where an inward force can be exerted, to cause them to move in a circle.

If one chooses to ignore easily-obtained facts, presenting one’s view as informed opinion is not a position arrived at in good faith. Propaganda is not presented in good faith. Positions where you hold different groups to a different set of standards are not held in good faith. People are entitled to their opinions, but opinions are generally based on underlying facts. If you arrive at a different position that I do, that’s one thing. But if someone bases their opinion on things that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny, I am entitled to think they are full of crap. And people doing this professionally are advancing an agenda. They know they’re full of crap (or they’re just incredibly incompetent) You deleted the example I gave, so perhaps you could provide a counterexample of how supportive the GOP is in this regard. I’ll save you some time - their views on immigration and education probably won’t be helpful

It can be interpreted that way, and was, but only if you ignore facts. So people whose jobs require this bad-faith interpretation ran with that. It became the narrative pushed by the right, and swallowed whole by a large swath of people who listen to such tripe. The people who "interpret" it this way professionally care not a whit whether PoC were allegedly demeaned. The subset of them in office want to take away PoC's ability to vote. How demeaning is that? I think you've missed some things. The point some of us have been making is that race and gender were included as factors owing to the perspective such an individual would have, and that perspective is needed, and that's perfectly valid for this situation. But they were not the only factors, and Biden was aware of well-qualified candidates before making the campaign promise, because not only is that a reasonable inference for any candidate who has a long history of holding office, we actually have evidence that he was aware. If you want to have a discussion panel on the struggles of <minority group> in society, is it not reasonable to put people from that group on the discussion panel? Doesn't that become a legitimate qualification? We aren't talking about employment and equal opportunity.

Yeah, I wonder what happens when a bunch of people leave the platform if they don't like how it's going - how quickly will it implode?

The promise didn't actually point out the demographic makeup of the court, but everyone knows what it was, and the promise was that a large voter demographic of South Carolina democrats would have representation. Not hard to connect the dots, IMO. I've said my piece on the narrative being sold, and how its hogwash, so no need to revisit that.

The announcement was made at a campaign speech in South Carolina, which has a large population of black people who tend to vote for democrats, if that helps. How so? I'm having trouble seeing how a promise that certain people - not just white men - will have representation in his administration is demeaning.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/254896-a-panda-walks-into-a-cafe-he-orders-a-sandwich A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.

This is irrelevant, right? I didn't say I was an atheist, and I didn't demand scientific proof of God. I just said such a test can't be conducted. Key phrase: "I am going to assume" So basically this is circular logic. You assume something and then conclude it. Nothing valid is demonstrated.

How do you test* this? If a supreme being is omnipotent, how do you distinguish between how they choose to behave, and how they are able to behave? *and this is the underlying issue when it comes to these matters. There's no way to run a scientific test. You can explain away anything but prediction is not really something you can do.

In Star Trek, usually the answer is yes

It’s not like Star Trek unless they waited until the last minute to shoot it down, even though they didn’t need to be so dramatic.

Your offspring may be nice, but German children are kinder.

In quantum models you need an exchange particle, and GR has singularity issues, so we know it’s not a complete theory.

! Moderator Note You are better served narrowing discussion to one topic per thread, and please note that rule 2.7 requires that discussion take place here, so “go watch this video” doesn’t fly Pick one subject and present actual evidence. As Ghideon notes, debunking artwork really isn’t a basis for anything

"A ship matching Moskva’s size and situation is seen at 45°10’43.39″N, 30°55’30.54″E. This position is east of Snake Island, 80 nautical miles from Odesa and 50 nautical miles from the Ukrainian coast. The satellite passed at 6.52pm local time. Based on analysis by multiple people, we are confident that this shows Moskva’s final hours." https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/satellite-image-pinpoints-russian-cruiser-moskva-as-she-burned/ AFAIK within 12 nm is within a nation's territory, but there is an economic zone that extends to 200 nm (modified by the existence of another nation's territory or zone, where you tend to split the difference or negotiate where the boundary is)

He won, so how does one demonstrate that he made things worse? Many of the people who griped were going to gripe anyway. How do we know? Because they gripe about everything, even when the "controversy" is made up. Obama wearing a tan suit. Searching for his birth certificate. Hunter Biden's laptop. Biden not holding a press conference soon enough. Any number of Peter Doocy questions that get dismantled by Jen Psaki at the press briefings. Mitch McConnell's repeated hypocrisies.

"you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered." I never said that "pick a black female" wasn't really true; my position was that this was along with potential candidates' other qualifications already being known. By claiming that this isn't true, what we're left with is the conclusion that black + female were the sole criteria. Where is the strawman? I don't think anyone is contending this This is a false dilemma, and at the crux of the issue here. There is nothing about "I will pick a black woman" that says other factors weren't considered. It is an assumption, and one that nobody here has backed up with evidence. (edit to add: IOW, you are essentially claiming that you know that Biden did not do anything to vet people before his announcement and there is no way for you to know this, so how can you possibly insist that it is true? "I will do X" is not the same as "I will do X and only X") I'm waiting for J.C. MacSwell to come by and admonish you for your strawman

Not only not, but fuck no. It’s not like that’s the only option, so what’s the point of offering it up? I saw a quote earlier today about how people don’t get credit for doing the right thing. Dems do something questionable or even have an appearance of impropriety and they resign under pressure from other dems, while republicans do not hold themselves or their peers to account.

A. As long as it takes, and B. Do you really think that not doing so will make them stop trying to take over the government and dismantle democracy? (If so, what evidence do you have?) And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?