swansont

The first ~100 justices were white males, and there wasn’t widespread concern about the lack of diversity in considering justices throughout that period, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed by faux outrage from some blowhard.

Any credible evidence to support this?

! Moderator Note No, I in fact did not do this. I asked you to back up your claim, which was about a few specific groups of immigrants committing a particular set of crimes, and gave an example of how one might do that. (you can tell it was an example by the use of the phrasing "for example" and the fact that it was literally a parenthetical remark) Trying to rewrite history isn't going to work. One only need to scroll back a bit to see what actually happened. ! Moderator Note Yes, I listed it from rule 2.1 What you did was paint with a very broad brush about immigrants from a few places, which is a slur against these people.

! Moderator Note This just violates a different part of 2.7, which warns you not to make posts to advertise your blog. Saying you need to post the material here means you need to post the material here. If you choose to do that, open a new thread, and please pick a better landing spot.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 requires that "Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Also you might address why this is posted in philosophy vs some scientific section, seeing as it is identified as an experiment.

! Moderator Note Folks, this is Suggestions, Comments and Support. Come up with a good formulation of a discussion and post it in the proper area. Please.

Yes, of course you will die. Everybody dies. Your logic is atrocious, which contributes to why you are in the moderation queue.

! Moderator Note You didn’t present facts in the original post, and that is one of the issues at hand. Distracting from that isn’t going to change anything. ”people come from the gutter in Somalia, Eritrea and Lithuania, bring nothing with them, and they rape, rob and murder, and we shower them with lawyers, psychiatrists and benfits.” (sic) is still an unsupported, bigoted statement.

! Moderator Note Yes, which is why “for example” appears in my comment - I was showing how a statement could be supported with a statistical study. By the same token, you mentioned neither Bulgaria nor Romania, so that link is moot, and I will note that the plural of anecdote is not data. i.e. two stories about immigrants breaking the law is not a scientific argument that supports your smear. Both the bigotry and the unsupported claims need to cease.

! Moderator Note If you are going to make such claims, you absolutely need to back them up. Because without supporting evidence, this is a violation of rule 2.1, specifically Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. (In the US, undocumented immigrants are found to be more law-abiding than citizens, for example https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ )

I don't know that the Russian people see much of what is fed to us, but they do see propaganda from state media, so there are undoubtedly large groups that support him. I don't think he fears a revolt, I think he fears a coup initiated by the oligarchs. "Nothing" is spelled correctly

I don't see an accounting of the magnetic field that will be present, and how it changes. The rope has mass, so it's not quite the same.

At a conversion efficiency of 0.005%, I think they have a long way to go, and I didn't see a discussion of how this scales up. They were an order of magnitude better than they thought, but they have more than 4 orders of magnitude to go.

It's not like it's the first time they've done this. We had war crimes trials after WWII, but that involved countries that surrendered and were not in a position to obstruct such proceedings. I think Putin isn't afraid of being held accountable, partly because he probably doesn't think he's done anything wrong and partly because he thinks he's beyond reach.

! Moderator Note We don't take the term "lying" lightly. Disagreement is one thing, being mistaken is another, but lying requires intent that is, quite frankly, quite hard to show. The motivation behind posting is rarely relevant to a discussion, and it is often not obvious. So it's best to steer clear of that. Seems to me what several posts here are indicating is that people are bowing out of the conversation. That may be because they wish to discuss science - and people have been pretty nice about extending encouragement to engage in such discussion - and what they are seeing is a bit of melodrama. That can be off-putting. It's a distraction from the engagement that most members are seeking. As far as deleting accounts go, we don't do that. Your participation here is voluntary. If you aren't getting what you want from your presence here, you can just leave. If you want to ask questions about science, then stay and ask them.

There is no expectation that there should be a valid explanation for any of this. There are no actual chemical or physical processes happening. It's a cartoon, and showing things for satirical and/or comedic effect. Sometimes they depict things that can't actually happen, because it's funny (such as when Lisa builds a perpetual motion device. "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!") "Can radioactivity react with any standard donut ingredients to start a fire? doesn't even make sense. Radioactivity is a phenomenon. It can't react with anything.

And this is a science discussion site, where we expect most folks to understand that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Your link is to this thread.

I believe a relevant comment would be how many SCOTUS decisions were later overturned by a subsequent group. "As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases" "[The list] does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions And what is written in a treaty is not the constitution.

This reminds me that there's a game called "Kill Dr. Lucky" where you can attack him by just poking him with a finger for one point of damage, and that has a nonzero probability of killing him. (this would happen of you lacked a murder weapon, the collection of which is part of the game) The thing is, that's not the question you asked. You already answered the question "is it possible" in the OP.

Less chocolate for the cult, per capita. That's why the initiation rites are so...grueling. But the answer is no. The OP has been banned, so witty retorts are moot.

But it wasn't. The joke wasn't about Chris Rock. So it's not "exactly" like that. It's not at all like that. And one should also note that the joke wasn't directed at you or your spouse. It's not like other people were jumping up onto the stage.

Is that actually true, or something that Russia claims to be true? (i.e. is there an independent, credible source of this information?)

If you're going to be this obtuse let's just drop it. I'm not going to change your mind and at this point it's just wrestling with a pig territory. But... "offensive" isn't an objective assessment. It's subjective. And a characterization of the joke as "offensive" was largely absent until you made it. You're moving the goalposts.

In asking where was the ridicule you are tacitly admitting you don't see it. I am asking how you could miss it. I am not assuming that a joke must contain ridicule. That's far too broad. I am saying that a joke made at the expense of another's physical condition contains some amount of ridicule. (ridicule being the basis for ridiculous, which means laughable. So yeah, this literally means that such a joke is ridicule) I don't see how this is relevant.