zapatos

What you highlighted was an observation I made of your approach to the topic of racism which I believe to be factual. It certainly was not a personal attack. Because I was commenting on a post from MigL about Clinton's use of the word "deplorable". It had nothing to do with bigotry against rural Americans. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

I didn't say it, but the reason I think it with you is because it seems every time someone brings up an issue with racism, sexism, etc., your knee-jerk reaction seems to be to minimize it. It reminds me of Trump saying 'there are good people on both sides'. It doesn't seem possible with you to ever just condemn the racism and move on. You have to condemn the other side first, which has the effect of minimizing the racism. It's 'whataboutism'. The issue of 'agenda driven intolerance' is a nice stand-alone issue and deserves its own thread. But if you open a thread on that topic I'm betting that you won't like it if every time a comment is made regarding the effect on society of intolerant, thin-skinned people, that someone else responds with 'yeah, that's bad, but there really ARE racists out there!'. Because OF COURSE there are real racists out there; it's just not germane.

You have an interesting view of racist behavior. Other than that I don't think I'll take the bait. I agree with the rest of your post. My opinion has always been that Democrats were as much at fault as Republicans for Trump's victory. Whatever it was that prompted so many people to vote for Trump was something that the Democratic party missed or ignored. One of the reasons I'm not as disillusioned with the electoral college as many people are is because it forces politicians to address the needs of more voters than just their core constituency. This was one of the reasons the electoral college was created in the first place. In 2016 Democrats focused on the needs of urban voters more than rural voters and it bit them in the ass. As I recall Bill expressed his concerns to Hillary about that risk and she didn't take his advice. They can only blame themselves for that one.

Haha, thanks! I appreciate the kind words. 😀 The floors are 3/4" birch plywood framed by 2x2 select pine. I put it together with glue and used a pocket hole jig which was the first time for me. Not as nice as other joinery but I wanted to try it out and see what all the fuss was about. Pocket holes worked well. The pink roof (I looked for the most outrageous pink I could find!) is made from 1/4" poplar. I just laid out the pattern by using a lid from a jar on my workbench, cut it with a saber saw, and painted it. I hope they like it. At two years old you never know, but if not now I'm sure they grow to like it later. And it is rock solid; four kids could climb on that and it would hold up fine.

I have two grand-daughters, both around the age of two. Made them doll houses for Christmas. Still going to make some furniture but will buy them some to get them started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables People are the way they act. Maybe not based on a single event (such as an out-of-character heat-of-the-moment slur), but if a person exhibits racist behavior for years, they are racist. No need to sugar coat it. We are not talking about children for whom we are trying to develop into good adults. These people ARE the way they act.

The people she called deplorable ARE deplorable. Remember, she did not call Republicans or Trump supporters deplorable, she referred to the Trump supporters who were racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Her description was IMO spot on, although she didn't do herself any favors by giving them another talking point.

Just because a sentence "makes sense" does not make it true. And if you can recognize which sentences are true, then you must have already known it to be true. So you've discovered nothing new.

Thanks. Unfortunately you had to go through the same. It's not something I'd wish on anyone. For people who are depressed, in dire financial straits, etc., I agree. Seems we just need to get them over the hump so to speak. For some though it's not much of a choice. If death is fast approaching and guaranteed to be unpleasant I think suicide should be a viable option, and not one where someone else has to go through the trauma of 'finding' you.

Hmm. I'd have to ask why you think that I think war and torture are moral. I don't think I said or implied that. So is it safe to say that suicide in itself isn't immoral, it is the fact a person has done something that profoundly hurt others that makes it immoral? (My brother-in-law contracted AIDS back when it was a death sentence. He killed himself in a bathroom in his parent's home.)

Just a few examples: 1. You have information on where your WWII agents are in France. The Nazis are about to catch you and if they do, they will extract the location of your compatriots from you in a gruesome manner and kill them, right after they kill you. You've been supplied with a cyanide pill. 2. You have an incurable painful disease that you've been suffering with for two years. It will be another six months before you finally succumb. 3. You are elderly, family history of Alzheimer's disease, it is getting bad for you and you know it is only a matter of time. You don't wish to impose the financial or emotional burden on your family, not to mention having to live your final months having your diaper changed by a stranger making minimum wage. If you don't think suicide in any of these situations can be morally justified, can you tell me why? Is your moral objection only for you, or do you feel it cannot be morally justified for anyone?

You haven't really stated with clarity whether or not you think suicide can be moral. Do you think it is ever moral to take your own life?

The question was not meant to be an attack and you don't have to answer. It was just a topic for conversation. You are free to stay away from this thread.

I didn't say the state is discarding me. I was following your assertion that I have a duty to protect the state's resources. What better way to do that than by killing myself?

It is right. By killing yourself you are saving the state resources so that they don't have to invest them in you in a nursing home after your productivity is gone. You have a duty to kill yourself to protect the investment the state put into you.

Lighten up. Don't ask if you don't want an answer.

You're right! You'll be free of all criticism, reasonable or not! 😃 I think this approach goes hand-in-hand with the question of morality as the laws on this subject tend to follow morals.

Wait. Double negative alert!!! The answer is 'It is sometimes OK to take a life.'

A sound mind is how we define it. As I said it needs to be worked out, but it won't be determined by comparing what your family says vs what everyone else says. We need to come up with a well thought out, generally agreed up, measurable definition. I'm pretty sure this already exists in places, I just don't know the details. Assuming you meet the criteria, then yes, you should be able to kill yourself with a clear conscience and free from unreasonable criticism.

Yes. With the stipulation that the person is of 'sound' mind. Whatever that means. I've not thought through the details.

Kids like competition. When I coached youth soccer it was near impossible to get the kids to run hard when the only reason to do so was to improve their running ability. But if I had two of them run at the same time and called a winner, they gave it their all. It's the competition that gets kids playing, not the teamwork.

Why are you skeptical of an infinite universe? If it were not infinitely big what would the end of it look like?

When my mother was near the end of her life she emotionally suffered whenever any of her kids or grandkids experienced any setbacks. We instituted a policy, at my urging, that we lie like crazy to my mom. David got into graduate school. Mary's debt was forgiven. I got that promotion. I've never been happier about a decision to lie in my life. For the most part I believe that people should be told the truth, but I'm sure there are dozens of exceptions depending on the circumstances.

It is OK because it identifies those who are impacted. It makes no sense to say blacks were hurt but we cannot help them because they are black and therefore we cannot identify them. If only the black people in my neighborhood were exposed to a disease, do I also have to treat all of the white people just so that I'm not sorting according to race? If we applied your logic to tornados the insurance companies would not have to pay anyone with a claim because that would require us to sort based on the criterion of 'damage'. It is self evident that the criteria you use is the one that identifies who is impacted, whether that is damaged homes or race. You said previously that is was okay if it was used for good (see below). Now you are saying it is not okay. Did I miss something?

The problem is that all is NOT equal, and you are fighting against the effort that is devised to make it equal I didn't call you racist. You are the one who said liberals have ruined that word by throwing it about so easily. I'm pointing out why liberals do so. If one fights against racism, then that person is (probably) not racist. If you are neutral in the fight then who knows what you are. But when you fight the effort to repair the effects of racism, one has to expect that people are going to question their motives. You are calling the effort to repair the effects of racism racist. You don't see that as reminiscent of Trump? Yes, that is also out of Trump's playbook. He doesn't want to antagonize white supremacists because that will only make them more angry at blacks. I don't see the point of not fighting for the oppressed just because it might piss off the oppressors. Then it is a good thing no one has said you are suggesting racism does not exist. What I am saying is that you are fighting the effort fix the problems caused by racism with your reasoning being that the effort itself is racist and might piss off the racists.