zapatos

I obviously can't know the thoughts of Biden so I'll only speak for myself, but I suspect based on past actions and comments that Biden feels roughly the same way. The selection of KBJ was racist in neither intent nor fact, even though the selection criteria included being a black woman. The selection included the anticipated benefits of gaining Biden popularity with whites, asians, rich people, poor people, and of course blacks among others. The primary benefit was to finally recognize the equality of a long marginalized group while placing an outstanding liberal judge on the Supreme Court. Since Biden is unable to control the perceptions of others, and since any methodology of selecting a black woman was likely to cause turmoil anyway, he simply chose the method he felt would work best and went for it, and let the chips fall where they may. His goal was NOT to minimize the discomfort his selection would have on certain people. When it is a question of doing the right thing, I believe you do it and simply accept that people who don't like it will find a reason to object. The objections to Biden's method are a natural part of any significant public action and go a long way to help pull people into the future; talking about previously unheard of changes makes them more common and easier to accept. The concern about how Biden went about this is reminiscent of the reaction to blacks sitting at the white lunch counter, interracial marriage, gay marriage, transgender students in schools sports, women working "men's" jobs, and a long list of other changes. People don't like change and prefer to be eased into it slowly. The first time these things happened the naysayers were up in arms, complaining about how they are going about it, but at this point the uproar would come if you tried to STOP a black person from sitting at a lunch counter. Personally I'm a fan of ripping the bandage off all at once. It may hurt, and it may even not work on the first try, but it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't deprive people of what is rightfully theirs due to the discomfort of others.

You have again completely missed my point. I agree that it is the way it sounds when spoken out loud. I am saying that not all abbreviation are said out loud as written. "AFAIK, I want to talk about WYSIWG with you F2F. I'll BRB, as I have to get B2W B4 my boss starts looking 4 me." When you read that to someone you don't say all the letters and numbers of the abbreviations. You say the words that they stand for. "As far as I know, I want to talk about wizzywig with you face to face. I'll be right back as I have to get back to work before my boss starts looking for me." "I just bought [a/an] 🐘 for the zoo." Do you say "I just bought a picture of an elephant for the zoo"? Or do you say "I just bought an elephant for the zoo"? Most people expect you to see the symbol for the elephant then to say the word "elephant". Similarly you will see the symbols that represent "what you see is what you get" and to say the word 'wizzywig', or possibly 'what you see is what you get'. No one expects you to see WYSIWYG then to say "W Y S I W Y G". Thanks for the off-topic aside. 😀 For some weird reason I like discussing grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, etc. Even though it may well end up in the trash can.

Well, if you say so. And I am saying it is said "Supreme Court seat". If I write AFAIK, in your brain do you say "AFAIK" or "as far as I know"?

I'm unsure you are correct in this case. If the writer only intended SC as shorthand for Supreme Court, then the writer would reasonably expect you to read the line as "a Supreme Court seat", even though it says "a SC seat". "SC" is not an 'official' abbreviation like FBI is.

Just to be clear, it was an analogy and thus imperfect. The idea was that if blacks were mistreated, then to make up for that mistreatment you do something extra for blacks. That was not part of the analogy. The idea was that going forward, all would be treated equally. However, that is not enough. You must also make up for past harm. Which is of course how our justice system works. If I commit a crime but never again commit another crime, I still must pay my debt for that original crime I committed. I am not 'let off the hook' for that past crime just because I never commit any crimes going forward. Yes, I can. But it seems so obvious to me that if our actions caused harm in the past, then we must take direct action to repair those harms. It is fundamental fairness and I cannot see how anyone would object to that. Thus my thought is if someone is uncomfortable, it probably has to do with the mechanism employed to rectify the harm done, rather than the fact that the harm was rectified. I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it". I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that no matter which way was chosen there would be critics. It is difficult to know ahead of time the best way forward. Thus you pick a path and execute it. And while you and others in this thread object to Biden's announcement during the campaign, his 'pre-announcement' doesn't seem to be a widespread concern as that is not what others in the press seemed to object to. It seems that most people objected to her past record of court ruling, rather than Biden's pre-announcement. Therefore, while some may object to that pre-announcement, it seems that it was not a major faux pas. As I said, above, the view of many of us is that the good done far outweighs what some view as a clumsy process.

I understand why you say that, and I don't feel the need to try to get you to move to a different conclusion. But I will offer my own viewpoint which interprets the same set of facts differently. When a group is discriminated against it is not perceived by some to be discriminatory to single out that group for reparations. In fact, it is not really possible to make up for past harm done to a group without singling out that group. That is the reasoning behind Affirmative Action. Ensuring that future actions and decisions by government no longer favor white people does not make up for past harm. It only ensures no future harm. To make up for past harm you must identify the group that was harmed and do something extra for them. If I unfairly singled you out and didn't give you a raise at work for years, then after a decade I proclaim I've seen the foolishness of my actions and vow to treat everyone equally going forward, you will be happy that from then on you will be treated fairly and get a raise every year just like the others. But you and I might also think it reasonable that I single you out above the others for a bonus. Some others might think it is hypocritical for me to give you something extra when I've just said I'm going to treat everyone equally, but some of us, including me, would find that to be fair. So, while you may find giving blacks a bonus to make up for part harms is hypocritical, to me is seem like the right thing to do.

Did you get lost on the way back from the bathroom? 😁 The further the galaxy, the larger the redshift. But this is only true on the scale of superclusters. For galaxies that are gravitationally bound the expansion of space has no impact on redshift. If a galaxy is receding at constant velocity, the redshift will be constant. The recession of nearby galaxies will not be due to the expansion of space, and therefore they can be receding at a constant velocity. Edit: x-posted with Genady.

Um, isn't it obvious how long an immortal lives?

The cruiser performed multiple roles. In addition to anti-ship missiles, it was armed with torpedos, canon, and most importantly in the Black Sea, surface to air missiles to provide air cover for the rest of the fleet. With the loss of the Moskva and the inability of Russia to bring in a replacement due to Turkey closing the Turkish Straits to the belligerents, Russia's Black Sea fleet cannot operate as freely as they have been doing. One description I saw described the loss by saying the Black Sea changed from Russia's backyard swimming pool to a room with no exits.

Optics is also in the eye of the beholder, and seems to have become a buzzword for those here who disapprove of Biden's announcement to select a black woman to the Supreme Court. From my perspective the optics were very good. A presidential nominee who tells us exactly what his plans are instead of obfuscating, and who announces a bold step toward racial equality without fearing how his announcement will play with those who don't approve of his vision. Good for Joe.

You do this all the time. You are asked a simple question and refuse you answer. You said I claimed to "know" something and when I asked you to show me the quote, you started your dance. Would have been much simpler if you had just said "Well, it seems you didn't actually claim to KNOW that." Is it that hard to admit a mistake on your part?

No, you didn't. My question was, "Where did I say I KNOW?"" You responded with a question of your own. Correct. I'm well aware of what I asked for clarification on. Why are you bringing this up? I still have two questions outstanding that you haven't answered: Where did I say I "know"? I don't remember saying that. Where did I say that YOU "know"? I don't remember saying that. If you don't intend to answer the questions just say so instead of dancing around.

Are you not going to answer my question? Where did I say that YOU know?

Where did I say I "know"?

In what way do you think he perhaps does care and would take the carrot? In what way do you think he perhaps does care about their peace of mind?

Magnetic levitation?

Exactly. So it seems unlikely offering to ignore atrocities is a carrot for him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about their peace of mind either.

I suspect he does not care. It's not like the International Criminal Court is going to dispatch their International Police Force to go pick him up for incarceration. Should I apologize for not immediately understanding?

Offer what to Putin?

Shorter retort is: don't tell me what to think.

How about "it makes ME think...". I certainly didn't present my thoughts as fact.

Seriously? What about freckles on breasts, Nicole Kidman dyeing her hair blond, Kate Winslet being a natural blond, contemplating whether or not Nicole Kidman puts makeup on her freckles, the good looking redhead at the gym, and green freckles? I think the "let's keep this about science" ship sailed long ago. At least I provided some actual data.

Maybe, but it also makes me think that what men find attractive is the red hair, and not necessarily the other characteristics that often come with natural red hair.

Please provide a few names and examples. If there are "a lot" this should be easy. Otherwise it looks like you are race baiting.

Actual data! https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/redheads-psychology_b_1911771.html Which is surprising to me as redheaded women always catch my eye. On the other hand I would not have choosen red as my own hair color.