zapatos

You filled in for deepend marvelously! 😄

World population of T-Rex. Zero. Just as meaningful as your chart.

I see your point. Although how can you conclude they are behaving as if there is an objective measure? Why not conclude they are behaving as if they just want their world to function in a way that is preferable to them for whatever personal reasons? If I have a piece of land that you want to take by eminent domain, we are both taking a stand not based on an objective measure of right and wrong, but on what is in our own best interests. Primarily because they are created by man and do not flow from some fundamental property of the universe. Because in private enterprise I believe I should have certain rights (within limits) to behave as I wish. To me 'socioeconomic class' does not rise to the level of superseding my rights.

Well, that makes it easy then. When you ask "Am I wrong to pick the rich one?", simply look at the 'objective measure of right and wrong' and you'll have your answer. As it stands, we live in a society that behaves as if there is NO objective measure of right and wrong. The evidence for this is the diametrically opposed views on abortion, the death penalty, BLM, Trans rights, war, gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, taking kids from their parents at the border, hunting for sport, fishing for sport, the zoo, veganism, gender affirming care, and a list too long to post here. I thought I gave a direct answer to your direct question. Perhaps you wanted me to answer that 'laws' could stop you? To answer your question "should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic?" my answer is: No - In private enterprise. Yes - in government hires, along with all other characteristics such as hair color, politics, etc. All decisions on hiring and firing should be based on performance.

As long as you are not discriminating against protected groups, you can hire pretty much anyone you wish. Usually the policies of the college you work for. Many companies have such policies although they are not compelled to do so. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Depends on who you ask.

Is that roughly 100% of what had been amassed at the Ukrainian border? As opposed to 100% of ALL military combat force?

There is a "secret" airfield just outside Ukraine that is a staging point for supplies going into the country. Seems like a good place to make the exchange.

Possibly, but that is the way it's been done since the end of WWII, all over the world, between the Soviets/Russia and US/NATO. Everyone knows the rules. Not to say it may not fail this time, but as long as Russians and NATO are not pulling the trigger on each other, I expect cooler heads to prevail.

Oh my god, just stop talking.

Or they may be accelerated.

And yet torture is ineffective. Go figure.

I imagine that the efficacy of torture is closely tied to how much pain a person is willing to accept for the piece of information that the torturer is hoping to extract. (Among other factors of course.) If you strongly believe in your cause, and giving up the the information would be a huge blow to that cause, then more pain will be accepted. The less you believe in your cause, and conversely if the relative value of the information to be divulged is small, then less pain will be accepted.

I didn't ask you to establish the matter as a fact. I asked for evidence to support your assertion. You could have told us how Putin acted in similar situations, or told us about the article you read that led you to that conclusion. You could have laid out your reasoning. Anything could have been provided. But if all you do is make bold assertions and don't give us any way to gauge if what you say is reasonable, then you are not participating in the conversation. You are just contributing noise.

Start responding when I ask you questions and you'll not have to deal with my tedious mantra. That is sort of the polite thing to do anyway.

By reading the works of historians and anthropologists. You know, sciencey type stuff. We happen to know lots of things about people and what they did prior to them having a written language. Other than your rather rude dismissal of what I had to contribute do you plan on adding anything here? Or is you plan just to piss people off?

I knew I could get you to respond to me if I followed your lead and simply made unsupported claims. I admit I cannot confirm you are paid by Russia. Can you please either admit you cannot support your assertions, or provide some sort of evidence if you can? The problem you are facing here is that you are coming across as a troll when I assume that is not your intent. Please engage in a meaningful and professional way.

The reality is that you are paid by Russia to provide disinformation on social media sites.

Can you expand on that a bit? Maybe as social media is not a big part of my life I don't get the significance, but what exactly is the issue? Is it his looks? The fact he is not on Twitter? That he's not flashy enough? I'm truly curious as to how his age is a detriment due to social media.

Please provided some support for this assertion.

Please provide some support for this claim.

Please provide some evidence.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to lick the boots of bullies rather than take a stand, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Some religions began as a way to ensure the surplus of a society was properly managed to avoid famine in a bad year. That sounds pretty rational.

Haha. Didn't mean to connect the two thoughts. I do go to great lengths for the perfect pickled onion (shallots for the latest batch) but the placenta was for a different reason. My wife was involved in some research that needed to start with a fairly large amount of human tissue and most people don't like to donate a pound of flesh.

In case you were curious about me, I make my own pickled onions and once asked a pregnant woman who worked for me if I could have her placenta when she was done with it. I am not, however, a university science professor.