geordief

I would ,again with no statistics (would they even be possible) be surprised if emotional (is "emotional" the same as non-physical?) abuse (or manipulation ) could be anyways neatly disentangle from physical abuse. Or even that they were in some sense opposites. It all sounds very ad hoc to me,but I agree with what has been said that this recent case shouldn't be taken as especially indicative of the situation at large even if both these characters are entitled to fair - but not exhorbitantly fair treatment in the paths and circumstances that they have chosen or taken. O

Oh,how does that automatic ban work? What is the Peacemaker? An official organ of the state? Is Kissinger really banned or are you making some kind of a tendentious point? I get a range of prices around 5.60$ for gas in California from this website https://www.gasbuddy.com/gasprices/california

That 3rd link doesn't say Kissinger is banned from Ukraine either Any more links that do not back up your presumably baseless assertion? Indeed have you any more presumably baseless assertions to share?

Where in that link does it say he was banned from Ukraine?

God's uncle.

Same here.I hated playing sport but I enjoy watching rugby and even boxing as people's will to endure can be so admirable. But then we look at Ali and wish he had cut it short.

Yes,I had that in mind.There are positions in rugby where quick thinking and the ability to get the ball quickly from the feet of your own players means that those who play that position are much lighter build. Think the position may be called scrum half. https://www.rugbyhow.com/rugby-scrum-half.html I myself played hooker as it was meant to favour smaller people with good foot skills.

So you would have some fairly thuggish males battering some slightly built females? (I know this happens anyway between males but would that be acceptable for a 20 stone man mountain to injure a slightly built female in the course of a rugby match?) I don't know if you saw the video of Boris Johnson "running through" a young school child in a game of rugby for the photographers. Found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5NN5S9sPFM Not really very edifying.

@iNow Suppose one did segregate along purely physical lines would there be an argument for running competitions in parallel that were segregated on traditional lines and finding out which setup was more satisfactory? Also,in Rugby (other other types of sport) different sizes and builds apply to different parts of the same team. (some are runners ,some are grunters and some are fielders/catchers) Would each part of the team have its own physical standards so that it would be open to anyone regardless of sexual attributes?

I think the French would have a "head start" if there were international crochet competitions https://lisawallerrogers.com/2018/11/03/the-tricoteuses-of-the-french-revolution/

There is a lengthy ongoing discussion of Hammond's idea (he is the OP) on another forum that is easily searchable. Can't say I would have the resolve (or even the understanding) to take part ,but he seems to be holding the fort ,or maybe the fairy castle) there.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220523162813.htm and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30505-2 Does that sound good?

I thought this was an interesting article on the BBC website. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20220519-does-hypnosis-work I was interested to read there that it might be a treatment for anxiety Has anyone any experience with or knowledge of the subject ?

I am sure you are right.I am probably equally poorly qualified both as a scientist and as a philosopher (ie not at all) My misapprehension may be that I view almost any open minded questioning as "philosophical" and by science I understand the data that puts a brake on freewheeling imaginative thought processes. I don't recall the religious arguments around legalizing homosexuality (in the UK) so much but perhaps I may have simply paid little heed to them or maybe at that time religious arguments were (at least in my circle of friends) a subject for ridicule and so not advanced directly but more under the cloak of conventional morality.

I suppose professional or trained philosophers contributed to the discussion.(probably quite extensively although I have no recollection as such) Not so sure the discussion was especially divided along philosophical/scientific lines but I think that was part of the debate.

How about the debate over first legalizing and then ,later normalizing homosexuality? I recall those advocating for treating homosexuals equally under the law making frequent reference to scientific studies which ,they claimed showed that homosexuality was not a choice but something people were born with. I didn't follow this area of debate personally as I felt there were other arguments one way or another but I can well believe that there were those who would have argued against those scientific findings as a way of maintaining their"philosophical" stance that homosexuality was a priori wrong/unnatural (and likewise those on the other side advocating for liberalisation might have argued against different scientific studies that they did not like(science can surely be abused and is not always benignly neutral) I anticipate that, over the coming decades there may be further scientific studies that will come out that either side of the debate will highlight to the benefit of their preferred understanding of the situation and application (or not) of social policies So I don't see any end game and I don't expect "science" or "philosophical interpretation " to ever have the final answer. Edit:I should have written "rub shoulders" and not "run shoulders" in the previous post Re-edit: perhaps I have strayed into scientist vs philosopher rather than physicist vs philosopher?

Both studies are potentially all pervasive. Given enough time ,in my suspicion philosophical questions will usurp scientific questions and alternately as time continues scientific question will usurp philosophical questions ,like a dynamic entwined double spiral staircase . Both areas of research cannot be limited to any demarcated region of human understanding and so they run shoulders and don't always get on.

The link's only "mistake" was not to use quotation marks around his quote. As he introduced the quote in bold letters he may not have thought it mattered but when he was quoted, along with BR's passage it became unclear as to when BR stopped being quoted and when the author's commentary resumed. To someone familiar with the article it may have been obvious ,but to a cursory reading I thought it was confusing. But I am always very fastidious about using quotation marks.I don't think anyone else has been much troubled. It is off topic now surely.

Maybe so,but between the two of you , you have made it appear that Bertrand Russel wrote something that was actually just written by the author of the piece(he did not bother with quotation marks while you have used them to enclose both the author's commentary and Betrand Russel's passage which was quoted by him. A matter of no consequence,admittedly.

Seems to me you have wrongly attributed that quote to Bertand Russel(the preceding passage,though does indeed seem to be from him. I was a bit surprised that he might be using language like "takeaway lesson" back in the 50s or whenever it was he wrote that. He was a bit too difficult for me to get interested in (or like),though I did try briefly ,back in the 60s. Wasn't he concerned with definitions,definitions,definitions?

If Philosophy is the study of what we do not know ,that does not diminish its value. There will ,I suspect always be far more that we do not (or cannot) know than the astonishing amount that we can say that we do know with some certitude. When we are faced with circumstances that we do not understand I have read that it is our instinct to form patterns out of the chaos and if this is what preoccupies the philosophical mind (in addition to the methodologies noted by @zapatos then it may not be time wasted. I have the impression that Einstein's ideas met with initial opposition from scientists and philosophers alike (perhaps I am wrong?-I was not there) It was only some 20 years ago that the concept of "the end of history" was being bandied about semi seriously. I doubt we are at all close to the end of either scientific or philosophical progress,more's the reason for satisfaction.

I suspect that retired colonel was being drip fed to the public to soften them up for hard truths to follow(very large drips but there is so much information being withheld it must be hard to control the flow now)

Better news.Can we begin to hope? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61484222 Can they handle the truth after all? Edit: is Ukraine's resistance to Taiwan's benefit? Or are Ukrainians just a force of nature,not to be easily replicated?

Not sure how young she is .I wonder does she remember a time ,as I do when Black Holes were not even believed to exist.(well I think that is my memory -it is hard to remember a "non memory") I think they were talked about but were not considered to be likely to actually exist..

Can information ever be preserved in such a way as to reconstruct a previous system from a system that has evolved ?(not necessarily relevant to black holes maybe and I wonder if I have misunderstood the information question) It seems to me that if we cannot predict the future in any exact way then the past is exponentially more impossible to do so. Is information not being lost all the time?(or is/was the information paradox about the possibility or not to retrieve any trace at all of the configuration of systems that had gone into a Black Hole)?