MigL

Gun violence in the US is directly tied to poor education in that area. We're not even allowed to spend taxpayer funds on studies of gun violence in the US. Our leadership refuses to turn the light on, so how can we see what's wrong? If we had a healthcare system that supported early mental and physical health standards, and educated kids about the dangers we consider inherent in our society, I think many of our problems would disappear. Sorry, I didn't communicate that very well ... Both gun violence and drug use/abuse are big problems in the US. Both are currently illegal. Since keeping them illegal is not currently working, one proposed solution is to make drug use legal ( or decriminalized ) and focus resources on mitigating consequences of usage. I'd like to explore using that approach for other currently illegal activities, such as gun violence.

None of those graphs which show the harm to society take into account the widespread use of alcohol as compared to other less used drugs. We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume. I do agree with Swansont's suggestion on the previous page that a society with a representative Government is free to choose what it makes legal or illegal, simply by preference and majority rule. And I found this line interesting ... Would you suggest the same approach with gun violence in the US ?

Directly proportional implies a linear relationship between two variables. If you double the one variable, the other doubles. If you triple it, the other variable also triples. And so on ... For F=ma,you have three variables, and the correct reading is Force and acceleration are directly proportional when mass is constant. IOW, it would not work for a rocket which changes mass as it expels fuel. Nor would it work in relativistic situations.

Some Canadian politicians have already commented that American women would be welcome to undergo the procedure in Canada.

And I think Gay marriage rights should have also been enacted as Federal law. That could be next on the agenda.

Not to pick on Democrats, again ... There have been plenty of opportunities during the last 50 yrs. to turn the SC decision into law at the federal level. All that time, Democrats have held the naive notion that the Roe vs. Wade decision was settled law, and failed to enact actual law. I would think it is much easier to overturn a previous opinion, rather than an enshrined law. We are failed by our elected Governments, and we blame the SC when they change their mind.

Not at the rate they are being pushed back. So much for the vaunted Russian Armed Forces. I guess V Putin won't be having his cancer surgery anywhere in the West. Let us hope that while he's out, saner heads prevail.

I'm not overly familiar with the Constitution ( Canadian ), but I don't see how an imaginary line between States determines that one American has the right to an abortion, while anothe American does not. Maybe the SC can interpret what exactly it means 'to be American', and what rights cannot be taken away by a State, according to the Constitution.

Maybe Justice Alito is looking for a way that the SC can avoid the responsibility ithas had for the last 50 yrs. of maintaining the status quo, and place it where it belongs; on the shoulders of our elected representatives. I have always thought that a society has the right to set the rules that it lives by, and not have unelected intelligentsia determine those rules. I think abortion could be one of those rules. That being said, most of those rules should apply to the greater society of the country, and not be a mix'n'match at the state level. An American should not have one set of rights in one state, and another set in the next. Nor should travel between states be a problem. That is the absurd situation. And I get the feeling the SC will be dragged back into this debate, at least, to decide what it means to be American, and how some Americans have rights other Americans are denied.

I was just reading that ... Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO and that last line caught my eye. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” I would think this puts the onus on elected representatives to make appropriate laws and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to do it for them. Unfortunately I also see more polarization in the US, and more women suffering as a result. Also note that in the '72 Roe vs. Wade decision, Republican appointed Justices sided with Democrat appointed Justices in making that decision. Sadly, those days of reasonable Republicans are gone.

I suggested that about a week ago ... The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws. They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe. Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

I know what the stsndard definition of solipsism is, but I'm not sure I know what it is. And I'm sure if you asked 25 people you would get 25 different definitions. Physics doesn't work like that.

For what it's worth, I have repeatedly said the subject of the OP was not particularly upsetting to me. Ultimately J Biden made a good choice in KBJ, but could have handled the preannounced selection criteria in a more politically correct fashion. This has now gone completely off topic, with some telling me they are offended by my use of certain words which may ( depending on location ) offend a third party. MSC then berates them because he is offended that they are offending me. When did being offended for other people become a 'thing' ? Well I am not offended, so can we all take a deep breath and calm down. @MSC While I appreciate you sticking up for me, I assure you, it is not needed. INow and I are constantly tussling, and we both seem to enjoy it. Also keep in mind that INow ( and Peterkin ) are probably older than I am. ( and not as good looking, intelligent, or modest 😄 )

Peterkin has all the facts, but can't seem to draw the proper conclusion from them. That is correct. And especially in the Southern US, the term 'colored' was associated with black people, and eventually came to be seen as a racisl slur. This is all explained in INow link, if you are so interested. That is also correct. But in Canada the term still refers to People of Color, or anyone who is visibly not a white Caucasian. It does not refer only to Black Canadians, and I suspect, the situation is similar in other parts of the World that don't share US southern history. The conclusion he draws, that the border is 'porous', and we slowly embrace American characteristics, is false. I don't own a gun, even though every American TV show depicts gun use. We don't project power ( and attitude ) around the world, mostly because we have no equipment for our Armed Forces, but we do watch a lot of American war movies. Almost half of us don't think D Trump's Presidency was the 'second coming', and almost all of us Canadians think he's an idiot, even though Fox News is available in Canada. And even our Prime Minister, who likes to 'signal virtue', ( but then wears black face make-up ) has used the term 'coloured' ( notice the Canadian spelling ). Are you trying to 'out-signal' Justin, Peterkin ?

"There's only two thisngs I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch." Austin Powers

Now that I know it offends you, I will try not to use the term in conversation with you. But in Canada the term 'colored' still means of a visibly different skin color than a white Caucasian, and does not have the 'racist' connotations of the southern American States. Your response to me would be similar to me, going to India, and upon hearing one person call another 'Indian', correcting them and telling then they should use the term indigenous, or native American. Or going to the UK, and being shocked when String Junky asks for a packet of 'fags' at the store. As a matter of fact, it could be considered discriminatory to push your American sensibilities and biases on me and the rest of the world. America stops at the 49th parallel. ( would it have made a difference had I written 'coloured' nstead of 'colored' ? ) Peterkin, for one, is still confusing the discriminatory nature of the pre-announcement, or communicated intention, with the non-discriminatory selection of KBJ. So, I'm not 'railing' against your position, which I agree with ( J Biden used many more criteria than skin color and gender to make his selection ), but arguing that the prior announced selection criteria give the impression of being discriminatory. ( did not want to use 'optics' as he might go off on a tangent about its meaning again ) Then you also suffered from a false positive. I don't consider it a 'dig'. Case closed. ( besides, INow has said much worse to me 😄 )

I know. Here is the pertinent quote from your provided link "The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations," And I bolded and underlined the section that applies to me.

The other part was And of course we have thieves for many reasons other than poverty. I even gave one; greed ( 2 hrs ago ). So please explain your objection.

In what version of English is the term 'colored people' different from 'people of color' ? Or does the abbreviation make it more palatable ? Please explain.

Because he said Did you miss that in my previous post ?

Funny how you don't admonish others who have previously used the term PoC. What did you think the C stood for ? Try to make a better argument ...

What do you mean it never happened? According to your timeline he twice made the announcement that he would choose a candidate who is colored and a female. If he had said he would pick a 'white male' everyone here, including JC and I, would agree he used discriminatory language/criteria. I fail to understand how anyone can consider the appearance of his two pre-announcements, based on skin color and gender, not discriminatory.

Sure; but thieves are not the only criminals. And despite the fact that they can afford good lawyers to get them off, a large number of thieves are actually wealthy. I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

So why make the claim that if there were no jails, there would be no criminals ? and Bad choice of wording ? Or inability to distinguish between cause and consequence ?

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ? Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim. Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks. Some steal because they are greedy. You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...