MigL

I don't know, CharonY. I thought that is what we were discussing. I have stated that, in my opinion, the mechanism is flawed. and I gave historical evidence of where the mechanism was used for " bad' purposes with resulting disastrous effects ( American slavery ), and even where the mechanism was used for " good' intentions, with negative effects also ( Canadian Residential Schools ). If you can give me an example of 'racial' discrimination where 'good' intentions resulted in 'good' outcomes, I can be convinced otherwise.

It is no stretch that genetic markers that are responsible for differing traits of certain groups are also related to inheritable diseases. The amount of melanin ( skin pigmentation ) of some Italians is greater than some people who identify as Black. I myself. get my moles checked out whenever I visit my doctor. I have previously stated that the Emancipation Proclamation did not identify Blacks, but slaves. While the Underground Railroad had many participants who were not Black, and, sought an end to oppression and slavery. So while those programs/laws/ efforts identified a station in life ( for lack of a better term ), or a genetic marker that leads to a certain trait, they are not explicitly 'racial'. It is only when we generalize, and attribute that station in life ( slavery ), and those traits ( high concentration of melanin ), to a separate 'race', that the trouble begins. I can see the immediate benefits of putting 'racial discrimination' to 'good' use. But remain of the opinion that a mechanism for sorting according to 'race', is inherently flawed, whether used for 'good' or 'bad'. Just over 100 years ago the Residential School system in Canada was thought to be a 'good' way to assimilate Native Canadians into Canadian society, and instead of living on Reservations, be productive members of society. It is now considered a huge flop, which abused/damaged a lot of lives, and far from being 'good', is now considered criminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system . What is 'good' or 'bad' today, may not be so tomorrow.

No apology necessary; I'm fairly thick-skinned. I just found it galling that you would complain about something which you also do. Do you mean like this ... Just what exactly do you think 'discriminate' means ? dis·crim·i·nate /dəˈskriməˌnāt/ verb 1. recognize a distinction; differentiate. Discrimination is simply the act of sorting according to some criterion. I think that we can all agree that discriminating, or sorting, according to the criterion of 'race' is wrong as it has led to oppression, slavery and genocide. Even worse, there are no actual 'races', but the one; it is essentially sorting according to distinguishing features, that has caused all these problems. Yet you guys feel it is still OK, because you're using it for 'good'. edit I miss the Physics forum where words are strictly defined, and meanings are not colored by the subjective life experiences of the user

Seriously Zap ??? You guys pick and choose snippets of my posts to attack, without taking them in context of the rest of the post, and MSC has the balls to accuse me of doing that ? What is wrong with the sentence above ? That when all is equal ( the goal ), the only consideration should be grades and attitude ? Go ahead and call me racist; you've already accused me of using Trump's playbook. If the mechanism ( sorting according to race ) used to combat racism is the exact same mechanism ( again sorting according to race ) that created it in the first place, you are going to have problems. I am suggesting that mechanism is flawed; not suggesting racism does not exist. I am also suggesting you are further polarizing race relations, but I would expect nothing less of Americans. That's out of Trump's playbook too, isn't it Zap ? I'm out.

You are falling into the same trap here. What do age, gender and clinical ability have to do with education ? I don't think you want to introduce gender, age and disability discrimination into the equation too. The goal is that even financial situation should not matter, and the only criteria should be academic standing ( grades ) and attitude. That is my point exactly. If we continue to measure race ( ? ), gender, age or even clinical ability, human nature being what it is, the result will be discrimination/sorting according to all those extra criteria which should have no bearing on whether you get an education or not . edit Sorry, I previously said that would be my last post on the topic. I lied.

Sorry Zap, I hadn't seen the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Underground Railroad in your original list, or I would have separated them, like I did with the testing for medical conditions in black folks, for the reasons given above. I am exploring an argument here, not advocating for one way or another, of doing things. But I don't seem able to effectively communicate that argument, and perhaps, that is confusing you. I will try one last time ... Say your car pulls to the right as you're driving down the road. The advocated solution seems to be steering to the left, so as to keep going straight. ( thank Phi for all for the 'steering the ship in the opposite direction' analogy ) I'm suggesting that is just as bad, and will lead to even more problems with your tires/bearings/steering linkage. The best solution is to take care of the problem by getting an alignment done. Not trying to counteract the problem.

IIRC, A Lincoln's words identified slaves, not black people, to be freed, while there were many whites who participated in the underground railroad to bring slaves to freedom. The act of targeting a group was wrong when slavery was established, and can be argued to be wrong when those same methods are used to correct the original wrong. Do we murder murderers ? Do we take possessions away from thieves ? When is 'an eye for an eye' ever a good policy ?

Not quite, CharonY. I'm trying to explain ( to the best of my ability ), that even for a just cause, sorting/selecting according to racial traits is using 'racism'. The fact that we are willing to use 'race' to discriminate between people, when we consider the cause just, means we will discriminate using 'race' when another cause comes along that we consider just. Just, is simply a moral justification for doing/saying something. As their livelihood depended on slavery, I'm sure the Confederate States though discriminating according to 'race' was just. I'm saying sorting/discriminating according to 'race' is a bad thing, Zap. For one thing, there is only one race, so you are actually sorting/discriminating according to group traits. The fact that this bad thing can be used to do even worse things like subjugate, enslave or even commit genocide, seems like a good reason not to use it at all.

We most certainly can. As a matter of fact, education ( for all) would go a long way towards ridding the world of racism, but will not eliminate it completely. ( please keep in mind that I've said the cause is noble, and justified, but, I also like to explore other viewpoints, so as to have a discussion ) The two choices you give are not satisfactory. Yes, to an innocent bystander who got hurt during the protests, or to a store-owner who was looted, they most certainly were antagonistic. Arrest of the 4 cops involved, and protesting their police department ( who enables and protects those kinds of cops ) would be reactionary. If, on the other hand, you want to stretch the 'enabling' part to all of society ( including blacks who enable their own oppression ? ) then yor question might be valid. But there are many models of Affirmative Action. I have claimed, that all other qualifiers being equal, basing the final decision on race ( whatever that means; should be distinguishing characteristics of a group ) is inherently racist. That IS the meaning of the word. You are probably right. But I would say that the people who most often use the word ( if I had to label them it would be progressives, but I dislike labels ) have twisted it to imply only the bad aspects of 'discriminating', or sorting, by race. In a perfect world where there is no racism ( HaHa, impossible since it can be argued that it is an evolutionary trait ), all the programs and institutions that you mentioned ( except for medical studies on black men, which recognises that some of these group traits have health consequences ), Zap, would be racist, as they use race as the sole criteria.

Fair enough. But prejudice, discrimination and antagonism are 'perceived' actions. Any action that distresses, offends or makes a person feel bad, can be classified as prejudice/discrimination/antagonism. It follows, then, that any action simply based on race, is racist. I don't have an example to refer to regarding racism, but perhaps one about sexism can be substituted. We've had discussions on this very forum, as to whether the words "that woman" is sexist. I was arguing on the other side that time ( hey, someone's gotta present an opposing viewpoint ), but the consensus was that, if the words are perceived as offensive then they are sexist. IOW, actions or words based on gender can be ( and often are ) perceived as sexist, even though they are simply a statement of gender. edit Almost forgot to answer the question. As AA is ultimately ( all else being equal ) based on race, it is inherently racist.

I wonder if 00 years ago people didn't feel the same way about slavery, in the American south. Maybe I'm going about this the wrong way, Zap. If you claim that is not the definition of 'racism'. maybe I should be asking for your definition, so that we can be on the same page and have a mutually beneficial discussion.

I shouldn't have to post this, because I know where you're coming from, but I will for the sake of good discussion... rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun noun: racism prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. I will add that sometimes even the majority is marginalized; South Africa under Apartheid. The point being that you don't get to redefine racism because the end is justified. Similarly, you don't get to redefine tolerance to only the beliefs you agree with. Or free speech to only what you want to hear. No matter how noble the cause. ( yes, I've said the cause is noble, but that doesn't change the fact that arguments can be made against it ) You and Zap had better grab onto something; that's a pretty slippery slope you're on.

So we are in agreement, then, Zap ? Racism to combat racism ?

Sorry CharonY. The only one I'm familiar with is the University at Buffalo, and that seems substantially more expensive than my local universities like Brock or McMaster.

That comes across as a strong dislike of the already benefitted few. Let's face it, any system for equalizing opportunity is implemented as a redistribution from those who have, to those who don't, with the Government as the middle man. There is an increasing rate of taxation to go with rising income. The intent should be that this helps pay for education for underprivileged students. Yet it 'disappears' into defense spending ( the US has the biggest, and best equipped, military in the world, yet that is no deterrent as it is always getting into wars ), or it 'disappears' into projects in congressional districts ( because politicians have to be bought for their support ), or it 'disappears' to build walls ( thanks D Trump ), or to bail out big Banks who are too big to fail ( even though they caused the problem in the first place ), etc. In Canada we have subsidised education, where you do have some costs, but the Government subsidizes the larger portion. It works very well ( even though the government subsidies are different in different Provinces ) as it ensures the student puts some effort into it, as it does cost him/her some money. If I had a child, and he/she lived at home, they could attend the local University ( Brock ) for about 8000 can$ per year ( about 6000 us$ ). They could earn that in the summer or from a part-time job, without incurring a four year 160 000 $ debt at a( cheap ) American university. Then again, is seems like subsidised education is anathema to Americans as subsidised Health Care is. I don't know whether to say 'pity' or 'shame'. As for Affirmative Action... In a perfect world we would not even notice 'features' of different groups that apply for admission. And I think we can all agree on that. In what world, then, does it make sense, that in the case of two equally qualified individuals the tie-breaker is determined by 'features' of whatever group is needed to fill a quota ? Is that not racism to combat racism ? You can pave that road with all the good intentions you want; it still leads to the same place.

I think that's mostly a problem with the 'American' way of life ( although it is quite common in most western societies ). We equate money with power. The idea that you can buy anything, from school admission to politicians, or even the Presidency, is exemplified by your current President. I am suggesting that equal opportunity should be achieved by bringing everyone up to the same level, not bringing the 'have' to the low level of the 'have nots'. And suggesting reverse discrimination to fix the problem of lack of equal opportunity is akin to suggesting the solution to gun violence/ mass shootings in schools, is to put more guns in schools with armed teachers.

No distinction ? Consider wealth. Is the problem with wealth inequality that some have too much ? Or is the bigger problem that some don't have enough ? What some might consider having 'privilege', some others might think everyone should have.

I don't understand ... Is privilege the problem ? Or, is it actually, lack of privilege for some.

I've been to a few 'wild game' dinners. Not really my 'cup of tea', as I prefer what I'm accustomed to eating. But some definitely like 'strange' foods.

While a large local mass-energy density will result in a Black Hole of any size, this will only result in locally large space-time curvature. A collapse of the whole universe requires a global curvature. If the mass-energy density of the whole universe ( not just observable ) exceeds a certain amount, then the global curvature will be positive, and the universe will close in on itself and be unbounded but finite ( 3D analogy would be a sphere ), even as it continues its expansion. If the mass-energy density is equal or less than the critical amount, it will either be unbounded flat, or unbounded hyperbolic ( negative curvature, saddle shape ), and both are destined to expand forever. The only possibility which supports a re-collapse would be the positive curvature, hypersphere topology universe, but our current observations seem to suggest a global curvature that is very nearly flat, and accelerating expansion.

Apparently they also combined the results of two separate trials ( the other is in Brazil ? ), which isn't really accepted procedure. I got the impression that the half-dosing, which resulted in better outcomes, was not intentional, but an 'error' on the part of a 'contractor', Srtingy. They still have some serious work to do, before they can make any more claims.

AstraZeneca is reporting some dosing irregularities which have eroded confidence in the results reported last week. This may affect their application to have their vaccine authorized for emergency use by regulators, in time for early 2021 roll out.

Language, guys. Young kids read this forum. Don't contribute to the downfall of young people's morals . From Stringy's link/quote "Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good... fight" Yeah, just like OJ was looking for his wife's killer … on the golf course . ( what can I say, I'm in a good mood; the Trump era is finally drawing to a close ) "

The only 'science' that adage is remotely true for, is Holistic, or integrated, Medicine. These alternative medicines ( or quackery ) is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable, or proven ineffective.

I read that too, and was puzzled by it. Can you shed any light on why a half dose followed by a full dose would be more effective than a full dose followed by another full dose ? And not just by a bit, but 50% more effective ?