MigL

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 ?

How do you think D Trump's trying to disqualify Georgia votes, and vilification of the whole state, plays out with the voters in January when the two Senate seats come up for election ? Could his antics sour the voters on Republicans, so that they vote in Democrat Senators ? IOW, is the Republican party shooting itself in the foot by still backing the Loser ?

Lovely ?? Your standards for 'lovely' are quite low .

I've never been so tempted to give somebody a neg rep, Zap .

I like the photos and links to waterfalls, sandstone landscapes, and starscapes, but please, no more giant pictures of bugs. I feel itchy all over, like bugs are crawling all over me, after I see those.

I like it too, +1. In life, you try to control what you can. A good archer will move to a position to shoot with the wind; not cross, or against, it. It beats never shooting your arrow, or railing at the uncontrollable wind.

Welcome back to the 'sparring' match, MSC. You've outlined many reasons why Black American fathers aren't ( or weren't ) in the home. Most of them valid. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of Black American children are born to homes without a father present. And,as the mother then becomes the sole provider, and has to work, a lot of these kids don't even make it through high school. Whatever the reasons for the fathers not being there, even you must admit that makes the situation a lot worse for the kids, and leads to a cycle of poverty. The study I quoted is freely available to all, and I would say that, far from being irrelevant because of its age, things have actually gotten worse in the past 60 years, and not just for Black Americans, but for all groups surveyed. Meanwhile you claim a study, for which you give no link, that 'quality' time is what's really important, neglecting to mention how subjective 'quality' is. ( is being your child's friend higher quality than being his parent ? The two are very different and we both know which is more important, yet better 'quality' depends on whether you ask the parent or the child ) Mind you this is mostly opinion, and understand,I'm not saying that is the only problem. There are many problems to equal opportunity. The large majority of them depend on the group that is doing the oppressing, as opposed to the disadvantaged group. So you can go through life depending on others to fix problems ( and we both know there will be resistance to this ), or you can take the initiative and fix any problems that are in your power to fix. Last time I checked that was called 'responsibility'. Oh, and I appreciate that my comments 'interested' you .

Hopefully, Donald the Loser, and his lawyers ( especially mascara-hair Rudy ), get a good lesson in what the laws actually are, when they are vigorously prosecuted after he leaves office.

Recognize anyone ?