iNow

You might be missing the logic of this point, but it’s important for you to be aware that inserting a god or gods into your thinking actually INCREASES the complexity of your position and makes your explanation LESS simple. It’s a new layer and a new assertion you’re forced to explain, and yet you can’t explain it with anything more than castles made of sand. So… if you truly do value simple concepts and consider them to be most powerful, then you really ought to discard deities from the equation entirely… unless/until hard evidence gives us any good reason to place them there. After millennia of trying, nobody has yet come up with any hard evidence (or really any evidence at all) supporting the conjecture that god(s) really do exist. Every. Single. Time… the idea gets any pushback at all, it always seems to come back to a baseless individual faith (which even you have already acknowledged in yourself), some form of specious wish thinking, or mere chance that one happened to be born into it so had exposure or indoctrination as children.

Which one(s)?

If you’re not intentionally misrepresenting me, then I fear you’re suffering from some rather significant reading comprehension challenges. See above. Same applies here. You’re approach to this discussion has turned me off. That’s what it should tell you. Pot. Kettle. Black. Is it possible you missed a nap today, or maybe have low blood sugar?

Calm down. All I said is 1963 called and wants their bad label back. I didn’t call MigLs wife a bad name or kick his dog. Let’s move on, please. Pot. Kettle. Black. Happy to follow your lead once you do the same. Please stop arrogantly and inaccurately suggesting you have insights into my motivations.

Except just today they bombed Kyiv. Liar.

No thanks. Far too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this ridiculousness.

Then you also suffered from a false positive. This is now the second time I've confirmed there was no "anti-Canadian animosity" in my comment. I've also already clarified that my intent was solely to highlight proximity. Anyone else who feels I acted with malice by suggesting "the US isn't that far away and it's clear to essentially everyone that calling people 'colored' not far from your own front door is wrong" is free to do so, but then you too will be ignoring the inaccuracy of your stance and in parallel be arrogantly pretending to know more about my own intentions than I do. If they don't know and are simply unaware, then that's one thing, but if upon being informed they choose to persist anyway, then the brush spreads its tar quite appropriately IMO.

Proximity

If you did, it was a false positive

Yeah, because the only option remaining if not paying is rubles is “free” 🙄

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. It’s akin to calling a handicapped person a cripple or an autistic kid retarded. People worth half a damn have recognized it’s inappropriate and stopped saying it. Also in fairness to another question you asked me, I absolutely favor moving away from the term PoC, but it’s still much more open to different views and since that one’s not such a LONG settled issue like not calling people “colored,” I let it slide this time.

Good. Convince the world to maybe after 40 years of delaying to move more rapidly off the fuels that are warming the planet

I wasn’t objecting. I was asking you to explain. Which you just did. Thank you.

I didn’t neg you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

No, but isn’t it obvious that I quoted the other part of your previous post and asked specifically about that? Are you making this difficult intentionally?

Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.” It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people.

With bated breath I wait 🙄

I don’t disagree with you, which is why I didn’t comment on that part. Again, no disagreement here. Still unsure why you pushed back originally on the poverty and theft connection, though. You’ve just acknowledged it in our follow up.

1963 called. They want their misused labels back, but say you can keep the hoses and the dogs.

Do you disagree that increases in poverty relates strongly to increases in thefts, that the two are linked across multiple dimensions and for obvious reasons?

Maybe I'm growing jaded and cynical, but I seriously doubt it actually matters what Charon shares. Won’t change anyones mind.

“Youth” sports or “high school” sports also have “age” or “school being attended” as the criteria. Yet again, sex becomes an irrelevant holdover from a dying discriminatory past. I know it’s hard to fathom, but better qualifications and classifications than “pees standing up” or “pees sitting down” really do exist when forming leagues and sports divisions!

Unless, of course, one is a non-binary athlete.

Unsure how this is a problem since one of the classification mechanisms I offered was to group athletes based on size and strength. Will you help clarify why you believe gender assigned at birth is relevant under such a system? I agree, which is why it's such a good thing I've never proposed anything even remotely similar to this.