iNow

Just paste it, indeed. 🙄 https://www.google.com/search?q="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.+These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS796US796&oq="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.++These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&aqs=chrome..69i57.1393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Just needed the addition of the word “some.” What “some” men consider attractive… The insertion of the word “many” would’ve worked, too.

FYI, when people mention the idea of you trolling, hijacking threads, being off-topic, and contributing nothing of value to discussions more broadly, they're referring to posts like these. Please don't reply. I've extended the time you've gone off topic by responding with this feedback and if you wish to pursue it further, this thread is definitely NOT the place to do so. Excellent point, but I really didn't want to spend that much time researching the demographics of jurists specifically just to make my obvious (and hopefully somewhat humorous) point.

Incorrect. I see your issues with reading comprehension rearing their ugly head here yet again. Me: "Each time we recall an experience we engage the narrative portions of our brains and ever so slightly rewrite it until sometimes the entire memory becomes false to the point of fiction." Area54: "Memory works in peculiar ways. Initially we do not remember what happened, but what we remember is an interpretation of what we think happened. When this memory is revisited it is revised. Repeatedly. Moreover, research has shown that false memories are readily created."

Exactly! Exactly... wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/viruses-can-help-us-as-well-as-harm-us/ "A decade ago researchers were barely aware that the human virome existed. Today we see the vast virome as an integral part of the larger human microbiome, a crazy quilt of passive and active microscopic organisms that occupy almost every corner of our being. We have been mapping the virome for more than 10 years, and the deeper we investigate, the more the virome looks like a partnership that can influence our daily lives positively as well as negatively. Recent research shows we could even harness the virome to promote our own health. Investigators at the Rockefeller University, for example, purified an enzyme from a virus that kills bacteria found in patients who are struggling against methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infection. The results were so encouraging that the Food and Drug Administration designated the enzyme as a “breakthrough therapy.” Today we routinely speak about the “good” and “bad” bacteria in our lives. Viruses fall into the same categories." You may as well be claiming that fingers can't do much but pick peoples noses. It's equivalently correct. The rest of your post follows this same pattern. More chaff than wheat.

The fact that each time we recall an experience we engage the narrative portions of our brains and ever so slightly rewrite it until sometimes the entire memory becomes false to the point of fiction is a fact. Facts are not conspiratorial.

I see. So saying in advance that you plan to exclude half the population is not enough for you to comment. They said “I’ll pick a female” and you were silent. Okay, I can get onboard with that. I notice, however, that you were also silent when they said they’d pick a black person. Last time this was preannounced, black individuals constituted 12% of the population. This means that saying in advance you plan to exclude 88% of the population was also not enough to prompt you to comment, neither then nor now. This is good, though. Now we’re finally getting somewhere. So here’s where are: Excluding 88%, a-ok. Excluding 94%, no bueno. Therefore, we know your threshold for speaking out is somewhere between those two numbers. So, what is the threshold for you to comment on nominations like this? Is it 89% exclusion? 90% exclusion? 91%? 92%? Or, did they JUST barely miss your personal threshold of 93% exclusion being okay, but not 94%? That’d be a real bummer to lose your support for preannouncing by a such a mouses ball hair like that, but hey… I guess it happens.

That’s totally fair, but once again… why haven’t we heard from these people all of the many other times the criteria of skin color and gender were preannounced? What’s different this time? (Or, more specific to your own stance, why were you silent in wanting us to make our union more perfect those many other times… why the sudden need to realize this isn’t ideal this time… even when it also happened just 3 years ago)?

Thanks for the tip (and yes, I started this thread over 3 months before the invasion so it's evolved)

Agreed. Genocide, war crimes, and more. Putin and many of his leaders could easily be convicted if someone had the spine to go put handcuffs on him and march him out of the Kremlin. However, Bashar al-Assad also did many of these things several years ago, and you'll notice he's still (more or less) free to roam around and live life as he pleases. These labels from international bodies and organizations like the UN don't tend to today carry much weight, and I suspect a lot of those with libertarian tendencies prefer it that way, but it's off topic here.

Incorrect. I don’t actively believe in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy. I don’t actively in the nonexistence of flying unicorns. I just lack belief they DO exist. Same for your god and all of the countless other versions of god laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. I simply don’t believe in them. I don’t actively believe in their nonexistence. Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying “not collecting stamps” is a hobby or “not playing golf” is a sport. It’s plainly silly and remedially false.

I see. So everyone bitching and moaning and kvetching about this like it’s the 2nd Benghazi on steroids is REALLY just advocating for our union to be more perfect (despite these same people remaining completely silent during ALL of the previous 165 formal nominations presidents have made to the court). Okay, Pollyanna. You go with that explanation if it helps you to sleep better at night. Your idealism is laudable.

I’ll keep asking: Why is Biden being treated different from D Trump, GHW Bush, R Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and other previous US Presidents who set precedents on this exact issue?

WHO here is advocating for it to be admired? Will you quote where they did this? I see. In your opinion, what would be the necessary amount of racialization?

It what way is the equivalency I’m suggesting “false?” Lyndon Johnson said he wanted to select a black justice and did. GHW Bush said he wanted to select a black justice and did. Regan said he wanted to select a woman and did. Trump said he wanted to select a woman and did. Biden said he wanted to select a black woman and did. The only thing I can see here that’s not equivalent is that KBJ was both black AND female, but otherwise the process has been executed exactly inline with historical and well established precedent.

I don’t disagree at all, but that’s not my question. All of these citizens who are so passionate about selecting the very best possible candidate for the highest court in the land, who are advocating that this always happens based solely on merit and in a color blind manner… where were their voices speaking out passionately when it was the white fellas being selected? It wasn’t “a different time.” It was 3 years ago, and 4 years ago, and 15 years ago… Surely more capable, more competent, and more qualified candidates from other demographic groups were available when these other nominations were made, so why were they (even you) silent on this topic then?

Okay. So where were these same voices then when Brett Kavenaugh was selected just 3 years ago? Or what about Neil Gorsuch a year before him? Or Merrick Garland 5 years ago? Or Sam Alito 15 years ago? Noticing a trend?

Of course. I readily acknowledge that there is another sizable contingent of people who have arrived at their conclusions on this topic organically and authentically. No doubt, and in fact I (and I imagine most of us) agree that merit based selection and choices based on competence MUST be prioritized. We’re all totally on the same page there. Zero gap between us. Where things start to crumble for me, however, is why were all of these organic and authentic voices who favor selections based solely on merit and competence silent for the last 200+ years? At each step along the way when every single new justice was being chosen over the centuries… when there were SURELY better suited minority candidates or female jurists who were clearly more skilled, capable, and competent than the endless procession of white men that DID get chosen… where were all of these passionate voices arguing solely for fairness and integrity in the process then? Where was the outrage for presidents not choosing the most qualified candidate when the candidate they chose was a white guy? I mean… There were SURELY many more capable, more competent, more qualified female and minority jurists available to choose, yet not so much as a single “peep” from the “should be based on merit!” crowd that’s been so animated and agitated and outwardly expressive this time. I wonder what’s different this time. Why did all of these well intentioned citizens arguing in favor of a pure and fair process… defending the integrity of our system and the need for color blindness in our justice selection process… why have these same people remained so numbingly silent Every. Other. Time. All throughout our history… when SURELY better choices were available from other demographic groups? Why is it THIS time that they suddenly feel so compelled and called upon to speak out with such passion and such vigor and such holier-than-thou oratory? Gosh… what’s different THIS time? I just can’t put my finger on it. It may forever remain a mystery to us all. You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do.

You’re smart enough to know that at least a fairly sizable portion of it is, SJ

I reject your premise. I do get it. I’ve also shown, with evidence… with specific historical dates, and direct quotes from previous presidents… that the fury against Biden feels hypocritical in the way it ignores the long-standing precedent here. No matter what Biden does, even if he hadn’t mentioned a desire to appoint the first black woman, he’d be attacked by political enemies. He could cure cancer itself, and there’d be rage at him for taking away their freedom to get cancer. It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

It’s almost certainly not. He doesn’t care that the info comes from people who intentionally disinform people as part of their war strategy nor that the rest of the world who know more than him flatly disagree with his conclusion.

I’m open to the possibility, as should you be, especially since neither of us can speak factually about what might happen in other peoples minds if they were exposed to hypothetical scenarios.

Still looks like garbage on mobile. Either way, +1 for the latest post not quoted here

You haven’t. TBH, I don’t really care who you are. I care what you say and how you say it. I assure you, you’ve not angered me. Perhaps this is another example of the reading comprehension problems I speculated about above? I’m neither angry, having a hard time, nor a mod at this site.

Who are you even talking to, and what comment have they made that ties to your reply?