Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Bomb#20]

Here are a few more:
- When she was AG she defied a court order to release prisoners because the state needed them to fight wildfires.
- She said the First Amendment doesn't apply to misinformation.
- When asked about her flipflops, the best she could come up with was that her values hadn't changed. Yes, that's what concerned people.

Do you really want untrained people fighting fires? Especially wildfires that are notorious for their semi-unpredictable behaviour.

Apparently I phrased that ambiguously. I meant that because the state needed the prisoners to fight wildfires, she defied a court order to release them. The court didn't order them released so they could fight fires; the prisoners the state uses that way are still prisoners. IIUC, the court had ordered her to release nonviolent offenders early to relieve prison overcrowding.

Whether the prisoners were adequately trained and whether it's a good idea to use them that way, I'll leave to those more knowledgeable.

What were the circumstances regarding the First Amendment situation?

"And if you profit off of hate—if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don't police your platforms—we are going to hold you accountable as a community." Here's her whole speech.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

When USA becomes a truly civilized nation, then maybe misinformation will not have FA protection.

If that sort of thing appeals to you, what should our future truly civilized nation call the government department that gets to decide which speech is "misinformation"? The "Ministry of Truth"?

 

[thebeave]

Here are a few more:
- When she was AG she defied a court order to release prisoners because the state needed them to fight wildfires.
- She said the First Amendment doesn't apply to misinformation.
- When asked about her flipflops, the best she could come up with was that her values hadn't changed. Yes, that's what concerned people.

Pretty certain you don't give a flying ... about any of those things.

Pretty certain the reason you're pretty certain of that is because I'm an unbeliever in your dogma. Can you explain why it is that you don't give a damn whether the things you say about unbelievers are true?

You're not fooling anyone redcap.

I'm guessing you don't mean I'm one of these...

Or maybe you could be one of these. Damn racist right wing hags.

 

[Bomb#20]

Or maybe you could be one of these. Damn racist right wing hags.

View attachment 50416

Good guess, but alas, it looks like Patooka smoked my species...

 

[TSwizzle]

JK Rowling still giving it tight to the trans clergy.



The “Hail Mulvaneys” is too funny.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Progressives classify groups as oppressed or oppressor, privileged or underrepresented, advantaged or disadvantaged, call it what you will, and are here advocating that decision-makers apply quotas or points or extra consideration or what have you, on behalf of candidates in the selected groups -- the oppressed/underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Having such extra considerations applied on ones behalf is not a basic human right. ... Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

...
I think it IS a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin. This includes access to education, health care, employment, housing, and marriage and marital status.

"Treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin" is something it's possible for everyone to get. So that's something that could well be a basic human right: a right of all humans. This is in contrast to getting treated under the law as though "at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. are positive attributes". When the law treats any person's gender, sex, race or religion as a positive attribute, it is necessarily treating someone else's gender, sex, race or religion as a negative attribute. So it cannot be a basic human right to be treated under the law as though your gender, sex, race, or religion is a positive attribute.

All that is fine as far as it goes. The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Here are a few more:
- When she was AG she defied a court order to release prisoners because the state needed them to fight wildfires.
- She said the First Amendment doesn't apply to misinformation.
- When asked about her flipflops, the best she could come up with was that her values hadn't changed. Yes, that's what concerned people.

Do you really want untrained people fighting fires? Especially wildfires that are notorious for their semi-unpredictable behaviour.

Apparently I phrased that ambiguously. I meant that because the state needed the prisoners to fight wildfires, she defied a court order to release them. The court didn't order them released so they could fight fires; the prisoners the state uses that way are still prisoners. IIUC, the court had ordered her to release nonviolent offenders early to relieve prison overcrowding.

Whether the prisoners were adequately trained and whether it's a good idea to use them that way, I'll leave to those more knowledgeable.

What were the circumstances regarding the First Amendment situation?

"And if you profit off of hate—if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don't police your platforms—we are going to hold you accountable as a community." Here's her whole speech.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

When USA becomes a truly civilized nation, then maybe misinformation will not have FA protection.

If that sort of thing appeals to you, what should our future truly civilized nation call the government department that gets to decide which speech is "misinformation"? The "Ministry of Truth"?

No "Ministry of Truth" would be needed. You are obviously one of those people who believe that the government should control all aspects of people's personal lives. Misinformation in such as society would be countered by normal citizens and a responsible, ethical media.

 

[laughing dog]

... Progressives classify groups as oppressed or oppressor, privileged or underrepresented, advantaged or disadvantaged, call it what you will, and are here advocating that decision-makers apply quotas or points or extra consideration or what have you, on behalf of candidates in the selected groups -- the oppressed/underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Having such extra considerations applied on ones behalf is not a basic human right. ... Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

...
I think it IS a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin. This includes access to education, health care, employment, housing, and marriage and marital status.

"Treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin" is something it's possible for everyone to get. So that's something that could well be a basic human right: a right of all humans. This is in contrast to getting treated under the law as though "at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. are positive attributes". When the law treats any person's gender, sex, race or religion as a positive attribute, it is necessarily treating someone else's gender, sex, race or religion as a negative attribute. So it cannot be a basic human right to be treated under the law as though your gender, sex, race, or religion is a positive attribute.

All that is fine as far as it goes. The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia, there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

 

[Derec]

Pretty certain you don't give a flying fuck about any of those things. You're not fooling anyone redcap.

You don't know what he does or does not give a flying fuck about.

 

[Derec]

Whether the prisoners were adequately trained and whether it's a good idea to use them that way, I'll leave to those more knowledgeable.

If they are not adequately trained, they should not be fighting fires, prisoner or not.
If they are adequately trained, and are due to be released, then the fire department should have the opportunity to hire them as free civilians.

I agree that keeping somebody imprisoned longer to take advantage of their labor is highly improper.

 

[Bomb#20]

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

Exactly. If you set out to find someone with irrelevant attribute X it's automatically a DEI hire.

However, VP is normally a DEI hire anyway, just not always so blatantly.

Do you not think that at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. ARE positive attributes?

Representation matters. Quick, easy example: My husband is a professor at a small public university, in a pretty male dominated field. For many years, they had a virtually all male department, with one female prof who occasionally taught classes in that department. But then they hired an older woman as part of the department and in the years following, there was a noticeable uptick in women students choosing that discipline as their major. Students of all ages notice if the people in charge, the people they see in positions of authority —which includes elementary school, look like them and they respond to that, however unconsciously. Same thing for doctors, lawyers, police officers, scientists, architects, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, computer geeks ( intended to be all inclusive rather than derisive), cooks, designers of all kinds, nurses, etc. oh, I do think it matters a bit less for middle class kids but it is especially powerful for kids from marginalized groups, including lower income.

Well look at that! A rational, substantive, fact-based argument for the beneficial effects of affirmative action. Bravo! To all the fans of affirmative action out there, read and learn. That is the right way to make your case. Pattern your arguments after what Toni wrote.

No rational person in the world believes that unqualified or less qualified candidates who are not cis white males are hired over more qualified cis white males.

And you were doing so well. But you just had to spoil it with sheer reality avoidance. Of course it happens, quite frequently. It's why discriminators fight cases like United Steelworkers of America v. Weber in the first place, in which the SCOTUS upheld discrimination against white people in employment. And for you to deny it happens right after you wrote an eloquent and cogent justification for it verges on the schizophrenic.

The people who believe that believe that in all probability the most qualified person is cis white and male.

And here it goes from bad to worse -- you compound your reality avoidance by trumping up an ad hominem argument. You commit baseless character assassination against everyone in the world who doesn't accept your obviously false factual claim on faith. It's a great pity that so many affirmative action proponents prefer your worst sort of argument to your best.

 

[Toni]

... Progressives classify groups as oppressed or oppressor, privileged or underrepresented, advantaged or disadvantaged, call it what you will, and are here advocating that decision-makers apply quotas or points or extra consideration or what have you, on behalf of candidates in the selected groups -- the oppressed/underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Having such extra considerations applied on ones behalf is not a basic human right. ... Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

...
I think it IS a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin. This includes access to education, health care, employment, housing, and marriage and marital status.

"Treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin" is something it's possible for everyone to get. So that's something that could well be a basic human right: a right of all humans. This is in contrast to getting treated under the law as though "at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. are positive attributes". When the law treats any person's gender, sex, race or religion as a positive attribute, it is necessarily treating someone else's gender, sex, race or religion as a negative attribute. So it cannot be a basic human right to be treated under the law as though your gender, sex, race, or religion is a positive attribute.

All that is fine as far as it goes. The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

What an interesting take you have on my pov and my posts.

I really don’t like it when threads devolve into one poster criticizing another poster for how they respond to a third party. This seems to have become rather a hobby of yours.

I view all posters here as intelligent t human beings capable of reading and reasoning and observation and of understanding points of view other than their own.

Loren is one poster I frequently disagree with regarding Affirmative Action, DEI, the intent behind that the degree of utility in using SAT scores to determine which applicants are the best for any particular school or medical school ( although Harvard seems to be seen as THE standard, which I’ve always found an interesting to be held as the most prestigious by engineers and computer scientists). I respect Loren almost always as well as other posters within I frequently disagree.

What I refuse to tolerate are the slurs hurled at me as though you somehow are privy to my ‘ideology’ and have determined it to be a religion. This, in fact, is a point I have specifically made to Loren who has in the past been fond of calling anything I believe that he does not ‘my religion.’ He doesn’t do that anymore and I fully expect you to knock it off as well.

If you don’t agree with me, then please do feel free to disagree with me all you like. I refuse to accept or tolerate the weak sauce ‘argument’ or insult you like to hurl at me when your reasoning cannot find actual words.

I respect Loren enough to believe he can defend himself and argue effectively to back up his POV. I wonder why you don’t?

 

[Bomb#20]

When USA becomes a truly civilized nation, then maybe misinformation will not have FA protection.

If that sort of thing appeals to you, what should our future truly civilized nation call the government department that gets to decide which speech is "misinformation"? The "Ministry of Truth"?

No "Ministry of Truth" would be needed. You are obviously one of those people who believe that the government should control all aspects of people's personal lives. Misinformation in such as society would be countered by normal citizens and a responsible, ethical media.

What did you have in mind? Fact-checking and well-publicized refutation of claims that normal citizens and a responsible, ethical media judge to be misinformation? Pretty sure you can do all that without depriving the misinformation of FA protection. Under what scenario will a court find itself ruling that someone's words do not have FA protection because they're misinformation, but there's no "Ministry of Truth" to give the court guidance on whether the words are in fact misinformation? Would it be decided by polling normal citizens? Or perhaps by polling a responsible, ethical media?

 

[Bomb#20]

... The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia,

Excuse me, do you object to patronizing? You didn't seem to have a problem with it when Toni patronized Loren.

My dear Loren, it is you who is living in a fantasy world where all the best things are rightfully in the hands of white men because that’s the way it has always been and therefore white men must be the most qualified.

Disadvantages to out groups do not disappear by writing and enacting a piece of legislation. Currently, a huge disadvantage is if one is assumed to have one’s position because of their skin color , sex and gender ( and religion, native language) and not because of their actual qualifications and abilities and performance.

I know that it is very difficult to share center stage when one has held that position for so long, one assumes it is because that is how God intended it to be.

Double-standards are a red-flag for tribalism.

there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

Sorry, not seeing what that cryptic observation has to do with my post. Feel free to clarify if you wish.

 

[Arctish]

When USA becomes a truly civilized nation, then maybe misinformation will not have FA protection.

If that sort of thing appeals to you, what should our future truly civilized nation call the government department that gets to decide which speech is "misinformation"? The "Ministry of Truth"?

No "Ministry of Truth" would be needed. You are obviously one of those people who believe that the government should control all aspects of people's personal lives. Misinformation in such as society would be countered by normal citizens and a responsible, ethical media.

What did you have in mind? Fact-checking and well-publicized refutation of claims that normal citizens and a responsible, ethical media judge to be misinformation? Pretty sure you can do all that without depriving the misinformation of FA protection. Under what scenario will a court find itself ruling that someone's words do not have FA protection because they're misinformation, but there's no "Ministry of Truth" to give the court guidance on whether the words are in fact misinformation? Would it be decided by polling normal citizens? Or perhaps by polling a responsible, ethical media?

Defamation and false statements are not protected speech.

Opinions are protected. You can have and express any opinion whatsoever. But if you're presenting not-true statements as facts, you risk consequences.

 

[Derec]

I would say coal MINING is much cleaner than fracking.

What are you basing that on?
Especially since many coal mines these days are huge open pit mines.
A coal mine in Wyoming:

A fracking operation in North Dakota:

Dig a hole. Dig out the coal. Put it in a truck and haul it away. Leave an ugly looking hole.

Fuck up a large piece of the landscape. Distribute many tons of coal dust all over the place.

Fracking is drill numerous holes.

The sum total of all those holes has a much lower physical and ecological footprint than a mine, especially an open pit mine.

Pump dangerous toxic chemicals into those holes.

It's mostly water and not very toxic chemicals like hydrochloric acid, which is stomach acid, essentially.

Pump out the gas, haul it away. Leave the dangerous chemicals to contaminate the ground and water for decades.

Actually the fracking setup is isolated from the ground water table through casings on the bore holes. The shale deposits themselves are well below the ground water table. Coal mining waste has a much bigger chance of entering local ground water given that you are removing material from the surface, close to the aquifers.

Note also the use of horizontal wells that minimizes above-ground footprint of the operation.

 

[Toni]

... The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia,

Excuse me, do you object to patronizing? You didn't seem to have a problem with it when Toni patronized Loren.

​

My dear Loren, it is you who is living in a fantasy world where all the best things are rightfully in the hands of white men because that’s the way it has always been and therefore white men must be the most qualified.

​

Disadvantages to out groups do not disappear by writing and enacting a piece of legislation. Currently, a huge disadvantage is if one is assumed to have one’s position because of their skin color , sex and gender ( and religion, native language) and not because of their actual qualifications and abilities and performance.​

​

I know that it is very difficult to share center stage when one has held that position for so long, one assumes it is because that is how God intended it to be.​

Double-standards are a red-flag for tribalism.

there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

Sorry, not seeing what that cryptic observation has to do with my post. Feel free to clarify if you wish.

Ah, the proxy attack!

 

[Toni]

I would say coal MINING is much cleaner than fracking.

What are you basing that on?
Especially since many coal mines these days are huge open pit mines.
A coal mine in Wyoming:

A fracking operation in North Dakota:

Dig a hole. Dig out the coal. Put it in a truck and haul it away. Leave an ugly looking hole.

Fuck up a large piece of the landscape. Distribute many tons of coal dust all over the place.

Fracking is drill numerous holes.

The sum total of all those holes has a much lower physical and ecological footprint than a mine, especially an open pit mine.

Pump dangerous toxic chemicals into those holes.

It's mostly water and not very toxic chemicals like hydrochloric acid, which is stomach acid, essentially.

Pump out the gas, haul it away. Leave the dangerous chemicals to contaminate the ground and water for decades.

Actually the fracking setup is isolated from the ground water table through casings on the bore holes. The shale deposits themselves are well below the ground water table. Coal mining waste has a much bigger chance of entering local ground water given that you are removing material from the surface, close to the aquifers.

Note also the use of horizontal wells that minimizes above-ground footprint of the operation.

Do you realize that fracking requires a particular type/size of sand? And that this sand is obtained by open pit mining? I know because I’ve seen these ‘sand mines.’

 

[Derec]

I understand that you hate Harris.

I certainly do not hate Kamala Harris. That's preposterous. If I hated her, I would hardly have voted for her in 2024.

When she first appeared on the national stage, I wanted to like her. But it was her decisions that made me turn away from her. First and foremost, her support for the very damaging SESTA/FOSTA legislation that makes sex workers less safe. Then came other bad decisions, from wanting to ban fracking to choosing the Knucklehead as her running mate.

I think you’d like her just fine if she were white and male and if she had been at least male, she likely would have beaten Trump but white male was a safer bet.

Bullshit, my opinions on her have nothing to do with her being not white and female, and everything with her lack of judgment as evidenced by the positions and actions she has taken over the years.

Having lived in/near an area where ‘sand mining’ was done, and having read extensively about the environmental consequences of fracking, I’ve reached a different conclusion than you re: the issue of fracking. We will never agree.

Yes, no matter how much evidence I present for the necessity of fracking, and all the positive effects of it (such as enabling us to reduce coal use), you will oppose it based on emotion. Same thing with sex work.

Biden hardly painted himself into a corner.

He certainly did. He could only chose among black(ish) women for running mate, and that severely limited his choices.

As horrible as it is to write this, he did a brave thing to serve as the VP of the first black POTUS.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with him first pledging to only consider women for running mate, and then limiting the choice even further due to George Floyd riots.

He attempted another brave thing that was also self sacrificing by withdrawing in favor of Harris.

No. That was not brave. He should have withdrawn a year earlier. That would have been brave. After the disastrous debate performance he still vacillated for weeks.
And, no, he should not have "withdrawn in favor of" anybody. Democrats should have had a choice through the primary process. Instead, KH was foisted upon the electorate. A nominee chosen through the primaries would have probably beaten Trump like a rented mule.

The Dems could have objected and tried a special primary.

They should have. But the longer Biden hesitated, the less feasible a blitz primary became. Had he withdrawn right after the 6/27 debate, there'd still be time. But he waited until 7/21, three weeks later. Did he wait so long to make sure nobody could feasibly challenge Harris for the nomination? Possible. And if so, a disastrous choice for both the Democratic Party and for our country.

Or they could have not forced him out in the first place.

After his debate performance, his decline could no longer be denied. What would have been brave would have been for Biden to withdraw a year sooner, or for his inner circle to push for that to happen.

The unfortunate fact is that Biden was right when he entered the race against Trump in 2020: It required an older white male from the establishment, with a history of working across the aisle to calm the fears of racists whose fears were triggered by a black candidate. It’s not surprising that racists ( closet or open) are also sexist ( closet or open) and Harris, being both, could not be made ok enough by choosing Walz.

You are too focused on race and gender, rather than individual's political positions, experience, accomplishments and judgments.
We see that in how you view Walz as just an interchangeable white guy. Or how you can't see past Harris' race and gender to see flaws in her as an individual.

 

[Toni]

I understand that you hate Harris.

I certainly do not hate Kamala Harris. That's preposterous. If I hated her, I would hardly have voted for her in 2024.

When she first appeared on the national stage, I wanted to like her. But it was her decisions that made me turn away from her. First and foremost, her support for the very damaging SESTA/FOSTA legislation that makes sex workers less safe. Then came other bad decisions, from wanting to ban fracking to choosing the Knucklehead as her running mate.

I think you’d like her just fine if she were white and male and if she had been at least male, she likely would have beaten Trump but white male was a safer bet.

Bullshit, my opinions on her have nothing to do with her being not white and female, and everything with her lack of judgment as evidenced by the positions and actions she has taken over the years.

Having lived in/near an area where ‘sand mining’ was done, and having read extensively about the environmental consequences of fracking, I’ve reached a different conclusion than you re: the issue of fracking. We will never agree.

Yes, no matter how much evidence I present for the necessity of fracking, and all the positive effects of it (such as enabling us to reduce coal use), you will oppose it based on emotion. Same thing with sex work.

Biden hardly painted himself into a corner.

He certainly did. He could only chose among black(ish) women for running mate, and that severely limited his choices.

As horrible as it is to write this, he did a brave thing to serve as the VP of the first black POTUS.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with him first pledging to only consider women for running mate, and then limiting the choice even further due to George Floyd riots.

He attempted another brave thing that was also self sacrificing by withdrawing in favor of Harris.

No. That was not brave. He should have withdrawn a year earlier. That would have been brave. After the disastrous debate performance he still vacillated for weeks.
And, no, he should not have "withdrawn in favor of" anybody. Democrats should have had a choice through the primary process. Instead, KH was foisted upon the electorate. A nominee chosen through the primaries would have probably beaten Trump like a rented mule.

The Dems could have objected and tried a special primary.

They should have. But the longer Biden hesitated, the less feasible a blitz primary became. Had he withdrawn right after the 6/27 debate, there'd still be time. But he waited until 7/21, three weeks later. Did he wait so long to make sure nobody could feasibly challenge Harris for the nomination? Possible. And if so, a disastrous choice for both the Democratic Party and for our country.

Or they could have not forced him out in the first place.

After his debate performance, his decline could no longer be denied. What would have been brave would have been for Biden to withdraw a year sooner, or for his inner circle to push for that to happen.

The unfortunate fact is that Biden was right when he entered the race against Trump in 2020: It required an older white male from the establishment, with a history of working across the aisle to calm the fears of racists whose fears were triggered by a black candidate. It’s not surprising that racists ( closet or open) are also sexist ( closet or open) and Harris, being both, could not be made ok enough by choosing Walz.

You are too focused on race and gender, rather than individual's political positions, experience, accomplishments and judgments.
We see that in how you view Walz as just an interchangeable white guy. Or how you can't see past Harris' race and gender to see flaws in her as an individual.

I did not realize you voted for Harris. I will revise my opinion and I really do hope that I do not ever forget that fact.

What do you have against Tim Walz? I certainly do NOT see Walz as interchangeable with any other white guy, or even any other white guy of a certain vintage and political experience/leanings. I understood why Harris chose Walz as her running mate and frankly, I was extremely impressed with his performance on the campaign trail, more than I had anticipated. The fact is that neither Harris nor Walz were perfect candidates because no such creature exists. Certainly stacked up against Trump, they were a veritable choir of angels singing on high. But I am extremely cognizant of the fact that Biden entered the 2020 race mostly to oppose Trump and that he was the perfect candidate to defeat Trump: experienced older white guy with enough liberal cred to help with that wing and a deserved reputation for working across the aisle. I happen to think that Biden a) would not have run again if Trump had not thrown in his hat and b) should not have dropped out as he demonstrated that he could defeat Trump and I believe he would have done so again. Now I do think that both Biden and Trump were too old to run for POTUS but Biden is more fit on every single measure one can name, including physical and mental fitness. It would have been far better for Biden to have defeated Trump and then resigned some point into his term, citing health reasons.

My opposition to fracking is not based upon emotion but upon actual evidence (some seen with my own eyes) of the damage that the practice does to the environment. As mentioned before: in order to frack, one must obtain a certain type of sand that is mined via strip mines, which is damaging just like strip mining for coal is damaging. This is not emotion-based although I'm beginning to think that your love affair with fracking is emotion based. The pipelines you are so enamored with in fact endanger water supplies. I realize that this does not happen near where you live but it does happen to be an issue where I live. I honestly cannot remember a time in my life when I did not oppose coal mines, at least once I was aware of the fact that there were coal mines and the damage they did to the miners and to the environment. We agree there. I am not willing to embrace increasing nuclear energy because of the potential for serious environmental harm and the danger to humans and other living things in the event of an accident.

For the record, I strongly support energy conservation whenever possible, including more efficient transportation, heating, cooling, electrical needs, etc. I am absolutely cognizant that all sources of energy currently in use do cause some --too much!--environmental damage. One of the reasons I retired when I did is that I could not continue to justify the fuel spent commuting 100 miles/day in my car chosen specifically because of its fuel efficiency and relocation was not a realistic option as that would have merely shifted the commuting burden to my spouse. It can be quite difficult for two partners to obtain gainful and/or meaningful employment in the same community to minimize commute time. As it is now, I scarcely drive 30 miles/week unless I am visiting grandchild who lives further away than that. Hubby walks to work. Unless we are actually going to visit someone or for certain medical appointments, we don't drive very much. In that respect, we are pretty green. We've installed efficient heating/cooling and window replacement to improve energy efficiency is our next goal. I buy local as much as possible and as an older person, I really don't need a lot of 'stuff' so that helps as well. We live in a very walkable neighborhood. I grow stuff for my table. I buy stuff raised locally whenever I can. I really do try to choose greener products when possible.

 

[laughing dog]

... The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia,

Excuse me, do you object to patronizing? You didn't seem to have a problem with it when Toni patronized Loren.

Not to all patronizing. Some of it is unavoidable for some posters. But patronizing hypocritical and handwaving apologia, I object to.

​

My dear Loren, it is you who is living in a fantasy world where all the best things are rightfully in the hands of white men because that’s the way it has always been and therefore white men must be the most qualified.

​

Disadvantages to out groups do not disappear by writing and enacting a piece of legislation. Currently, a huge disadvantage is if one is assumed to have one’s position because of their skin color , sex and gender ( and religion, native language) and not because of their actual qualifications and abilities and performance.​

​

I know that it is very difficult to share center stage when one has held that position for so long, one assumes it is because that is how God intended it to be.​

Double-standards are a red-flag for tribalism.

Not always.

there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

Sorry, not seeing what that cryptic observation has to do with my post. Feel free to clarify if you wish.

Perhaps your "That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. " might help you see.