We need to rely on evidence, not conspiracy theories The facts, which I have enumerated previously, do not support your view. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats. It is clear that her letter was never leaked. — Dfpolis
The schedule is completely in the control of the Republican administration and Senate. They have about 90 days at this point. The average time for confirmation is 67 days.
Let us hope that the truth becomes clear.
Yes. Especially if the candidate was nominated in July.
Yes. Let's hope! — Dfpolis
Yes, if Senator Feinstein put partisan advantage above honor, she could have violated Doctor Ford's request that her name not be used. Remember, the request was not that her name be kept "out of the press," it was that it not be used at all. While many may have violated Doctor Ford's confidence, Senator Feinstein chose not to. I find both their actions commendable. — Dfpolis
You seem not to understand the American electoral system.
1. The last time I looked, the Republicans had a 70% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
2. Even if they lost control of the Senate, the new Senate would not begin until January of 2019.
3. After the elections, there would be a lame duck session of congress giving the Republicans also two months to work their will. — Dfpolis
1. As i explained above, there is no evidence that the Democrats leaked Ford's letter. So your premise is questionable at best.
2. As I also explained above, the motivation you offer makes no sense as the Republicans will maintain the majority in the senate until the end of 2018.
3. Could it not be that some Senators take their constitutional duty to advise and consent seriously and want to have the best available information? — Dfpolis
It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes. — Relativist
It has nothing at all to do with finding the truth. — Rank Amateur
If the Republicans are so sure he's innocent then they can confirm him anyway, with the option to impeach after if the FBI (or state investigators) find sufficient evidence to charge him. — Michael
Again, you are only considering a narrow neighborhood of Homo sapiens when judging what is necessary to fulfill a broad requirement. This is a myopic view, as demonstrated by the great variety of adaptations and numerous convergencies that can be seen in life on Earth. Besides, as I said, you are underestimating the potential for variety within a lineage; this is why I brought up birds, some of whom, by the way, move about over much wider ranges than humans ever did for most of their existence - without the benefit of sweat glands. Fish didn't have sweat glands either, and yet here we are. — SophistiCat
Two things. First, your mistake here is that you are considering a tiny counterfactual neighborhood of human evolutionary history. It is unreasonable to suggest that sweat glands or arboreal habitat are a sine qua non for evolving human-like intelligence in any species, just because these factors (allegedly) played an important role the evolution of human intelligence. — SophistiCat
Second, dinosaurs are not extinct. Look out the window and you'll likely see some. When you think of dinosaurs, you might have a picture of comic-book giant reptiles in your imagination; if so, you are seriously underestimating the potential for variety in that lineage. Also, what Bitter Crank said: if you didn't know better, would you expect fish to evolve into something like us? — SophistiCat
Or maybe we'd all look like ET and there'd be flying bicycles. — Hanover
Also that our ancestors came out of the trees. I don't know that the Velociraptor line would have gone to the trees for long enough to develop the kind of hands we have. — Marchesk
So the debate is between two groups in the same culture having different feelings about gender. Whose feelings win out? Whose feelings are more important to console? What about the feelings of those believe in the cultural norm to be upheld?
This is an unaswerable question - just like every ethical question. This is why we should just rely on the simple truths of what a man and woman really are as a product of their physiology. — Harry Hindu
Human beings are known for their wide range of adaptable behaviors. But they are still limited by one's body and shape. A man can never bring an infant to term. A woman cannot fertilize herself. You're confusing the range of things we can do with what we can't based on our size and shape.
Sure, cultures can vary in what women and men wear, or the jobs that they can do, but they can never change the way we procreate and the specific jobs each sex has in procreation. That is what sex is about. Any other behavior isn't related to sex and therefore would not fall under your definition of "gender". — Harry Hindu
Oh, and according to the above index the world as a whole has become less not more democratic since 2006 when the index first reported. If capitalism has figured out it doesn't need democracy as much as it thought it did (after Singapore, China etc.) it may indeed simply die out. There are no guarantees. — Baden
Choose your criteria with care. — Banno
You know what the CPC does with "competing sides", right? — Maw
This is a sad post on so many levels. — Posty McPostface
That is just another name for "fear of the unknown". Religious people experience this and is part of the reason they just accept their beliefs based on faith because NOT knowing is scary.
I feel that the truth is more important than one's feelings. Who is to say that they won't feel better when they realize the reality of their condition and can then take action to address it instead of lying to themselves (humans are capable of lying to themselves and being misinformed of their bodily and mental states) and allowing others to propagate that lie?
Why don't we think of a schizophrenic's feelings when we diagnose their condition correctly and tell them that their hallucinations aren't real? — Harry Hindu
It is because they depend on each other, still. The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own and secondary sex characteristics. Which is your overall physical appearance. That is the definition of gender and that is the definition of sex as we know it. Do you understand what I mean, now? Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.
Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it. — Terran Imperium
Again (I need to repeat myself because you seem a bit thick-headed) I am not questioning their rights. I am questioning their claims. — Harry Hindu
I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are laying out here. Gender is based as much on your behavior and clothes as it is on your physical appearance. In fact, the brain process first the physical appearance to determine whenever or not you can call the person in front of you she or he. Then the rest comes after. — Terran Imperium
I am aspiring to be a doctor and my view is set upon reality, upon science. To me, transgender people are delusional, not everyone will agree with me, of course, but objectively with the behavior that I saw with my eyes, the numerous ones in social media. They are delusional. — Terran Imperium
Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc — John Doe