Atlantis

??? Because pressurizing actively serving SCOTUS members outside their private homes is hardly moral, desirable, or even legal? Try that? The draft opinion explains in detail just why this rare reversal should take place, namely that it was an flimsy ruling in the first place.

The full draft opinion is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft The language should be very accessible to native English speakers.

You know what is also self-evidently barbaric: murdering an infant a day before birth and framing this sickening act as "a mother's choice". Yes, killing a child after 9 months of gestation, is "abortion minutia". On the one hand, such sanitized language when a poster begins to say something inconvenient / embarrassing. On the other hand, no-holds-barred when angrily railing against opinions nowhere to be seen. As to the premise of this thread: no. Not even close. At this point, I'm not sure whether you even read the leaked report, or simply got your talking points from a politically motivated editorial. Would you like to read the ruling in its entirety first? If you have already done so, state it, and we can find out what the issue is (your / mine) reading comprehension.

I'll be kind enough to assume that posters on here know full well that many many drugs given to humans are also used as veterinary medicine. When prescribed by licensed physicians - as in the cast in the vast vast majority of cases - there is no case at all for peddling the nonsense that it is a horse de-wormer. Especially when the debunked / retracted "news story" about the surge in Ivermectin overdose cases taking away hospital beds from gun shot victims has been widely reported as fake.

Though others who gleefully peddled the notion that doctor-prescribed ivermectin, one of the most safest and widely-administered drugs in the world, is "horse dewormer" continues to believe in their own partisan hype.

As for the 3rd link, I reserve my inalienable right to finish reading properly after a good night's rest. As gratitude for your patience, I will be a good sport and spend some time finding robust studies that apparently undermine my position, and then still demonstrate why the other BM is wrong in more ways than one.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/11/gay-men-lower-suicide 2nd link: absolutely cringe-worthy inter alia: Although the study didn’t examine the effects of specific laws and policies, one of the most common forms of structural stigma in the higher-stigma countries was a lack of legal recognition of relationships, such as same-sex marriage. Men who moved from higher- to lower-stigma countries were more likely to move to live openly as LGBTQ and to seek asylum than men who moved from lower- to higher-stigma countries. And, wait for it {drum roll} For the smaller number of gay and bisexual men who moved from lower- to higher-stigma countries, there wasn’t an increased risk for suicidality and depression, possibly because growing up in a more tolerant society had some lasting mental health benefits.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3696185/ 1st Link, under Methods: Sample and setting Data were obtained from the Oregon Healthy Teens (OHT) study. Annual OHT surveys are administered to more than one-third of Oregon’s 8th and 11th grade students attending public schools. Each year, a random sample of districts within counties and schools within districts is selected. Participating students came from 34 counties (no respondents were sampled in the remaining 2 counties in Oregon). The questionnaire was available in both English and Spanish. All participants were assured that the survey is anonymous and voluntary, and parents provided passive consent for their children to participate. For the current study, data were pooled from the years 2006 (when sexual orientation was first assessed) to 2008 (the most recently available data) in order to increase the sample size of LGB participants. Sampling for the 2007/2008 years was conducted so that each school would be asked to participate as part of the state sample once in the two-year period, minimizing the likelihood that the same schools were sampled in multiple years. In 2008, 75.4% of the 8th and 11th grade students in participating schools completed the OHT survey.

@placeholder Did you even read even the first link, more than a single paragraph down? ^_^ Let me just take a good look at the others.

I hope this version below is no longer deemed inflammatory: Since another member has already responded with one obvious riposte immediately below yours, allow me to try a different application of your logic: Next time someone is convicted of making false accusations of rape, try and make the argument that the only person hurt was the falsely accused, since according to you, all those other real rape victims hiding in the shadows, all those individuals unsure whether they have a watertight case, all those on-the-fence about whether any blow-back is worth it...they're not hurt at all. Except for their "feelings". There we go.

When will you realize that many millions and millions of parents (dare I say many of whom are not 'Trump voters') couldn't give a flying fugg that people like yourself feel professional educations ought to (as in subjectively opine on) the limitations on what their kids should be taught* in schools.

"Self-censure" I guess that's one way of framing it....And there I was thinking: since time memorial, state school teachers (and teaching professional elsewhere for that matter) had to put an ounce of thought into what they should and should not talk about in the classroom. It's a shame that many people who take your (IMO) rather extremist activist views don't realize all of this is not happening in a vacuum. Or maybe you do, and you just don't want to say out loud that you press your personal values onto the parental lives of millions of others. As for "You aren't aware of the high rates of LGBT youth suicide? " + "LGBTQ youth are not inherently prone to suicide risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity but rather placed at higher risk because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized in society."... I'll happily correct any misunderstanding you may have concerning how causality is established...

OP, just in case you haven't considered other choices in the vicinity - just across on the other side of Sukhumvit (about 5 minutes drive) is another bilingual school, Phoenix Wittaya. Some friends who live on the darkside are about to switch their child's schooling next term, not because of anything bad at Satit U per se, but because they're attracted by the native English speakers at Phoenix. And I think the school fees are almost identical. P.S. I have nothing against Fillipino teachers in Thailand, many of whom are very qualified and extremely professional - despite their unfairly low salaries.

Random guess: recovering from Covid? I want to claim my prize if correct.

Beat me to it.

You asked for evidence, I gave you the dated CBS news article, reporting verbatim what Biden himself said. All men were excluded. All non-Blacks were excluded. Many other BM on your side of the debate have made arguments in support of the nomination despite these two facts. That they have remained silent on this ... claim of yours is quite sad. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/biden-supreme-court-black-woman-pick-february/

If you want to hear from the horse's mouth: no it is not. I do not, and don't need to, assume that every single other person is taking "prudent actions" (however defined) to mitigate the spread of the virus. I merely need to assume that sufficiently large numbers of others are sufficiently rational and moral to protect themselves such that it outweighs the net cost-benefit of government over-reach, or sometimes just sheer stupidity. I don't mind debating the merits and drawbacks of each type of action. What I do mind is, as mentioned above, being lazily portrayed as some sort of cough-in-your-face anarchist for making the case for (mostly) personal responsibility in countries where vaccines are accessible.

"There is no such thing as the objectively best qualified person for the job." Correct. It has long been a highly partisan affair. "the party with a fondness waving the Confederate Flag, don’t like his choice." Oh how brave of you! Btw, isn't it against your values to smear an entire group? Or in your moral universe, is there a Good Book that makes an exception for the only other major political party in the US?

@ozimoron What you said yesterday: "Show where he did. He clearly and self evidently announced he would pick a black woman AFTER reviewing all suggested candidates. " "Got evidence or just racial animus? " "Show me any falsehood in my posts. " After being confronted with what every other single BM already knows, you still do not acknowledge your incorrect statements. It's looking more like you are deliberately lying. And not surprisingly, quite a few others are tolerating your lies, because you're on the correct team and all that. One more time for you and others: “I have made no decision except one,” Biden said. "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

I'm already numb to reading about serious/fatal traffic accidents occurring at night, even in sleepy little Jomtien, but this was before 09:00 AM this morning. It was sunny and dry. Was sitting on a songthaew (baht bus) on Jomtien Second Road waiting to turn right into Soi 1 towards the beach. Saw an open umbrella right in the middle of the junction. Odd. Took a few seconds to notice that a few meters away was an ambulance and crew staring down at the ground behind the umbrella. As we turned onto Soi 1, got a better look at the victim: male, white, probably in his 60s, well tanned, pretty typical rotund build. (Out of respect, the attached image is from Google, not from the actual scene.) He was lying motionless on the stretcher on the ground, eyes closed. The emergency crew was just standing there for the good part of a minute instead of picking him up into the back of the ambulance. Why? Only positives are that he had been riding a bicycle, not a motorbike so he couldn't have been going very fast, and that he was struck by a fairly small car. So if you're sitting around along the beach right now wondering where your bike-riding acquaintance is: he probably isn't coming today.

"Your version is kinda like saying, if you don't want someone to cough in your face, then don't come in the room" Not at all John. I explicitly stated that no one is saying people have a right to cough in your face. But your attempt, once again, to simplify this into a binary, is well noted. "How about instead, everyone covering their mouth and nose before they cough/sneeze.." And where exactly did you get the idea that the other poster wouldn't have the basic decency to cover his mouth when sneezing? My version is not to assume everyone-but-me is inherently too stupid/selfish to take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.

So I point out 1) the extremity of the statements you made, mistakenly or otherwise and 2) blatant falsehoods in your posts, and that means you get to automatically project whatever-it-is-in-your-mind ("racial animus" or "political preference") onto me? I haven't even said I am against her candidacy / selection / person / track record. You've shown time and time again you are not shy from being radically partisan in everything you comment on.

Yes. Good. And wouldn't it have been ßloody marvelous had Biden gone ahead and nominated her without first declaring that he was going to exclude all males and all non-blacks from consideration.

And two people with Thank Yous! Wow. Let me break it down for the three of you + others. 1. I would guess it would indeed bother many people, including the poster to which you are referring, if a president had, ahead of time, proclaimed he will deliberately restrict the next SCOTUS pick to white males. 2. Decades ago when there was very real racial discrimination against black Americans in every part of life as well as restrictions on basic freedoms of all females...was Bad. No one is pushing back, except perhaps a straw man. 3. Picking a well-qualified black female from an open field (even if she isn't "the best" - whatever that means) is either absolutely fine (obviously) and delightful for people who makes identity politics the core of their belief system.

What don't you (and others) still not get about this? There is no black and white, zero and one, off and on, risk and no risk when it comes to this pandemic. I'm pretty sure you know this. Then why on earth insist it is MY responsibility to do everything that YOU feel I ought to do when YOU have multiple ways of minimizing YOUR OWN risks? Has anyone on this thread or anyone else on this board advocated for their "rights" to walk up close to you and cough in your face without consequence? Or advocated taking away your rights to vaccines? Or compel you to spend extended times in crowded spaces? If you want close to zero risk, please go and live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. No human contact = no virus = you're safe. Take as many boosters prior to living like hermit if you so choose. But wait wait, what's that you say? It's not fair that you have to do all this? Why should you have to do all this? Well....welcome back to real society where shades of grey exist, where there is no one-off switch for Covid-19 risk, where individual's circumstances vary, where one-size-does-not-fit-all, where public health guidance is exactly that. Guidance. Partly because the people who wrote it recognize variation exists, exceptions are understandable, and individual citizens can and do exercise caution in their own ways.