I see. What’s the correct modern science word for “adult male (XY)”, if not “man”?

I’m not trying to be obtuse, but isn’t that essentially what being transgender means?

Indeed, that’s often true too.

I don’t know what to say to that. I didn’t say it matters, and I was trying to participate in the discussion thread.

My opinion is that the spirit of DEI is good, but sometimes I have personally witnessed first hand a decline in performance standards. I’ve worked for years with/near the federal government and I’ve seen what appears to be a particularly blatant DEI push at the cost of performance.

And an Asian colleague recounted to me that a school he was trying to send his child to had recently come under pressure to “loosen” their admittance test requirements because white and Asian folks were overrepresented. I’m sure you’re aware of the similar controversies at universities over the last decades.

When it comes to DEI, I’m not against any people or class of people, but it’d be intellectually dishonest to not recognize the inherent conflict here when you start considering people’s race as an admittance factor. Maybe the intention is to only give the minority an edge when performance with a white peer is exactly the same, but that’s not precisely what happens every time. It’s not something that makes me angry, and it may even be the right thing to do, at least in some cases. I only recognize it.

Cheers.

Yeah, sad times.

Very far from a Trump voter and I’m disappointed to see presumptive and confrontational behavior from you. You’re normally levelheaded.

That’s certainly one possibility. I think it’s the other possibilities that folks have strong feelings about.

How do you think DEI hiring works? Not a rhetorical question, I’m interested in your thoughts.

I think the implication is that they’re not being chosen solely on their qualifications. So that would imply a lower bar and lower performance.

They made a good point, though.

Yes, education is important, and this would spare every single school the intense battle vs parents to do the right thing.

I think dementia and acts committed while drunk have some similarities when it comes to assigning responsibility (and punishment), but yes they’re not the same. One is involuntary, and the other is voluntary. The voluntary act to get drunk is what I called out in my first post. But after that initial act, I think the 2 scenarios are more alike than they are different.

Hi friend, you do you, but it’s the same idea as this: https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/peftk6/a_death_row_inmates_dementia_means_he_cant/

You’re of course free do disagree, but I’ve the sense that you haven’t really considered the issue.

I also disagree with the oft-repeated sentiment that the drunk self is an amplified version of the sober self. I think the simple reality is that alcohol changes our behaviors and judgments.

I think you missed my point. My point is that the crime the sober person makes is deciding to become impaired. That’s different from saying the sober person made a decision to drive drunk - the drunk person made that decision, not the sober person. There are 2 different people here in this scenario. Whether the law should treat it that way is a separate discussion. It would have some similarities with a “temporary insanity” defense.

A little philosophical, but the drunk person who decides to drive is a different person than the sober person who decided to drink in the first place. Punishing the sober person for the decisions made by the drunk version of themselves is maybe misguided, except for as a deterrent that says “don’t turn into a drunk person that can make stupid decisions”

I’m not sure what the right answer is to this problem. Just some food for thought