Still, he's not a Democrat, which was your original claim.

He represents the heart of the progressive movement in the US today, not that of the Democratic Party. If he represented the latter, he'd be President right now.

As to claiming that the Party has members more to the left of Bernie...please show your work. Who and why? And I'm expecting lots of names because you said "many".

Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Dec 2017 3.36pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Because Progressive ideas are not Left wing, they're liberal. You can't really be left wing and embracing pro-corporate policy over social policy. The democrats like progressive policy, because its a cheap give me to those more liberal leaning democrats.

Its like New Labour and fox hunting, a bone they threw to the left wing of the Labour party, whilst busily selling out the working classes to corporate agendas.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Then you imagine wrong. There is no doubt there are differences between men and women. It is just not possible to ascertain them with certainty due to the overlay of environmental and social issues. This was fully recognised by Mill. Better to read the original text, or at least a précis, rather than make assumptions that may (or may not) happen to fit your argument or world view.

And by the way, 'Science' has 'proved' many things in the past. Then subsequent research shifts the paradigm and all that 'proven' stuff is found to be the wrong way to look at it. It always amazes me how much it is American research that finds scientific rationales for 'convenient truths'.

This may help:

[Link]

Ah, you mean James Damore, that well known scientist. Amazing how he hit on the differences so accurately when social scientists have been wrestling with them inconclusively since The Scottish Enlightenment. Not exactly a learned treatise taking into account all of the relevant research and theory available, now was it?

Differences, aren't deterministic though. The influence of biological factors, such as neurotransmitters, genetics and hormonal secretions are very complicated, especially when dealing with behaviour. They tend to be associated with behavioural phenomena, usually in relation to abnormality (such as serotonin reuptake being linked with depression).

Of course, with that, the argument about misandry becomes somewhat justified, because most complaints about male behaviour linked to things like violence against women, sexual violence etc also has a strong biological basis as well.

The problem with this kind of generalisation, is that its false. Its based on studies of abnormality.

The role of equality should never be 'you must be this', but about opening up the opportunity for people to pursue options.

Granted we are limited by biological factors; I doubt women can ever achieve the same kind of physical achievement of most professional male athletes - But almost any women who puts in the physical focus to become a female athlete is going to rank men who don't put that effort in.

This stems from a problem in how we view biological differences, because they're based largely on evidence acquired from outliers. For example, when studying violence in men, there is a genetic trait common among murderers, but attributing this becomes problematic when you find out this genetic trait is present in about 20% of the population who have never committed an act of violence.

What we know about 'how parts of the brain function' comes more from studying the unlucky few that we know have suffered brain damage (again outliers).

Obviously, there are differences between men and women, and individuals, but these more define the limits of our ability, than the ability itself.

But I'd imagine that most physically fit men would struggle in a race against Kelly Holmes. Not because of genetic differences, but because of the capacity of effort put in by the latter.

And that's really what counts, in the end, what you make of yourself, rather than what you're made of.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The last 117 years of so there has been an argument between biology and psychology, which biology has progressively been losing - Resulting in the 'Crisis of Social Sciences' in the 70s and 80s.

The problem really becomes on of paradigm - Biology does not deal with individuals, but species. Which means its good at generalisations, but very poor when it comes to specifics relating to individuals.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]