Slashdot Mirror
Geocentrists Convene To Discuss How Galileo Was Wrong
rollcall writes "'Galileo Was Wrong' is an inaugural conference to discuss the 'detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe.' The geocentrists argue that 'Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the [Catholic] Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.' I, like many of you, am scratching my head wondering how people still think this way. Unfortunately, there is still a significant minority of Western people who believe that the Earth is the center of the universe: 18% of Americans, 16% of Germans, and 19% of Britons."
I hope there is live blogging from the conference.
Sorry. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 pretty much did away with literacy tests for voters. Sigh.
Try looking at General Relativity a bit more closely. Results are the same either way.
Try learning the difference between "pigeon" and "pidgin", which is what you really meant above (I hope). It'll make people take you more seriously when discussing Relativistic physics.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Like so many laws, it is well-intentioned. But the result is that people can vote on issues without understanding them at all. And vote they do.
Exactly, the Catholic Church is way too busy surpressing evidence on the thousands of child abuse cases that have been surfacing in the last years and any spare time goes into campaigning against the use of condoms in Africa so leave those Catholic nuts alone alone.
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
And yet from Genesis to Revelation, they all assumed the world was flat. Even Jesus.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Let's get this clear. Literacy tests were applied discriminitorily in the South to disenfranchise black voters. That was a wrong that needed righting. I would have been much happier if the tests had been required of every voter rather than being banned, but it could be argued that in the '60s blacks did not have the opportunity to attend the same K-12 schools as whites. "Separate but equal schools" was bad, as was, "If your grandfather could vote, so can you", (the original grandfather clause, which was intended to allow even illiterate whites to vote). This is no longer the case. Even the original authors of the act intended that it sunset in 5 years.
When I got the motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license, the test included a "quick stop on a curve." Too many people were dropping their bikes on this part of the test, so it was eliminated. I would have preferred that they'd kept it, culling some of the least competent motorcyclists. Ditto for voters.
If your choose to infer from this that I'm some sort of skinhead racist, go right ahead. I can't stop you. But if you're trying to pigeonhole me, here's a better fact: I have many friends, but not a single one of them cannot read. Does that make me an elitist, too?
"Maybe because the literacy tests had nothing to do with knowledge and everything about cultural familiarity?"
If you take out the word "white" from your sentence its actually an argument in favor of literacy tests. I'm not sure how our language is 'white' culture in the first place so it doesn't seem to belong.
Since English literacy is a requirement for gaining citizenship in the United States it seems fair enough to require it to vote.
I wouldn't take a popular poll on anything from how my house should be wired to what that rash is, I'd find an electrician and a doctor. But every four years they ask the guy barely qualified to make fries down at McDonald's how he thinks the country should be run. Or rather which lying sack of shit has been the best at slinging it while not having it stick to themselves. Even if you had "perfect" voters and "perfect" politicians representing the majority we'd still have situations like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Don't get me wrong, in total democracy is better than any of the alternatives. But totalitarian regimes sometimes have a completely different level of execution power, like for example when China was holding the Olympics or the super high speed railways they've been building. You don't have to go through nine circles of committee hell and political games to do it, you just execute. You don't have to be the most popular boy in class all the time, unlike politicians that do their damnedest to avoid being the bearer of bad news.
You see a marked difference there between Europe and the US, not just because the US is bigger than most European countries. It's mostly one party (red or blue) and one man (the President) in power while in Europe you have flimsy coalitions with leaders sitting only on the grace of their coalition partners. Sometimes you get very strong and good leaders out of that, sometimes very crappy yet strong. I doubt we could have pulled off anything like the Apollo program in Europe, we wouldn't have the political stamina to execute it. Other times I praise that we don't have the US system.
I really understand people that want to have their cake and eat it too and actually have a government run by an elite of the smartest and wisest while still working for the good of all. It's not without reason many tribes had "the Elders" as their leaders, not by popular vote even when it was easily doable in a group that size. I certainly don't feel that way about most politicians, even though there's some I think are less bad than others...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You start with an ad hominem, proceed to a strawman, and end with two more ad hominems. Is that really the best you've got?
Go back to your government circle jerk, you clearly have nothing of value to add here.
I'm really struggling with trying to figure out how my paraphrase is any more damning that what she actually said.
>>If you believe that somehow your deity is not affected by the laws of formal logic
Actually, I believe the consensus (insomuch as there is one) is that God is bound by formal logic. Read your CS Lewis on square circles and the like.
Christians believe that science is the study of God's creation, and so there's no "conflict" between science and religion. (Again, consensus view - crazy fundy-cat is crazy.) The Bible itself uses evidence and logic to convince people to believe. At the time, it went along the lines of, "If you don't believe me, go talk with the people that saw all this shit go down."
>>Now some are more honest, they just don't want to think about it, and will become angry when pointed out that their view of the Universe is absurd.
Yes, like atheists. Who admit they don't know why there's anything instead of nothing, only that they're absolutely, positively certain that it couldn't be anything resembling God. Because they don't like the conclusion this would bring - it's more absurd than believing in UFOs or magical tree spirits.