You're welcome. Thank you for holding a civil discussion!
Such is the nature of writing that we may intend something with our writing, but when people read it they don't translate that particular meaning (through no fault of their own).
I think you're right about belief. We have our individual beliefs and then there may be beliefs that an organistion sets down that we are required to adhere to (whether one truly subscribes to the organisation's beliefs or not is probably only known in one's own head).
It does read as semi-rhetorical - my apologies. It was a genuine question.
"You did imply lack of affirmation to be the same as affirmation" relies on "If you were trying to correct my statement" - and the answer is no, I wasn't trying to correct you. I asked a question and then I added information. I.e. you wrote 'X did not confirm Y' - I wrote 'X did not deny Y'. It's an important point that they didn't deny evolution.
Your statement about Catholics being slow in regards to science was glib.
The topic at hand is their contributions to astronomy. They are leaders in this field. People of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church have been very active in science for centuries. I think they are contemporary in the sciences (and not slow).
"The only members that can set the beliefs of an organisation are its leaders" - no, beliefs are individual. The rules, policies, procedures, etc. are sometimes set by the leaders (and sometimes by the members voting).
"Why would you think the lack of affirmation is the same as affirmation?"
I don't think that - I never wrote or implied that. My point is that they weren't denying it (or affirming it) - probably because they aren't really required to give any position on it.
"Why would you bring up "position on or contribution to science"?"
Because contributing to it shows that at least some of them were key to the development of the theory - and therefore clearly affirming it by their actions.
Wikipedia is not a well received reference (at University level). Wikipedia is still a source. It is a good source for historical trivia (e.g. want to see when J.S. Bach was born? Wikipedia is perfect for that).
No, a steam engine is an engine (i.e. a motor). Steam engines powered many vehicles and machines of the day.
Yes, cars before Otto. You don't get to redefine what a car is just because it doesn't mesh with the incorrect history you are trying to present.
Not having amplifiers does not define whether you have electricity or not. The argument was about "electricity", not about "electronics" per se. Don't conflate things. FFS, even if you argue that Faraday is the defining point of having electricity or not - that fits in very well with what I wrote in the post you are replying to. Really mate, this is so very boring.
Lol, "actual source." Funny. It literally is an "actual source."
Wikipedia is very good for historical knowledge like this.
Anyway, now we all know you weren't being sarcastic. You should have kept your proverbial mouth shut.
Electricity was being played with in the 18th century - but it wasn't until the 19th century that they made huge leaps in electrical engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And last but not least, it looks like Benjamin Franklin lost a son to smallpox and had an opportunity to immunise him but had not: https://www.washingtonpost.com... (anti-vaxxers take note).
Exactly. I've had arguments with company reps before where they've said "there's nothing we can do" and I've had to correct them with "no, there's lots you can do, it's just you're not willing to do it".
The 19th century had automobiles, vaccines, and electricity. I believe all three were around in the 18th century as well.
Do you have an argument though? Do you have some factually correct information even? Anything?
But perhaps I didn't word my sentence well. By "went ahead" I mean we progressed or flourished without internet based real-time news. Does that make more sense to you now?
"Seriously? With news media reduced to reprinting TrumpBites, do you think any citizen can be fully engaged without online access to realtime news?"
Yes. You don't need the internet to be fully engaged. The 20th century went ahead without "realtime news". Daily newspapers, the news on some channel or another at 6am, noon, and 6pm, and the news on radio broadcasts work fine. IMHO they worked better in a lot of ways. I find it harder to be "fully engaged" using the internet for news than I did with the aforementioned 20th century style news. And I'm about as connected as it gets these days.
Did you ever have the pleasure of not having the internet as your news source?
Apology accepted. It's a rare thing to see an apology on the internet, so I sincerely thank you for it.
No, I neither defended or attacked Trump's claim. I put up a Wikipedia link that furnishes the reader with some statistics about Sweden and asked "bulled" to read it and report back on what he thought afterwards.
I think you should read the Wikipedia link I posted.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have proof he is "conning investors" and "duping buyers"?
Why do you say "his vehicles are shit"?
Have you test driven any model Tesla?
You're welcome. Thank you for holding a civil discussion!
Such is the nature of writing that we may intend something with our writing, but when people read it they don't translate that particular meaning (through no fault of their own).
I think you're right about belief. We have our individual beliefs and then there may be beliefs that an organistion sets down that we are required to adhere to (whether one truly subscribes to the organisation's beliefs or not is probably only known in one's own head).
It does read as semi-rhetorical - my apologies. It was a genuine question.
"You did imply lack of affirmation to be the same as affirmation" relies on "If you were trying to correct my statement" - and the answer is no, I wasn't trying to correct you. I asked a question and then I added information. I.e. you wrote 'X did not confirm Y' - I wrote 'X did not deny Y'. It's an important point that they didn't deny evolution.
Your statement about Catholics being slow in regards to science was glib.
The topic at hand is their contributions to astronomy. They are leaders in this field. People of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church have been very active in science for centuries. I think they are contemporary in the sciences (and not slow).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The only members that can set the beliefs of an organisation are its leaders" - no, beliefs are individual. The rules, policies, procedures, etc. are sometimes set by the leaders (and sometimes by the members voting).
And the answer to my question is.....?
But, to politely answer yours.
"Why would you think the lack of affirmation is the same as affirmation?"
I don't think that - I never wrote or implied that. My point is that they weren't denying it (or affirming it) - probably because they aren't really required to give any position on it.
"Why would you bring up "position on or contribution to science"?"
Because contributing to it shows that at least some of them were key to the development of the theory - and therefore clearly affirming it by their actions.
Are you sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They never stated it wasn't true before now and they made contributions to the early development of the theory.
A single example (whether true or not) doesn't give a good indication of the Catholic Church's position on or contribution to science over time.
They've been doing astronomy for over a century. They're hardly trying to look "hip" or "cool".
Slow by what metric?
You seem confused.
Wikipedia is not a well received reference (at University level). Wikipedia is still a source. It is a good source for historical trivia (e.g. want to see when J.S. Bach was born? Wikipedia is perfect for that).
No, a steam engine is an engine (i.e. a motor). Steam engines powered many vehicles and machines of the day.
Keep going though. You can do it.
Yes, cars before Otto. You don't get to redefine what a car is just because it doesn't mesh with the incorrect history you are trying to present.
Not having amplifiers does not define whether you have electricity or not. The argument was about "electricity", not about "electronics" per se. Don't conflate things. FFS, even if you argue that Faraday is the defining point of having electricity or not - that fits in very well with what I wrote in the post you are replying to. Really mate, this is so very boring.
Lol, "actual source." Funny. It literally is an "actual source."
Wikipedia is very good for historical knowledge like this.
Anyway, now we all know you weren't being sarcastic. You should have kept your proverbial mouth shut.
I don't think the term engineer should apply to any sort of programmer.
Soon you'll have plumbers referring to themselves as hydraulic engineers, and carpenters calling themselves structural engineers.
Sarcasm...?
I'll assume you know the history - but for those that don't:
Cars were the late 19th century for internal combustion engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Vaccines were as early as the 10th century (holy shit that's earlier than I thought): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Electricity was being played with in the 18th century - but it wasn't until the 19th century that they made huge leaps in electrical engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And last but not least, it looks like Benjamin Franklin lost a son to smallpox and had an opportunity to immunise him but had not: https://www.washingtonpost.com... (anti-vaxxers take note).
Exactly. I've had arguments with company reps before where they've said "there's nothing we can do" and I've had to correct them with "no, there's lots you can do, it's just you're not willing to do it".
"And?"
And his age doesn't make him "not qualified". That's the point. Judge people on their merits.
To make it clear, I was applying the point in general - since the posters above were saying that he wasn't qualified on account of his age.
BTW by your sentiment you're agreeing with me - which is good.
Adult diapers. You almost made a joke.
The 19th century had automobiles, vaccines, and electricity. I believe all three were around in the 18th century as well.
Do you have an argument though? Do you have some factually correct information even? Anything?
But perhaps I didn't word my sentence well. By "went ahead" I mean we progressed or flourished without internet based real-time news. Does that make more sense to you now?
Yes, but the assertion that he isn't part of modern society is not true, ergo my point.
He has a controlling hand in a major part of modern society.
Don't be ageist.
"You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"
-- Barack Hussein Obama
No - that would be a famous quote from:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
Obama repeated it (and why not?! It's true!).
So, to be fair, unless you're as old as him, you've had less possible total exposure to computers and the internet than he has.
But your ageism aside, you'll be pleased to know that it was people in his generation that started the digital revolution.
I'll do it for you. Maybe then your children will end up in a library to do their research.
JK.
Seriously though, most of a child's education can be done from texts found in a good library.
"Seriously? With news media reduced to reprinting TrumpBites, do you think any citizen can be fully engaged without online access to realtime news?"
Yes. You don't need the internet to be fully engaged. The 20th century went ahead without "realtime news". Daily newspapers, the news on some channel or another at 6am, noon, and 6pm, and the news on radio broadcasts work fine. IMHO they worked better in a lot of ways. I find it harder to be "fully engaged" using the internet for news than I did with the aforementioned 20th century style news. And I'm about as connected as it gets these days.
Did you ever have the pleasure of not having the internet as your news source?
"I moved to Canada to escape the DMCA laws in the US"
So, how's that working out for you?
He's telling you how America is (and I'm pretty sure all his claims about the USA are verifiable).
That's a big claim.
Please provide some of those measures.
Apology accepted. It's a rare thing to see an apology on the internet, so I sincerely thank you for it.
No, I neither defended or attacked Trump's claim. I put up a Wikipedia link that furnishes the reader with some statistics about Sweden and asked "bulled" to read it and report back on what he thought afterwards.
I think you should read the Wikipedia link I posted.
Bwhahahaha. So you just wrote "your LIES about Sweden being overrun"...
I've made zero claims about Sweden. I never said Sweden was overrun.
Keep going though. You don't look like an angry paranoid delusional at all mate...