"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fuidum$cft$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:66s8cqF2m34m0U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> So it's quite correct to say the death penalty is effective in stoping
>>> them
>>> reoffending.
>>
>> Yes, and no-one would dispute that.
> Strange that's not what I've been hearing for years.
Yes, it is; you've just been misunderstanding it, because your reading
comprehension is very poor, and because once you've got an idea into your
head it takes dynamite to get it out again.
>> You've suggested that lots of people claim that the death penalty
doesn't
>> stop crime; those people are not claiming that dead people commit
crimes,
>> but rather that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.
>> Clear?
> Why does it need to be an effective deterrent that's not really it's
> main aim is it.
Well, actually, yes, it is one of its main aims, and if you read any
pro-death penalty literature, you'll usually see people claiming that it
_is_ effective as a deterrant.
>> Right. However, one of the arguments used by people in favour of the
>> death penalty is the theory that it may be an effective deterrent.
> Which hasn't been properly studied due to ethical issues.
It hasn't been studied experimentally, but as I've explained, it has been
studied in other ways.
>> But people have looked in detail at crime statistics before and after
the
>> abolition of the death penalty, and comparing places that have the
death
>> penalty with places that don't. So while you're quite right, one really
>> can't get experimental evidence on the effects of the death penalty,
that
>> doesn't mean we can't get _any_ useful information on the subject.
>
> And that information is so scarce or/and old it's hardly proof of
> anything.
It's not scarce at all; several states in the US have the death penalty,
so
there's plenty of data to compare. Why are you trying to reject evidence
that you haven't looked at? You're once again doing exactly the same thing
as the fundies; they reject scientific evidence for evolution and the age
of
the Earth, without looking at it, simply because it doesn't sup****t their
argument. That's what you're doing,. and that makes you no smarter than
them.
> Putting someone on death row for 10 years and expecting other potential
> criminals
> to stop and think of what they are doing isn't going to work.
No, as we can see from the evidence, it doesn't work.
>> Well, when we're talking about people who have been dead for several
>> hundreds of years, obviously we can only go on the available evidence.
>> But in the case of the Pope, most Popes leave behind a fair amount of
>> evidence.
>
> Evidence of what and it's validity.
Evidence of their thoughts and their actions. And the evidence we have is
absolutely valid, as far as it goes, as long as we don't try and make it
mean something beyond its scope.
>> If there really wasn't any first-hand evidence, but there were several
>> independent accounts from people who had known me, all saying "Ah, she
>> loved the colour green", then yes, that would be reasonable evidence.
It
>> wouldn't prove absolutely 100% beyond all shadow of doubt that I realy
>> loved the colour green, but it would make it fairly apparent that I
gave
>> the impression of loving the colour green, so it would be reasonable to
>> assume, from that evidence, that I did indeed like the colour green, at
>> least in the absence of any conflicting evidence.
>
> That would seem reasonable, but I very much doubt that they'd be any
> evidence
> that a Pope has made a wrong decision,
No, but that's irrelevant, because we're not talking about whether a Pope
made a wrong decision, we're talking about what a Pope _thought_, and
there
_is_ evidence of that.
or been wrong about anything
> especially
> if that evidence is meant to come from his peers or the catholic church.
And yet the Catholic Church actually has come out and said that vcarious
Popes have been wrong.
So that kind of blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?
> So expecting there to be do***entary evidence that the Pope was wrong to
> think
> that Galileo was taking the piss out of him is highly unlikely,
No, but it's perfectly likely that there is evidence that the Pope thought
that Galileo was taking the piss. And since that's what we're talking
about
(not whether he was right or wrong to do so), there's no problem, is
there?
I'd actually
> expect
> the opposite that anything the Pope thought or the catholic church
thought
> would be proved and evidence presented despite the facts.
You'd be wrong there too, of course.
>>>> Similarly, the do***ents of the time may not give accurate proof of
>>>> scientific facts about the universe, but they _do_ give accurate
>>>> evidence of what people thought and felt.
>>> ANd how do you know that ?
>>
>> Erm, which bit are you asking about? I'm not sure I understand your
>> question.
> Well the question of what they thought and felt.
> of course that would depend on who asked the questions.
We're not talkign about interviews, Dave. We're talking about people
writing
their thoughts, in letters and diaries and so on. There's no-one "asking
the
questions", there's just people's own accounts of their lives, and of
their
opinions. They may not give us objective truth about the Universe, but
they
_will_ tell us about those people's opinions.
>>>>So no, the do***ents of the time don't tell us that, as a matter of
>>>>fact, the sun went round the earth, but they do tell us, factually,
that
>>>>the Pope was personally offended by Galileo's work.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the difference?
>>> Understanding the difference is NOT the point.
>>
>> Yes, actually, it is, so please answer my question. If you don't
>> understand the difference, I'll try and explain it more clearly.
You haven't answered my question; do you or do you not understand the
difference between evidence of a person's thoughts, and evidence of actual
objective facts?
>> With great difficulty, but if there was do***entary evidence that his
>> favourite colour was green,a nd no do***entary evidence contradicting
>> that, I would feel fairly safe in assuming that it was so.
>
> Well perhaps you'd better, but I don;t see how you could tell whether
the
> Pope
> read teh book and was offended or whether someone else told him to be
> offended because Galileo was taking the piss out of him.
Why would anyone tell him to be offended? The Pope was an enormously
intelligent and educated man. He read a _lot_, and took active part in all
sorts of scientific and philosophical debates. He wasn't some idiot who
obeyed anything someone else told him to do, or think, or feel. It's
perfectly possible that other people also believed that Galileo was
satirising him, and that they talked to him about it, but it's pretty much
impossible that he _didn't_ read the book, or that he formed his opinion
on
it based purely on what someone else told him.
> Where life revolves around doctine then it's very easy to point and
accuse
> without the need for real evidence, and of course the revrse is true,
> it's very easy to get away with what you want when you have such power
> even the law means little.
Jesus, Dave, your understanding is positively infantile.
The Pope _made_ the law. It's not that the law meant very little to him,
it's that he could determine what the law was.
Do you understand that?
>> Well, he did, but the way he put the "Earth-o-centric" (there must be
an
>> official name for that, but I can't think of it just now) side of the
>> story made it quite clear that he thought it was nonsense; it was
>> presented as a weak and somewhat silly argument.
>
> Yes that is true, but what reason would G. have had to point the finger
> towards the Piope and blame him for this silly belief, the Pope wasn't
the
> one to come up with this idea, it had been about for 100s of years
He didn't blame him for it, he satirised him for holding that belief.
> from the early middle ages or longer. In fact wasn't the Bioble teh
first
> to
> come up with this idea 2000 odd years ago.
Much more than that. It's in the Old Testament.
>> Ask him, not me; he knew what the Pope had allowed him to do, and he
>> chose to defy it anyway. That much is a matter of record.
> But he didn't exactly defy him, more ignore certain suggestions the Pope
> made.
Right; and he didn't outright take the piss out the Pope, he satirised
him.
But in doing both those things, he knew full well that he was taking a
risk;
that he wasn't absolutely obeying the Pope's direct instructions,a nd that
he was risking offending him.
> In that he shouldn't promote his views on the heliocentric system.
> But the Pope still let him proceed with writing , even so.
Well, he let him proceed with the book on the condition that he _presented
the heliocentric argument but didn't _promote_ it. So by promoting it, he
was deliberately and plainly disobeying the Pope's orders.
>> So you think that the treatise which is universally believed to be his
>> work might actually be by someone else, created purely to give him a
bad
>> name? Erm... that's... astoni****ngly paranoid and barking mad as a
>> theory. Who exactly do you think might have had a reason to do that?
And
>> what might their reason have been?
>
> G. was the fly in the ointment it's not like this was the first time the
> catholic church beliefs had been in question. Usually the option was to
> kill
> the unbelievers or convert them.
Or to leave them alone.Copernicus, for example.
But you didn't answer the question. Do you seriously believe that Galileo
didn't write the book that is attributed to him? That it was written by
someone else, in order to frame him?
If so, why? If he didn't write it, why would he be a fly in the ointment?
>> So go and read some historians' accounts.
> Do you mean true historians or catholic historians that echo their
beliefs
> ?
Catholic historians are perfectly capable of being unbiased about the 16th
and 17th century papcy, y'know; there's really not much of a vested
interest
in qua****ng heliocentrism these days.
But if you'd rather check he religious beliefs of your historians, please
feel free to do so.
>> I see. So you think that they wanted to silence him,
> No I'd say more discredit him .
By writing a superbly astute book and claiming it was by him? That's not
really a great way to discredit him; it would probably have been easier
just
to point out his illegitimate children.
>>so rather than, say, preventing him from publi****ng his work (that is,
>>actually silencing him) instead, they somehow replaced his treatise with
>>one that satirised the Pope, in order to give him a bad name? Or have I
>>misunderstood what you're suggesting?
>
> Well taking the piss out of the Pope wouldn't be the cleverest thing
> anyone
> at the time could do, and who'd really blame the leader of the catholic
> church
> for taking a serious stand against anyone for doing that sort of thing.
But they didn't; they took a stand against him for heresy. Not for taking
the piss. Heresy. Which he committed. Do you honestly not get this yet?
>> The Pope _was_ an Aristotelian philosopher, or at least he concurred
with
>> the Aristotelians.
>
> Yes and that was where the confusion arose, well that's my theory on
it.:)
> That G. piss take was not aimed at the Pope, but it was easy for others
> to make that accusation.
And also easy for the Pope himself to believe it?
Ok, then we're in agreement.
Whether or not Galileo meant to piss the Pope off,. he wrote a book which
could be seen as satirising the Pope's views. The Pope took offense, and
that may have influenced his judgement when prosecuting Galileo for heresy
(which Galileo had committed, beyond a doubt).
>
> Now 'we' tend to use the *** lives of people to try to either discredit
> someone or prove they aren't reliable or unfit for the purpose they
> are standing for. About 10-20 years ago accusing someone of being gay
> could unsettle the cart enough, just a couple of 100 years ago then
> not believing in God could make you seem a bad person.
Not in the UK; atheism was really very common a hundred years ago, and
wasn't considered at all shocking.
>> Your logic misses out several actal facts, though, and is therefore not
>> logical; Galileo _did_ defy the Pope; there is no doubt about that.
>
> What do you mean by defy the Pope,
You already know what I mean; the Pope told him not to promote the idea of
heliocentrism, and he _did_ promote it.
>> The Pope _was_ one of the Aristotelians you're talking about, and
>> therefore by disagreeing with, and satirising them, he was also
>> disagreeing with,a nd satirising the Pope.
> That is one of the problems when everyone is viewed as the same.
> Perhaps Galileo aim was to take the piss out of every catholic and
> Christian
> in the world and not just one individual.
Perhaps it was. But you agree that it's quite possible that the Pope
himself
felt that Galileo was satirising him (even if in fact Galileo didn't
intend
it that way)?
>> *heh* Yes, that gives them a reason to accuse Galileo of heresy. It
>> doesn't give them a reason to suggest that he was satirising the Pope,
>> though.
>
> No it doesn't but why not add fuel to the fire.
Because satirising the Pope wasn't illegal, while heresy was. No-body
_needed_ to convince the Pope to feel personally offended; they could
simply
point ot the heresy.
>> Well, he didn't really; he offered an explanation which, to his mind,
>> allowed a compromise.
> Yes is was clever enough to see how far he could go.
Apparently not clever enough to get away with it, though. He was a good
scientist, but not a good diplomat.
>
>> However, the Church's position was that the scriptures were _literally_
>> and _absolutely_ true, not that they were sort of true from one
>> particular point of view.
> yes but could they be describe in such a way as to still be valid
> but not actually true, Galileo seemed to think so.
Galileo thought so, yes, but that wasn't what th Church thought. They were
not willing to make a compromise on the truth of the Scriptures. Do you
understand that?
>> Yes, but they were presented as being foolish.
> No their argument was not them personally.
Have you read the book?
>> Well, yes, aimed at the Pope, or at least aimed at people who held the
>> views held by the Pope.
>
> Well that is somewhat different from taking the piss out of the Pope.
> But perhaps you don't see the difference .
Do you know what "satire" is, Dave?
H
|
