"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:674bpvF2mqsmoU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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,
Then can you show me any evidence via a journal or any other reviewed
source that says that captital punishment stop reoffending ?
>> 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 who says that and why.
> and if you read any pro-death penalty literature, you'll usually see
> people claiming that it _is_ effective as a deterrent.
And that makes me wonder why anyone would think such a thing,
surely they have evidence of this, or perhaps their evidence conflicts
with others evidence who don;t want the death penalty.
But then it'd be easier proving the death penalty doesn't work
as you can attached almost any condition(s) to it.
>
>>> 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 none properly reviewed or should I say fairly reviewed.
>>> 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.
They have also had hard labour.
>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,
Perhaps if they were shown it, like the picture of you referred to in
another post.
> because it doesn't sup****t their argument. That's what you're doing,.
and
> that makes you no smarter than them.
It doesn;t have to sup****t any view it just has to be valid as a proper
re****t
and not distorted.
>> 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.
But that isn;t the death penalty is it.
Putting someone on death row for 10 15 or 20 years isn't killing them.
But of course the evidence that can't be used to sup****t the death penalty
is that some people don't carry weapons that can kill, because they know
that if caught their sentence will be much harsher, would this be evidence
that some would wish to avoid harsher sentences which should include
the death penalty.
>>> 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.
Can you show me that evidence of what he thought rather than what the
Historians have said he thought. Remember what you have seen is what the
media
(catholic press) has said.
>> 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?
Well yes because we know how distorted things become when religion and
facts come together.
>
>>>>> 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.
So you read the Popes personally diary from the time.
>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.
But did the Pope come up with this idea all by himself or was he told
that G.was trying to take the piss out of him.
It's a difficult question almost as difficult as deciding whether it was
the
Pope s idea that the Earth was the centre of the solar system or whether
or
not
someone else had told him that. Popes aren't known for original thoughts.
I find it hard to believe that the Pope ws reading and thought oh look
he's
taking the piss out of me. It could quite easily have been someone else
close to the Pope decided that it would be a good idea to accuse G.
of taking the piss. After all it's all just politics and it's not like any
'church'
hasn't made the rule that suit it's own beliefs.
>
>>>>>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?
There is a difference but how do you evaluate that difference .
Even the Pope receives advice and probably from people
he is just the figure head a bit like the Queen.
Was the Pope the first to read 'the piss take' or was he told
look at this he's taking the piss out of you.
>>> 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?
because getting the head of teh catholic churchh on your side is a good
bonus.
> 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.
Then perhaps he understood more than he has been credited for,
perhaps he was intelligent enough to realise that Galileo's simpleton was
not meant to be seen as the Pope but seen as those that believe in pure
philosophy rather than science.
>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.
In that case he could quite easily have banned the book for such a thing
as taking teh piss out of the Popemand perhaps making fun of the catholic
church.
>
>> 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?
Yes he was the law, and it'd be pretty stupid to take the piss out of the
person
that made the law(s), this doesn't fit in with Galileo's way of going
about
things.
He wanted to stay within the law(s) so he could get his works published,
it just seems strange he'd deliberately provoke the leader of teh catholic
church when he was so vunerable.
>> 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.
And where's your evidence of this.
And I want real evidence sup****ted by real people, doing real research,
and not someone opening a divine book that tells them what to think,
but actual evidence of the time, based on the facts of teh time.
yes and I know there's lots of 'peer reviewed evidence that the church
could present on anything from the Earth being the centre of the universe
to homo***uality being wrong over the years.
>
>>> 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.
That is there claim of the catholic church of course.
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
"Even as a student, Galileo gained detractors. Later some would write
whole
books attacking his theories. Others would claim credit for Galileo's
discoveries. Today they would have the internet to spread nasty rumours.
Though Galileo considered Pope Urban a friend, people whispered rumours in
the Pope's ear that Galileo's book was satirised him. For these and other
reasons, Galileo would be tried and sentenced to house arrest. "
> 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.
And offending the Pope was or would be considered a crime,
hardly a good idea when wanting your book published .
Imagine in this day and age you wanted to write a book,
but in it you wanted to disagree with one of your collegues
or perhapos the academic in charge of you, but still wanted to
get approved for publication, would it be a good idea to satirise him.?
And just supose a rival wanted to prove your research wrong
perhaps they'd write to your peers and say look you are satirising
your HoD or academic, and for that reason making fun out of fellow
academics
your paper should be withdrawn or marked down.
>> 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.
Exactly how was he promoting it.
>>
>> 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.
Perhaps because he was never accused taking the piss out of the Pope.
> 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?
No, where did you get that idea ?
What I've said is that Galileo's writings weren't taking the piss out of
the
Pope
if he was taking the piss out of anyone it was the Aristolian philosophers
.
>
>>> 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?
No, by lying about the meaning and the reason he wrote what he wrote.
>>> 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?
Perhaps, but should the Pope be that gullible, probably.
> 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,
But did the Pope really take offensive ?.
Heresy was a serious charge and beign found guilty meant imprisonment
but his sentence was later commuted to lifelong house arrest and while
his boko was banned from being published it did get published at the time.
So the Pope really couldn't have been that pissed off.
> and that may have influenced his judgement when prosecuting Galileo for
> heresy (which Galileo had committed, beyond a doubt).
Yes and I would have thought it'd make his 'punishment worse' rather than
go from imprisonment to house arrest and the book was published.
>>> Yes, but they were presented as being foolish.
>> No their argument was not them personally.
>
> Have you read the book?
Have you, no well neither have I.
I've noticed how you haven't replied to much of what Dan Drake has said,
Oh it's because his a grepping loon isn't it.
|
