"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ful2go$9oh$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:674bpvF2mqsmoU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 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 ?
Tell you what; you find me a journal article that says that water is wet,
adn then I'll find you one saying that dead people don't commit crimes.
IT'S ****ING OBVIOUS, Dave. We don't _nee_ a journal article telling us
that
dead people don't commit crimes. it's not necessary. the reason people
haven't done studies is because that woudl involve sitting around a
graveyard waiting to see whether any of the corpses get up and go
burgling,
and that would be _boring_.
See?
Now, can you show me _any_ written source claiming that the death penalty
_doesn't prevent reoffending (in the people who are actually killed)? Can
you demonstrate that _anyone_ has _ever_ suggested such a thing? Even one
person, just once?
If you can't, then shut up about it. OK?
>>> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
"Many proponents of the death penalty argue that the death penalty is
justified because, according to them, it deters future crime, especially
murders. While the death penalty does take life, they argue, this is
outweighed by the many lives they claim it saves. This is generally
considered a utilitarian argument because it is based on consequences for
human welfare instead of deontological considerations such as rights or
just
retribution."
>
>> 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,
Well, go ahead and ask them. I don't agre with them, and I have no
particular wish to try and defend their point of view. If you want to know
what pro-death penalty people think, go and find out from a pro-death
penalty person.
>> 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.
Dave, why are you saying that? Have you read the research in question? No,
you haven't. So on what basis do you claim that it hasn't been properly
reviewed? None at all. You're simply rejecting it because it doesn't seem
to
sup****t your existing world-view, just as a fundie will immediately reject
anything that might disagree with the idea of God, not because they're
read
it, undestood it, and found fault with it, but simply because they don't
want to hear anything that isn't entirely sup****tive of their view.
If you want to go and -read_ the research that has been done, and look at
the way in which it has been discussed, and _then_ you have a comment to
make on it, fine. But at the moment, you're just sticking your fingers in
your ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you, it's can't be proper
because it doesn't say what I want it to say".
Do you not think that's a bit ****ing childish?
>> 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.
And your point...?
>
>>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.
I've shown you plenty of evidence, but you always seem to dismiss it,
without reading it, if it doesn't sup****t your world view. That being the
case, you have no right to criticise the fundies who do exactly the same
thing.
Also, stop with the creepy stalker-style obsession. Seriously, just stop
it.
>
>> 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.
but you're _assuming_ the re****ts I'm referring to are somehow faulty,
simply because they dont' sup****t what you think; you haven't read them,
and
you have no basis on which to make a judgement. Yet you still make a
judgement. Do you see the problem?
>>> 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.
No, but the bit at the end of that time, when they get killed? That's
killing them.
>> 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.
No, Dave, it isn't; you have no ****ing clue which evidence I've seen,
you're simply choosing to assume that i can't possibnly have seen any
decent
evidence because I don't agree with you. But since _you_ haven't actually
seen any evidence (at all, good or not), that's a really ****ing stupid
assumption on your part.
>> 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.
But we're not talking about facts, we're talking about the Pope's
_opinion_.
Got that? Shall I say it again a few more times?
>>> 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.
I haven't, myself, but the Pope's personal letters and writings from the
time do exist,a nd have been read by historians, yes.
>
>>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.
Does it matter? He read what Galileo wrote.
> 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.
So not difficult at all, then?
> Popes aren't known for original thoughts.
Erm... Wow.
You're... just... like, _blindingly_ ignorant.
Popes aren't known for original thoughts? That's just _so_ far from true
as
to be... um... like, I'm honestly dumbfounded. Even from you, that's just
_so_ astoni****ngly ignorant that I just don't even know how to respond,
except to say that you really don't have any business talking about the
Papacy at all, given that you clearly have absolutely _no_ idea at all
what
it's all about.
So just to be clear, many of the men who have served as Pope have been
some
of the most intelligent and educated men around. They have included poets,
philosophers, linguists, historians, theologians, writers, and so on and
so
on. Many of them were extremely original thinkers, who published
extensively. You don't get to be Pope by being stupid, you really really
don't.
> I find it hard to believe that the Pope ws reading and thought oh look
> he's
> taking the piss out of me.
Why is that difficult to believe? Bear in mind that the Pope had had
personal discussions with Galileo on the ubject of heliocentricity, and
that
much of what Simplicio said was more or less a direct copy of what the
Pope
himself said.
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.
But why? Why not just say "That's heresy"? It _was_ heresy, after all.
And what makes you think that the Pope would have believed somene saying
this, even if it had been said to him? Why would he just assume that
whoever
it was, was right?
I mean, if someone says to you "Dave, you know that advert on the TV at
the
moment? That's a piss-take, that is; they're ripping the piss out of you,
personally, to make you look like an idiot in public."
Would you believe them?
>> 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 .
very very easily; I'm assuming from your answer that what you mean is "No,
not really, I actually don't clearly understand the difference".
That being the case, there is no point in you taking part in this
conversation; clearly you are just not clever enough to do so.
> Even the Pope receives advice and probably from people
> he is just the figure head a bit like the Queen.
He's really not.
> 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.
I have no idea whether he was the first to read it, and it really doesn't
matter. He was a hugely intelligent and educated man; he didn't need to be
told what it was about.
>>> 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.
And how would saying "That Galileo bloke is ripping the piss out of you"
get
the Pope on anyone's side?
>
>> 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.
So... like the Pope himself, then? He was, after all, a Catholic, and he
did, after all, believe in the Scriptures.
>>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.
But he didn't. What's your point?
>> 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.
Except that it does; he _did_ piss off the Pope, by directly disobeying
him.
There's really no point in saying "Galileo was too smart to get on the
wrong
side of the Pope"; he _did_ get on the wrong side of the Pope, so clearly
he
_wasn't_ too smart to do so.
> He wanted to stay within the law(s) so he could get his works published,
but he didn't stay within the law. He broke the law. Which bit of that
don't
you understand? He broke the law; he committedf heresy. he knew that he
was
doing so, and he did it anyway. there's no point in saying that he
wouldn't
do such a thing, because we know, for a fact, beyond any argument, that he
_did_ do it.
Got that? Do I need to repeat it a few more times?
> it just seems strange he'd deliberately provoke the leader of teh
catholic
> church when he was so vunerable.
And yet he did. We know that he did. There is no doubt that he did. So
what's your point?
>> 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,
I've shown you precisely that in the past; you chose to pretend that it
didn't count because the historians were, according to you (but with no
evidence to sup****t your assumption), Catholic. You didn't bother to check
that they were Catholic, you just made that assumption based on the fact
that they sup****ted what i said. So there's no point in me providing any
more evidence, because you'll once again dismiss it purely onthe grounds
that it sup****ts what I say; you're just like a fundie who won't even read
anything written about evolution because it's all inspired by the devil.
>> 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.
It isn't, though; it's the claim of various historians. The Church has
never, to my knowledge, said any such thing.
>
> 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.
"
What are the credentials of the person who wrote that? Are they a
historian?
Have they read any of the do***ents discussing the case, from the time?
What
are their sources?
>> 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,
No, it wasn't. Committing heresy was a crime, and Galileo certainly did
that. Offending the Pope was just not very smart, it wasn't actually a
crime.
>> 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.
Have you read his book, Dave?
>> Or to leave them alone.Copernicus, for example.
> Perhaps because he was never accused taking the piss out of the Pope.
Or perhaps because he managed to present his arguments without pissing
anyone off.
>
>> 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 ?
from what you've written. if that's not what you meant, then you've given
a
very _very_ unclear impression,a dn I have no idea what you _actually_
meant.
> 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
> .
And since the Pope was one of those, he was therefore taking the piss out
of
the Pope. Yes?
>> 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.
Why would they need to do that? What he wrote was heretical. Writin it was
a
criminal act.
it's a bit like saying that I know some bloke who's committed three
murders,
and so I'm going to publish a newspaper article accusing him of littering
his front garden.
>> And also easy for the Pope himself to believe it?
> Perhaps, but should the Pope be that gullible, probably.
have you read what Galileo wrote?
>
>
>> 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 ?
I suspect he did, because I think that if he hadn't taken offence, he
probably woudln't have done Galileo for heresy; not because Galileo was
innocent (since he wasn't), but because the Pope was fairly sympathetic to
his scientific ideas. Copernicus got away with proposing heliocentrism,
and
no-one prosecuted him. Galileo proposed the same theory, and get done for
it. The difference, I think, is that Galileo satirised the Pope when
proposing the theory, and that's not a very diplomatic move, really.
>> 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.
Well, the Pope didn't have to prosecute him at all; Copernicus wasn't
prosecuted.
>
>
>>>> 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.
So why do you think you're qualified to talk about what the book says?
>
> 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.
Oh, he's back is he? There's a shocker. I kill-filed him; I have no
interest
in helping him ride his hobby-horse.
H
|
