Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - xasop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 109  Next >
What is their policy on putting food on supermarket shelves?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 03:20:46 PM »
You now admit that it is not uniformed because it is a media narrative, that its not just my opinion but the one held by mainstream news outlets, and that far from being useless, it is a credible way of thinking about the EU.
No, I admitted none of those things. It's uninformed because you Googled for a media narrative that you think agrees with you, rather than basing your opinion on a balanced reading of diverse sources. Only one of your "sources" — have you read them yet? — unreservedly agrees with you, and it's the one that is two years out of date and has already been proven wrong. The only mainstream news outlets you presented are American, probably because you couldn't find any mainstream European media willing to resort to such oversimplifications.

I don't even know where you got "credible" from. That is the opposite of everything I have said.

I'm going to assume that you resorting to lies about what I've said means you're aware that you're wrong. Apology accepted.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 02:51:10 PM »
Forced into a shitty deal
No, we are not having this conversation again. If you want to find out why you are wrong, you can re-read the last umpteen times we talked about this.

There are 25 sheep nations with no money, utterly dependent on France and Germany. They'll follow on or the other.

Merkel's demise has been on the cards for some time. We've all known this would happen for ages. Its only a a surprise that you didn't realise that Macron is going to be the EU's de facto leader, being as you live there and all.
You are just being extremist, as usual — but I shouldn't be surprised about this from a Tory supporter. Nobody is denying that Macron has and will continue to have influence, but calling him "the leader of the EU" is nothing but media hype.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 02:41:16 PM »
We ended up having to have a general election and having to expel the speaker of the house in order to put things right. Fun fact ... he is the only speak in British history not to be made a Lord after his tenure. Traitors don't get rewarded.
So you "put things right" by passing what you just called a "shitty deal" 10 minutes ago. ???

So Merkel was leader, Macron is vying for leader, but some people aren't sure if he can pull it off. Yeah, that bit where some people aren't sure makes me way off.  ::)
I can be vying for leader if I want to. It doesn't make any difference if nobody follows me.

Nice cherry picking though. How about we pick a source a little closer to home.
Quote from:
The West may no longer be the leader of the world. But the EU has a new leader and it’s no longer Merkel: it’s French President Emmanuel Macron.
Have you looked at the date on that article?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 02:31:42 PM »
We ended up with a shitty deal from our European rivals as our own parties refused to cooperate. That's terrible for us. Coalitions usually are. I wish Germany all the luck we had.
Can you please stop saying this? It's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong. The "shitty deal" ye have was negotiated and agreed by Boris Johnson and David Frost, with a clear majority in the House of Commons. Stop trying to blame your country's awful decisions on anyone else you can remember the name of.

Almost every news outlet shares my opinion.
What a surprise, you haven't read your own sources again.

No one figure — not even Mr. Macron, or a new German chancellor — will be as influential as Ms. Merkel was at her strongest

Can you please stop spamming the thread with nonsense now?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 02:16:44 PM »
I just lived through a few years of a coalition in my own nation. A complete stalemate. No one giving any ground, no one compromising ... and we weren't able to move on from Brexit.
Indeed, that coalition worked out very well. The DUP correctly recognised that the proposed Withdrawal Agreement would be terrible for Irish unionists, and so they blocked what would have been an economic disaster for them. Then, after the 2019 election, the same agreement was passed and there were riots in Northern Ireland over the problems it caused. Now Boris is desperately trying to get the EU to let him wrangle out of it.

If only ye still had a coalition to block such dreadful legislation and save yere country from its present humiliation!

One interesting side effect is that Macron will now become the de facto leader of Europe.
Stop. Just stop. You do not understand Europe, and if you don't by now, you never will. Your uninformed opinions are worse than useless.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 01:58:59 PM »
If they can't agree (be on the same side) then they can't pass legislation and you get nothing done. You'll get dumb stuff done like commissioning 4000 windmills at enormous expense, but you won't fix roads or mend tax loop holes.
It's quite astounding how poor your understanding of politics is. Two parties are never consistently "on the same side" or on different sides. Which "side" a party takes depends on the issue at hand — for example, socialists and greens usually agree that minority rights are a good thing, but may argue about whether to spend money on welfare or climate initiatives. Conservatives and liberals generally agree on limiting government interference in business, but may differ on the role of government in education and healthcare.

So, the purpose of a coalition is to find common ground where possible, and to find compromises where there is no common ground. This means that supporters of any one party are unlikely to get exactly what they want, which — if you lack an understanding of the process — may appear as "getting nothing done". In that case, you might be happier if you go live in a dictatorship instead. They get plenty done.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 01:33:32 PM »
No to which one? Are they going to be green and poorer, or dirty and prosperous?

Says a man who champions a superstate and squeals about people voting against it.
It's remarkable that after all these years, you still don't understand my position.

Boris Johnson's Conservatives are your AfD equivalent.
This is beyond dumb.
That's what I've been saying.

Debate is when two OPPOSING parties meet. When parties are on the same side and fail to agree, nothing gets done.
What the hell are you talking about? If they don't agree, they aren't on the same side. That's what it means to not be on the same side.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 01:14:05 PM »
So will Germany be ending its reliance on coal thereby pushing energy costs through the roof and losing their manufacturing advantage over the rest of the developed world and seeing further decline in their automotive sector ... or will the greens just turn a blind eye to Germany being the dirty man of Europe?

We had this in the UK where the Lib dems where allegedly the kingmakers.
Yes, I am well aware of how ineffectual British politics is. You don't need to remind me.

What are you talking about divisive extremism? We have the most stable political system in Europe.
No, Belarus has the most stable political system in Europe, although the UK isn't looking much different these days.

We don't have an AfD equivalent or a far left equivalent. The Germans have extremist parties. So do the Dutch for that matter. The UK does not.
Boris Johnson's Conservatives are your AfD equivalent. That is why UKIP doesn't have any seats in the House of Commons anymore — the Tories took over that role. As you already pointed out, they are your largest party at the moment.

Its awesome. You've a coalition in Germany which means a nation paralysed by inter-party fighting.
Yes, it's called debate. You know, the thing that distinguishes democracy from dictatorship.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Germany elects a new Bundestag
« on: September 27, 2021, 12:05:33 PM »
And what an election! The centre-right Christian Democratic Union has been narrowly beaten by the centre-left Social Democrats, but either would need to form a coalition with two other parties to govern. That leaves the Greens and the liberal Free Democratic Party holding the cards — a huge win for the political centre. Happily, the extremist parties on both sides of the spectrum, AfD and The Left, are losing seats.

This is the moment for Greens supporters to rejoice:

The Greens had their highest-ever election result in the Bundestag with 14.8% of the vote, a 5.8 percentage point jump on the previous election, making them the third-biggest party in parliament, preliminary results show.

It also means the party will likely be a kingmaker in the next German coalition government.

There is also good news here for those of us concerned about the spread of divisive extremism beyond the UK:

Both the far-right and far-left parties were set to lose seats in Germany's Bundestag, according to preliminary results.

"The three-way race between Olaf Scholz, Armin Laschet and Annalena Baerbock led to a consolidation of the political centre at the expense of the far left and the far-right parties," said Loss.

I don't think a better outcome could have been hoped for, realistically. This is a very good sign for the future of western Europe.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 27, 2021, 11:54:58 AM »
Best bet to get information on another country is to read their own news that's considered 'independent' (so no political 'sides')

For example I wouldnt learn about America listening to Cucker Tarlson. Certainly wouldn't want to get Australia news from him.... I've seen his attempts on trying to educate his audience about life in Australia lol

Free and as unbiased as it gets in this day and age
The ABC is the state broadcaster, which is as far from independent as you can get. I agree with you that it's a good and mostly unbiased source, but "independent" is not a good adjective.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 24, 2021, 12:27:44 PM »

Technology & Information / Re: Help with set notation
« on: September 22, 2021, 02:39:30 PM »
yes. or just ℤ.
ok I think you mean %5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D or at least ℤ
Code: [Select]
$ hexdump -C

00000000  e2 84 a4 0a e2 84 a4 0a                           |........|
A much needed correction, for sure.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:42:24 AM »
Taking it away means regulations will need to be passed through congress before enacting.  And we all know how that goes...
Yes, fixing the broken political system that makes productive discussions in Congress difficult is another reform that's about two centuries overdue.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:11:01 AM »
And if you want to kill the power that lets Biden (or any president) do stuff like this, you're going to need to redo alot of things through congress because congress gave OSHA(and the president) this power back in the 70s.
While I don't disagree with the policy, this kind of power should not be in the hands of one man. Until America gets its shit together and starts having actual votes on such things, it cannot legitimately claim to be a modern democracy.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification
« on: September 16, 2021, 08:53:54 AM »
Let's compare and contrast how the UK is treating Northern Ireland with how the EU treats the Republic.

Northern Irish farmers can no longer take their cattle to Britain for sale, because they can't bring them back if they don't find buyers.

The union’s deputy president David Brown gave evidence to the Stormont finance committee yesterday on the headaches caused by new rules which hamper the movement of goods (in this case animals) from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

He said for example that when it comes to pedigree cattle, many Ulster breeders traditionally travel to big Welsh, Scottish or English shows to exhibit livestock.

But the new rules mean “any animals coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have to have a six month residence period”.

Mr Brown (a cattle farmer from Fermanagh) explained exactly what this means on the ground.

At Stirling in Scotland in 2018, there were 109 bulls at the spring sale from 43 exhibitors.

In 2019, the number was 120, from 37 exhibitors.

In 2020 the sale was cancelled due to Covid.

But in 2021 the figure was four bulls, from three exhibitors.

Meanwhile, in Strasbourg...

The European Parliament approved over €1 billion in subsidies for Ireland to help manage the economic impact of Brexit on Wednesday.

Ireland is by far the biggest beneficiary of the so-called Brexit Adjustment Reserve, a pot of €5.34 billion set aside by the EU for the countries hardest hit by the disruption caused by the departure of the United Kingdom.

Fine Gael MEP for Midlands North West Colm Markey described the funds as “hugely welcome” and demonstrating “a high degree of EU solidarity with Ireland”.

The fund was approved with an overwhelming vote of 652 votes in favour versus 32 against.

When will the DUP realise they're better off with Brussels than with Westminster?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 14, 2021, 06:13:27 PM »
What source do you have for what Judeo-Christian values are that isn't the values observed by Christian society?
This is where you've crossed the line, and my willingness to reply ends. That is not at all what I'm claiming
Not word for word, no, but it is a logical implication of the things you've said. I don't feel the need to demonstrate anything otherwise because I don't consider that question unreasonable, given the things you have said.

If you want to walk away, fine by me, but don't pretend it's because I've "crossed a line".

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 14, 2021, 04:06:39 AM »
Hypothetically, yes, but I have yet to be made aware of any tangible reason to entertain this possibility.
That is because you claim that all positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values are actually examples of moving away from those values. If your definition of Judeo-Christian values is "opposition to progress", then yes, your warped view of those values will be opposed to progress.

I respond to your words as I understood them
No, this is obviously false, since you claim I used the word "created" when I did no such thing. I used the word "produced". You invented something I did not say, so you can't have been responding to my words.

If you want to be interpreted differently, clarify or alter your claims.
I provided such clarification in the part of my previous post that you cut out of your quote.

In my description, Judeo-Christian values are vehemently anti-science, but eventually cease to be influential enough to continue suppressing people's minds. We therefore moves away from Judeo-Christian values, and I am happy about it.
I understand that that's your description. What I can't understand is where you are getting that idea from, given that you claimed you base your ideas on the values people lived by, and that science flourished in the Christian world for centuries. Those two things are inconsistent.

What source do you have for what Judeo-Christian values are that isn't the values observed by Christian society?

In your description [as best as I understand it, before you once again accuse me of playing 4D chess by simply reading what you had written], Judeo-Christian values were vehemently anti-science, except then they started being pro-science, and therefore they're to be credited with their contributions to science. I find that to be a desperate attempt at shifting the goalposts.
That's not at all what I'm saying. Indeed, I don't think Judeo-Christian values are either for or against science. That position is left up to individual rulers and their political whims. I'm simply using the spread of science in the Christian world as an example that Judeo-Christian values are not opposed to science.

Of course. The flaw is that you conflate faith with the values it created, represented, and entrenched. I reject this conflation, and, consequently, the argument that stems from within.
I'm not conflating those two, no. I am following the logical implications of your argument that the "real outcomes" are what matter. If you are picking and choosing which outcomes of Christian society matter to you, then you are basing that choice on some other source, and that is the real source for what you believe Judeo-Christian values are.

When we stick to the subject of this conversation - values - it is evident that Galileo did not share Judeo-Christian values. He frequently found himself questioning these values, and speaking out in opposition of them in spite of his faith.

Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God’s creation.

After Galileo heard the sentence of condemnation, he had a final conversation with his supporter and friend, Malvasi:

Malvasi: God helps and blesses you, Maestro.
Galileo: What are you saying, God blesses me, a scientist?
Malvasi: God is nearer to you than to many others, you have encountered God today.
Galileo: In the humiliation, in the annihilation?
Malvasi: In the emptiness... Look for him and forget yourself. You will find him in the deep of your heart.
Can you explain what you think you are proving with this quote?

I'm not the one who proposed this definition - AATW was. Nonetheless, that is a very accurate definition - I named many examples of Judeo-Christian values I disagree with, and expressed my delight at us abandoning them.
I can agree that you asserted many things are Judeo-Christian values with no evidence, other than the fact that people who happened to be Christians instituted them. Yet for some reason, you stop following that line of reasoning when Christians do good things.

That is indeed a common argument amongst Christian apologetics, but it falls flat when contrasted with how much worse Christians made slavery in the name of Christianity. Remember, I don't care about what was described in the Bible as a work of fiction (deplorable as it may be), merely in how it affected the real world.
I will not be able to believe that until you address why the bad real-world impact of Christianity matters, but the good impact is just an example of not following Judeo-Christian values.

No, there was no "minimisation" of the damage. On the contrary, the self-declared superiority of Christians and their "values" was a convenient excuse for centuries of oppression and injustice from which we're still recovering. Because, luckily, Judeo-Christian values are in decline, slow as it may be.
I would turn this precisely the other way around and say that Judeo-Christian values are in recovery, following centuries of lies and abuse by the Latin Church and others. I suspect that we agree on which values are good and which are bad, and this is merely a question of nomenclature.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 13, 2021, 04:21:32 PM »
I disagree. Taking this logic to the extreme, we cannot call Nazi values bad, because the NSDAP had some poilicies which were very beneficial to Germany and Europe, and which still benefit it to this day. The fact that Christianity had some good aspects does not overturn its overall terrible track record.
I simply disagree that its track record is overall terrible. The issue is far too multifaceted for any such simplification to be valid, but if I had to make one, I'd say it has been overall neutral.

Nonsense. Your objection would only work if you were to demonstrate that it's possible that those people's values were entirely unaffected by Christianity. Otherwise, you tacitly acknowledge that it was a factor, and you're left with the option of arguing that it's a lesser one than I'm claiming (but still a net negative one).
No, there is the option that things would have been even worse without Christianity, in which case it was a positive influence that was, for some periods in history, outweighed by larger negative influences.

Irrelevant. You claim that Christianity created the conditions for this progress to flourish. It did not. That was the Islamic world, whose ideas were assimilated by Christians after the Reconquista.
You are picking on a specific choice of words, interpreting them in the way you want (and one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense), and then asserting that must have been what I meant. This is a very common tactic of yours, and it isn't going to advance the discussion.

The fact remains that science flourished in the Christian world, and far outside the boundaries under former Islamic control. To say that the Christian world didn't produce the conditions — however much they might have been inspired by prior art — in which Kepler, Newton, Euler and Freud worked strains credibility.

Those conditions then remained in place for centuries, allowing us to make the progress we have. This is despite the strong opposition of the Judeo-Christian value enjoyers - yet another excellent example of how moving away from those has benefitted us.
You are once again characterising people you disagree with as "Judeo-Christian" and just asserting that anyone you do agree with must not be following Judeo-Christian values. Have you considered that using "Judeo-Christian" as a synonym for "bad" might constitute circular reasoning in this discussion?

Failed to put a stop*, in spite of earnest attempts. Those were unsuccessful because, even then, our great march away from Judeo-Christian values was ongoing. Therein lies the point.
You might have a point, if you could demonstrate that Galileo Galilei was any less sincere in his faith than Urban VIII. Instead you keep asserting that only the bad guys followed Judeo-Christian values, and then concluding that Judeo-Christian values must be bad. Do you see the flaw yet?

I have no idea what you're implying, but I'm pretty confident that I can just say "lol, no."
What I'm saying is that, in claiming that all progress in a time long before Christianity in Europe began its decline is based on departure from Judeo-Christian values, you are implicitly defining Judeo-Christian values as those of people you don't agree with. That is neither accurate nor productive.

The only biblical literalist I've referred to in this conversation is yourself, and I'm reliably informed you did not live before the Reconquista. So, yes, you are no true pre-Reconquista Christian, and there isn't much of a fallacy behind stating that fact.
I'm not a Biblical literalist, incidentally. The Bible is a product of its time and must be read in that context. So, for example, when the New Testament talks about slavery, the values it is expressing have nothing to do with slavery. That was simply common practice at the time which the authors of the Bible couldn't change, so they did the next best thing and tried to minimise the damage, much like socialist activists of today who campaign for better working conditions under capitalism.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 13, 2021, 02:34:43 PM »
Largely agreed but any measures should be proportionate to the risk those measures are designed to mitigate.
There are multiple factors involved in determining whether a measure is reasonable or not, and risk is only one of them. Another important factor is how much of a burden the regulation is on the individuals to whom it applies, and in this case it's asking them to take half an hour out of their busy schedule to take a treatment which approximately all experts agree is perfectly safe, and which may save other people's lives.

Most people go their entire life never being helped by a seatbelt, but it's considered reasonable to require everyone to wear them because it's not a huge inconvenience to buckle up.

I'm a bit unsettled at this creating a "two tier society", even if people are choosing which tier to be in.
I also don't agree with that assessment, incidentally. The purpose of these measures should not be to punish the unvaccinated, but to motivate them to get vaccinated. Once the vaccination rate levels off again, there is no longer a purpose to such restrictions and they should be abolished.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 109  Next >