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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 430  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:37:32 PM »
Actually if you watch the video I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it.
Of course there are.
But only in the same way that there are risks taking aspirin, or virtually any medicine.
There are risks in driving.
Or crossing the street.
There is virtually no risk free activity in life.

Aside from driving, depending on age, none of those are things young and healthy people shouldn't do.

Quote
The ICU doctor I spoke to last summer

Considering that this is perhaps the fifth time you brought up your conversation with an ICU doctor you once had as your source of knowledge we can safely dismiss you.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: Today at 01:50:34 PM »
The Queen and Royal Family has apparently already judged him. That's good enough for me.
Judged him by not removing his Dukedom, not removing his HRH status, not removing his Vice Admiral Position in the Navy and judged him by allowing him to continue to live at The Royal Lodge in Great Windsor Park for free? All he has lost is the ability to call himself Lord of the Sea Scouts and a bunch of charity obligations. Sounds like a not guilty verdict to me.

This only tells me that the Queen thinks a prince's raping of underaged girls is deserving of a revocation of military titles but not of Dukedom.

The Queen herself is an authority above the highest law in the land -

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625/

From their homepage;

Quote
"Royal Central is the most popular independent source for royal news on the web. Launched back in 2012 in the wake of the Diamond Jubilee, Royal Central originally began life on Twitter under the account name @RoyalFactsUK – an account dedicated to tweeting facts about Monarchies around the world.

Independent != False

She's literally the monarch, the highest authority of Britain.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 06:37:38 PM »
We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

Do you think anyone similarly accused of participating in the Epstein debacle should also be considered to have brought disgrace upon their country, family, et al ... ?

The Queen and Royal Family has apparently already judged him. That's good enough for me.

The Queen herself is an authority above the highest law in the land -

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625/

    "To make it absolutely clear: The Queen (or the reigning Monarch) is above the law. It has been like this for centuries and remains true and practicable today."

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 03:59:37 AM »
We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

New York Times - Prince Andrew Is Stripped of Military Titles as Sexual Abuse Case Proceeds

    LONDON — Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has been forced to relinquish his military titles and royal charities, Buckingham Palace said on Thursday, a stinging rebuke by the British royal family a day after a federal judge in New York allowed a sexual abuse case against him to go ahead.

    The palace said that Andrew, 61, who has been accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a teenager, would also no longer use the title “His Royal Highness,” a prized symbol of his status as a senior member of the royal family. In a terse statement, the palace said that Andrew would “continue not to undertake any public duties” and that he “is defending this case as a private citizen.”

    Andrew, who is also known as the Duke of York, has denied Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, which date from a period in which he was friendly with the financier and convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. The duke’s lawyers tried to get her lawsuit dismissed, but the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, ruled against him on Wednesday.

    The decision by Buckingham Palace completes a stunning fall from grace for a man who was once one of the royal family’s most popular members — a dashing war hero and eligible bachelor — but who has since become a disgraced figure, left to explain why he associated with a convicted criminal like Mr. Epstein.

    The announcement by Buckingham Palace came after extensive discussions within the royal family, according to people with ties to the palace. It was designed to head off an effort by Andrew to rehabilitate himself, according to one person. The language in Buckingham Palace’s statement, officials said, was meant to underscore the permanence of the sanction against him.

    Andrew had been largely banished from public life since November 2019, when he gave a disastrous interview to the BBC in which he insisted he had never met Ms. Giuffre and made several bizarre claims to deflect her charges, among them that he was medically incapable of sweating, as she had asserted.


5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 14, 2022, 02:44:04 AM »
Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

I think that Covid is essentially just the flu, and that there are other ways to deal with the flu that makes the vaccine unnecessary. But the vaccine=irredeemable isn't really the anti-vax stance.

Dr. Robert Malone is a well known vaccine critic and a leading figure in the movement, and he recommends the vaccine for people over 65 with comorbidities. See the previous video @ 0:25:


6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 10:09:17 PM »
I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine.
Why not?
You keep posting about how experimental it is, how dangerous it could be, how ineffective it is. And here’s Trump saying the vaccine is safe and effective and recommending people have it. Isn’t that dangerous advice? Or are you wrong?

Actually if you watch the video I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it. It is incorrect that Trump thinks its entirely safe.

Ultimately it's down to you if you think that the risks outweigh the benefits.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM »
I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine. You seem to think that I care about what you do with your body and what free choices you make.

If I had to decide, however, I would suggest that you should take it too, and to keep getting the boosters. If it provides any benefit in immunity it will lower the risk of me getting covid, and also shoulders all of the health risks of the vaccine on to you.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:57:48 PM »
No one has disagreed with this

That's not the message by the leftist media. According to the leftist media:

- We MUST be vaccinated
- Everyone needs to be vaccinated, even the young and healthy
- Get vaccinated or get fired.
- Get vaccinated or you cant do x
- Vaccinate the children too; vaccines now available to eight year olds

Many have professed agreement with much of that here. People have had themselves vaccinated even though they were not at risk and have also gotten their pregnant girlfriends vaccinated. You may have a slightly different stance, but the mainstream message being put out  is quite different to what Trump is saying.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:36:34 PM »
Trump says to go get your shot [if you choose and decide to do so] [and dont do it if you're young and healthy]

The disclaimers there almost entirely nullifies the leftist message. Now we need to consider if we want to or if we're at risk. Trump may be recommending the vaccine, but not to everyone, and certainly doesn't want it mandated. It should be your choice if you want to take it or not, and if you think that you are in the risk category. The disclaimers makes
 the message into something many people on the right have been saying all along.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 12:58:43 PM »
The idea that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and young and healthy people should not take the vaccine is  a position held more on the right than the left. If you aren't communicating that this is what Trump believes when repeating his vaccine support you are stating a lie for your political ends.

Many people on the right did get their older and unhealthy people vaccinated. They do think that it would provide benefit for them, and see the vaccine as saving millions of lives for certain catagories.The idea that the vaccine may be appropriate for some people is fairly common on the right, although I feel that even that moderate approach on the right is misplaced as well.

So my position at the moment is more to see the leftists who repeat this as duplicitous fiends than to find severe fault with Trump for asserting what many on the right generally hold.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 11:22:56 AM »
It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

Here you are peddling inaccurate information again. Actually, he also said that he was against vaccine mandates:

> "Trump tells Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene he’s ‘100%’ AGAINST’ COVID-19 vaccine mandates"

He also said that young and healthy people should not get the vaccine:

> @1:33 "I don't think young healthy people should take it."

Those two compared and he almost sounds reasonable about it. A lot of people think that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and only people who need it should take it.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 03:55:10 PM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

13
First you claim that camera lenses are equivalent to astronomical telescopes, and have now discarded that argument in favor of a claim that camera lenses are telescopes. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just stop posting.

Quote
And so what? It's even more proof that you can use an EQ mount, if properly polar aligned, and with a $10,000 EQ mount with hyper precision motors and gears, way more precise (and expensive) than the models you reference, you can get some 4+ hours duration - Look at Rigel in the video, stays in frame the whole time. No software is going to pull something out of frame back into frame.

You keep repeating yourself. It could have just wobbled back and fourth, or he could have repeated it a number of times, adjusting the mechanisms until he got what he wanted to keep everything within a reasonable frame.

Quote
What part of the phrase in bold, "is left to track on its own and is unguided." do you not understand? What does, left to track on its own mean to you?

Software manipulation? How do you think any timelapse is made, whether based on video or photography?

I left my camera to create an exposed shot to capture on its own; that doesn't mean that I didn't try it a bunch of times, that I didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, or that I didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what I wanted.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Unfortunately, it was an immediate fail for them and they moved on from the topic.

It is pretty typical of your arguments that you need a dozen different excuses to explain something, like a child would argue. Notice that you are making up a continuous series of excuses of where the question was in the video, and how long they stayed on it, and that they really wanted to talk about other things, to avoid understanding that after the background segment they tried to set him up to talk about Trump being an authoritarian and it resulted in egg on their face.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 11, 2022, 06:05:41 AM »
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him to. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 11, 2022, 04:39:39 AM »
Your rebuttal is that they write about other things people are interested in, in other articles? I know you can come up with a better argument than that.  ::)

From the title of the article:



Why should people feel ashamed if it was always known that the vaccines wouldn't actually provide immunity?

There is a clear answer to this. It wasn't "always known". It simply didn't work. Hence the shame for believing one thing and experiencing another. Cope.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM »
What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:51:32 AM »
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Because the main point is that they are using them. The question of why it is in use compared to the statement that they are in use is a different line of inquiry entirely and does nothing to contradict it.

Quote from: stack
Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Right here:

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

  “ By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The spherical earth is based on "flat maps".

Quote from: stack
You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

  “ The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

It literally has the word "plane" in the name.  ::)

Quote
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Lower down in the above article we read that the State Plane Coordinate Systems are associated with the North American Datum of 1983:

  “ Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth). More recently there has been an effort to increase the accuracy of the NAD83 datum using technology that was not available in 1983. ”

The United States Government echoes the same association:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

  “ United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83 Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States. ”

These systems involve flat coordinate systems. There may be a backend element which uses an ellipsoid to connect to other systems for converting coordinates between geographic models, but the data is flat. Utah's page The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections says that the spherical models are getting data from the flat ones.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:35:31 AM »
I watched it again in the video above @15:36 where she still tries to get him to call Trump an authoritarian, and he still says that he is not, and still states that the politically correct crowd are the authoritarians.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 430  Next >