### 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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have some questions for FE
« on: September 24, 2021, 08:37:23 AM »
If you have a topic, make a thread on it. Do not start "wow I have so many questions" threads, and, emphatically, do not ADD questions to such threads.

There's a "READ BEFORE POSTING" topic stickied to the top of this board. Read it before posting.

2
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 23, 2021, 11:27:08 AM »

3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 11:08:02 AM »
For the case of v1=v2, the algebra isn't even particularly tedious.

4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:50:53 AM »
He already showed you the assumptions and arithmetic required to arrive at Δt=8ωA/c^2. If you disagree with any of the steps, you'll have to pinpoint them

5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 09:39:46 AM »
I’m well aware of that equation, but I’m not really clear why you’ve brought it up.
• You provided a formula for Δϕ
• Sandokhan provided a proposed formula for Δt
• You were confused by this, so I showed you the relation between Δϕ and Δt - all that was required of you was simple algebra
• Since this still eludes you, we can conclude that even though "you are well aware of that equation", you do not understand it in the slightest.

it is missing the Pi and λ terms.
It's not missing anything at all. Once again, note that .

Are you with us yet? If we can make it past substitution, we might even be able to discuss physics at some point.

6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 05:07:50 PM »
Where have Pi and λ gone?
If you had actually read and understood the article you're plucking formulae out of, you would have noticed that . It really would be a good idea to understand what you're discussing before proudly taking a stance on it.

Now, it's still possible that sandy made a small (and largely insignificant for the purpose of this discussion) arithmetic error in his calculations. Can you find it?

7
##### Technology & Information / Re: Help with set notation
« on: September 22, 2021, 04:57:56 PM »
You're welcome!

8
##### Technology & Information / Re: Help with set notation
« on: September 22, 2021, 02:32:25 PM »
yes. or just ℤ.
ok I think you mean or at least ℤ

9
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 22, 2021, 08:46:07 AM »
I don't remember 2019 being when Covid started
Where do you think the "19" in "COVID-19" came from?

10
##### Technology & Information / Re: I Hate Linux Distros
« on: September 20, 2021, 03:29:20 PM »
I just had to take the LPI Linux Essentials test for a class. Should I put that on my resume or nah?
IMO it depends on who's looking at your CV. A random HR drone might not know any better and just count whatever exams you've listed. A technically-minded person will be more impressed if you say you can cook.

11
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 14, 2021, 06:26:15 PM »
If you want to walk away, fine by me, but don't pretend it's because I've "crossed a line".
Ah, again with the ugly accusations. Of course, it's impossible that I found your repeated and finely honed insults... well, insulting. I'm clearly just pretending.

Very well. I'm walking away. If you want to apologise and argue this like adults, you know where to find me.

12
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 14, 2021, 06:08:32 PM »
That is because you claim that all positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values are actually examples of moving away from those values.
I'm doing no such thing - I have yet to see any positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values, alleged or actual.

If your definition of Judeo-Christian values is "opposition to progress", then yes
That is indeed one of many Judeo-Christian values, as expressly reinforced by the Bible, most churches in history, and those who adhered to the faith.

No, this is obviously false
Right. It is obviously false that I understood your words the way I did. If this is what your argumentation has devolved to, then I think it's time for me to walk away. I'll give your next few sentences a pop just in case you're about to tone down the ridiculous accusations, but I'm not holding my breath.

since you claim I used the word "created" when I did no such thing.
Do I? Would you mind showing me where I did that? I had a quick look through all the instances of the word "create" in this thread and found nothing of the sort.

I provided such clarification in the part of my previous post that you cut out of your quote.
Okay. Please feel free to point it out. I quote you on the parts I consider pertinent, and the specific parts I'm responding to. In other words, I don't "cut out" quotes - I add them to my posts. Once again, you resort to loud accusations instead of defending your position.

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
Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. You're asking me to defend a tautology.

and that science flourished in the Christian world for centuries. Those two things are inconsistent.
They're only inconsistent if you presuppose that science flourished (Did it? What are we comparing it to?), and that it did so because of Judeo-Christian values, rather than in spite of them (the latter being evidenced by how scientists were treated by Christians, and the correlation between Christianity's decline and scientific progress).

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, and I'm taking you positing questions like that as a tacit admission that you've run out of arguments. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise, but until then, my patience has run out. If you think you can get through a conversation by just gaslighting your opponents ("your points are a tactic!", "you obviously believe the opposite of what you just said!", "you said something stupid except you didn't!", "you omitted a crucial part of my post, but I won't tell you which one!"), then you're sorely mistaken.

The remainder of your post is going unread. Sorry if you've put some zingers in there, but you're obviously arguing in poor faith here. If you write a post that skips out on all the personal attacks and accusations, I'll be happy to read it.

13
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki
« on: September 14, 2021, 07:03:41 AM »
It's a British newspaper thing, one I don't entirely understand. The Mirror is an umbrella which publishes the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror in print, but their online publications are branded as just "The Mirror". It's analogous to e.g. the Daily Mail, which publishes their online stuff under the name "the Mail Online". People commonly still use print names to refer to those (like I did above without really thinking about it), and as far as I understand, either title would be considered acceptable.

14
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 13, 2021, 05:13:07 PM »
We're still talking about how much vegans suck right? What's all this religious nonsense?
I'm sure you'll be able to keep up with the conversation if you try.

15
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 13, 2021, 04:45:52 PM »
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.
Hypothetically, yes, but I have yet to be made aware of any tangible reason to entertain this possibility.

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.
Your accusation is needlessly generous. There is no tactical approach behind my argument, nor is there any strong intent. I respond to your words as I understood them, and I do not see room for alternative interpretations. This could be because you made yourself clear and are now trying to weasel out of what you said, or I could have misunderstood you. If you want to be interpreted differently, clarify or alter your claims. Attacking my character is extremely unlikely to convince me of whatever point you're trying to make, and only serves to weaken your credibility.

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.
Well, naturally. In order to decide whether or not people are moving away from Judeo-Christian values, we have to assume a consistent definition of what those are. If every time we move away from Judeo-Christian values we describe that as those values changing, then there is no possible way to move away from them. A set of values that's constantly redefined every time it's convenient for your argument is no set of values at all - it's a meaningless label.

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.

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.

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?
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.

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.

In fact, I'd be quicker to say that Galileo's faith was likely more sincere than that of Urban VIII. After all, as you rightly pointed out, the clergy is first and foremost a political entity, with religion playing a fairly minor role in their lives. Christian organisations are even worse than Christian values.

Also, there is something quite insidious going on with your choice of words - you declare that people who follow Judeo-Christian values are bad people, and you want for me to tacitly accept this. I wholeheartedly reject this suggestion. They hold values which are dramatically opposed to my idea of progress, but I do not believe they're bad people. Again, I am very glad that the world is progressing in a different direction, but Christians by and large meant no harm. They are simply sticking to what they consider to be the right way of doing things, which just happens to include things that are nowadays unpalatable.

you are implicitly defining Judeo-Christian values as those of people you don't agree with
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. This is indeed not productive, insofar that saying "I am happy that <XYZ>" does not produce anything utilitarian.

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
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. 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.

16
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 13, 2021, 03:39:42 PM »
How have you isolated the "real outcomes" of Judeo-Christian values as compared with the other influences on Western society?
Extremely subjectively and unreliably.

So, if the history of Christianity is mixed with examples of good and evil, it cannot stand by itself as an example of how very very bad Judeo-Christian values are.
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.

That approach is only valid if you can demonstrate that the values people lived by were influenced by Christianity and absolutely nothing else.
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).

The Reconquista happened half a millennium before some of the most important advances in modern science, especially those relevant to helping the sick and disabled to lead fulfilling lives.
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. 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.

At best, you are saying that Christians didn't put a stop to the scientific practices of the Islamic world
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 just got done telling me that you prefer to look at the values people actually lived by, and now you're telling me that the values some Christians before the Reconquista lived by are more reliable than those other, later Christians lived by. Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy I see?
I have no idea what you're implying, but I'm pretty confident that I can just say "lol, no." 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.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun cannot be near and small
« on: September 12, 2021, 10:30:18 AM »
From READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory!:

Before posting, please make sure to familiarise yourself with the forum rules and the Frequently Asked Questions section of our Wiki.

Locked.

18
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 12, 2021, 09:07:22 AM »
I don't think blaming Judeo-Christian values for this is at all justified, for several reasons.
I'm not blaming Judeo-Christian values for it, I'm praising our ongoing process of abandoning Judeo-Christian values for fixing it, even if indirectly. You could say that the move towards Judeo-Christian values was an earlier step in the same process, fair enough, but to me the fact that previous systems were more contemptible doesn't absolve Judeo-Christian values of my distaste.

Two, the values exemplified by mediaeval Christianity were those of the Roman Empire (and later the Latin Church), which adopted Christianity as a tool to pursue its political agenda. Any religion can be misused in this way, especially if the population is too illiterate to study the religious texts for themselves.
Sure, and "real communism" has never been tried. Personally, I'm more interested in the real outcomes than whether something better was written down on a piece of paper nobody followed.

Religions and worldviews get warped and perverted all the time. Unfortunately, there is no undoing of thousands of years of Christianity, and it will always stand for its history. Some splinter movements may have some legitimacy in claiming to be separate, but that doesn't apply to any church with prominence in the UK.

If you confuse those values with political agendas or social customs that were pursued by specific churches in the intervening period, I can certainly see how it might appear otherwise.
You claim I'm "confusing" them. In turn, I argue that your separation is very artificial. The theory of what Judeo-Christian values could be if everyone followed a document to the letter has little bearing on what is/was in people's actual minds. This is especially true for the time period in which, as you rightly pointed out, most people who held Judeo-Christian values couldn't even read that document. At its core, it seems that we disagree on what "Judeo-Christian values" are. You seem to imply something adjacent to strict adherence to the Bible, whereas I'm aiming for [my perception of] the values that people lived by.

[edit: I realise that I basically made the same argument three times in this post. I should have made it more compact in retrospect, but hopefully my position is at least clear enough to follow.]

It was notably Christian society that produced the conditions that allowed modern science to flourish.
This is a controversial claim at the best of times. The contributions of the Islamic world which "we" shamelessly stole when [re-]claiming Iberia are much closer to the actual source of modern science. Before the Reconquista, "we" had an ugly Judeo-Christian habit of burning the scientifically inclined for the crimes of heresy, magick, and witchcraft. If anything, the fact that this eventually stopped is yet another welcome move away from Judeo-Christian values, even if you take the biblical literalist view on what those are.

19
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 11, 2021, 10:17:22 AM »
It’s some serious doublethink to call people who are emphasizing a public health initiative sociopaths and the ones making a selfish choice empathetic.
Meh, you could reverse that argument by calling one group in favour of individual rights and freedoms, and the other group as clamping down on those freedoms. Mandatory/forced medical treatment has never been popular, and probably never will be.

20
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« on: September 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM »
Is it fair to say that most people don’t regard animal and human life as equivalent?
I dunno, even that is a tough sell. How about: In most situations, people will prioritise the well-being of a human over that of an animal? I feel like that covers the sentiment you're looking for, and it avoids the complicated subject of "value" entirely.

So during a marriage course I wowed the crowd by saying that I didn’t regard men and women as equal. I did go on to elaborate that equal means “the same”. So sure, men and women are of equal value but they’re not equal in all ways.
I'm sure that went down a treat.

So if we agree that most people will choose X over Y (where X is a human and Y is not) but you don’t think it’s because they value X over Y then why would you say it is?
Because the hypothetical question is vague (and I completely understand why it is, don't worry), I can only offer a vague answer: factors other than value. For some people it might be that they find it more intuitive to protect beings which are most similar to them. Maybe some people would choose to save a person of one gender over the other, maybe some people will prefer animals over people, etc. Others might imagine a particularly attractive X and a particularly unattractive Y. However, it is possible to make that decision without believing that one is strictly less valuable than the other, or that one is inherently inferior to the other. They're separate categories. You can actively choose a less valuable thing, and you can make a choice between two things of the same value.

In short: when a vegan tells you that they believe all life is equally valuable, they probably mean it. They want society to see killing cows for food to be as reprehensible as killing humans for food would be. There is some merit to it. The obvious difference, and the main "excuse" for killing cows for food is that they're nowhere near as advanced or intelligent as we are, but somehow I doubt the idea of killing mentally stunted people for food would be popular. But just like I'd choose to save my mum over saving you (despite genuinely thinking both of your lives are equally valuable and knowing that my priorities are selfishly motivated), one may choose to save a human over a cow - both lives are equally "sacred", but in a pinch we can make a call based on other factors (more meaningful gratitude, emotional attachment, contractual obligation in case of firefighters, etc.).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >