Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

2,501 to 2,550 of 3,118 << first < prev | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | next > last >>

Caineach wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Apparently, there is a theory, true or not I couldn't say, that the ritual of the honeymoon comes bride kidnapping.

You pinkskins really are disgusting.

What I have heard is that the honeymoon is from the new couple being given a barrel of mead and sent away so that any child born was guaranteed to be the husband's.

The story that I heard, from a guy who was looking it up on the internet, so you know it must be true, was that the honeymoon was a vestige of kidnapping your wife and bringing her back after she was pregnant and there was nothing her family could do.

Like I said, though, I couldn't say.


So, bumping up this thread since it's a good thread and it's unfortunate that it's become so stifled lately (I blame the goblin).

Here's a little political anecdote. Lately I've had the misfortune of being caught up in a number of Youtube Comment Section Wars (tm), and every post I read by some MRA or other feels like it drains my mind in it's stupidity. They're like analysis vampires, sucking all the thoughts and analysis out of you despite being unable to use it themselves.

Today I had an exchange that was particularly fun, so I thought I'd share it if anyone else also find reading really ignorant people showing of their ignorance in an attempt to look well-educated is fun. This'll be something of a paraphrase, in that I'll be cutting out parts of the quotes for brevity, but I'll try to keep the content representative of the actual posts.

The MRA poster (I'll assume he's male, he's got a stereotypically male name and a very masculine picture), who is a follower of Terroja Kincaid, in regards to the 2% statistic of false rape claims:

MRA wrote:
ya thats what they say...however I believe its much higher...heck just last week in florida there were three false rape accusations....one girl hag hickies and didnt want her dad mad at her...another crashed her car and cried rape to cover it up...uva...duke lacrosse. ... the examples of women lieing never end....
I answer: wrote:
I put a much larger trust in scientific studies than in anecdotes. I leave the anecdotes to the religious.

(Yeah I know it was a bit rude to religious people, there's plenty of religious reasonable people, but his kind of New Atheism a#&~+~%s hate nothing more than having their anti-scientific dogma pointed out to them)

The MRA wrote:
lol...so then fact check me....you'll only prove me right.
I answer: wrote:

There is nothing to fact check. You have provided no relevant argument to fact-check. Like, we have statistics on these things. [They] show that false rape claims are around 2%. You may not "believe" in those studies, but I can't fact-check your beliefs.

Also, note that [with Florida's rape statistics] three cases in a week would be 1.9%.
The MRA wrote:
ok so the "1-5" stat has been debunked 100s of times...it was in the 90s and a very small control group. Its stands at more around 1-65. So lets disect it using logic.... 5000 women at a college would be a small school....according to tge "1-5" tgen 1000 womwn are being raped at the average college... thars ludicrous. ...if a thousand women were raped at one school the marines would be sent in....the most recent estimate puts it at 1-60...but any one who says they know the number is lieing. Its impossible to know tge real numbers. .....so how bout sticking to verifiable fact not just feminist propaganda regurgitated with absolutly no founded basis...I mean just a five minute online search woyld have yeilded you the information that the rape stats are wrong and debunked...it was 2 schools...and even the pollers sai d that it should in no way be considered representing the national average.
I answer wrote:

What "1-5" stat? We're talking about false rape accusations, and while there's no studies on accusations, the most thorough studies on claims we have show about 2%, which means that is the upper limit of false accusations (as false accusation is a specific kind of false claim).

You also spout out a lot of numbers without saying at all where you get them from.

It's interesting because you are the one dismissing heavy, serious studies in favor of random anecdotes and empty guesses that just so happens to support your ideology, yet you still seem to think that you're not the anti-scientific ideolouge here.

The MRA wrote:
they aren't random but based on fact...look you have your view and I have mine...only time will tell... nice meeting you...have a good one.
I answer wrote:
Yeah, they're "facts" like the facts of the bible. :)
The MRA wrote:
Hmmmm...you mean like when the entire world thought that the world was flat and in fact to go against the grain would gain you an execution. However it is interesting because I don't believe one iota in the Bible however in the Bible when everybody thought the world was flat the Bible itself said the world was round twice in Genesis and once in Revelation... One of the most interesting conversations I've ever had in my philosophy class was about these two subjects the false rape statistics the false rape statistics and tge bible... It's a crazy crazy world to be sure.
I answer wrote:

"you mean like when the entire world thought that the world was flat and in fact to go against the grain would gain you an execution."

When was this? Since you appear to be (lol) all about the "facts", show me some support of that this has ever in the history of mankind been true.
You're not exactly increasing your trustworthiness. Rather, you're shifting from looking like an ignorant MRA to a OMG DA LIZARD PEOPLE conspiray nut. Which would be an improvement, if it wasn't for you combining the two.
The MRA wrote:

your showing just how uneducated you are... during the midevil ages people were executed for heresy to say the world was any thing other than flat and the center of the universe...didnt you at some point take a histoey class?

and what About feminism being a hate group? Just look and listen to the protest at the William Ferrell meeting at u of t. The things they said and did are most certainly indicative of hate speech.
I answer wrote:

If you're talking about Warren Farrel (William Ferrel was a meteorologist, unless that's some "fact" that you don't believe in), yeah, well, that incestuous creep deserves any crap he's getting. And really, if you want to in any way, shape or form seem like not a terrible human being, don't go around defending promoters of child rape from some right to not be protested against.

And I'm still waiting for your source on when in human history the whole world has believed the earth to be flat and has executed people for not adhering to that. I mean, you're all about the "facts", aren't you?

The MRA wrote:
galileo galilei
I answer wrote:
Galileo Galilei acted not far from two thousand years after the roundness of the earth had been established. Galileo Galilei was prosecuted for his heliocentrism, not the belief that the earth was round, which was established fact (again, since two frakkin millenia). I don't know how the frakk one can mix those up, I wonder if ignorance alone can do that or if you are consciously trying to unlearn what any tween knows.

Then... it went awfully (or wonderfully) silent. I wonder if I'll get a reply. I assume he'll jump on to some completely different topic and spout some more ignorant b*&#&@*!, and I have no idea why I really even do this (okay, at the end it was highly entertaining to see him question if I took a history class while retreading the whole flat earth b%@@@+~~ - I enjoy when a!%#~$!s prove themselves ignorant so openly), but yeah. I thought it was fun enough to share this time. Most of the time they're just on some spectrum between annoying and horribly, terribly disgusting.


Gaberlunize wrote:
There is nothing to fact check. You have provided no relevant argument to fact-check. Like, we have statistics on these things. [They] show that false rape claims are around 2%. You may not "believe" in those studies, but I can't fact-check your beliefs.

I'm curious how any of those studies would even be possible? You'd need some way of proving the claims true or false to compare it to.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Then... it went awfully (or wonderfully) silent. I wonder if I'll get a reply. I assume he'll jump on to some completely different topic and spout some more ignorant b!*#*~!#, and I have no idea why I really even do this (okay, at the end it was highly entertaining to see him question if I took a history class while retreading the whole flat earth b!~#%~+& - I enjoy when a#+$+#*s prove themselves ignorant so openly), but yeah. I thought it was fun enough to share this time. Most of the time they're just on some spectrum between annoying and horribly, terribly disgusting.

Galileo wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrism; the Catholic Church supported his research since so much of it by that point had proven accurate. What they didn't like was when he started portraying the Pope as an idiot and Galileo's later-life militant atheism.

But that MRA... wow. Just... wow.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gaberlunize wrote:
There is nothing to fact check. You have provided no relevant argument to fact-check. Like, we have statistics on these things. [They] show that false rape claims are around 2%. You may not "believe" in those studies, but I can't fact-check your beliefs.
I'm curious how any of those studies would even be possible? You'd need some way of proving the claims true or false to compare it to.

There's been a few studies of surveys and such; one of the favorite ones cited is the FBI statistics on DNA matches for rape accusations (typically, only 25% are confirmed). Another one is police department data of false accusations, which ranges anywhere from 2% to 90% depending on the department reporting.

So, pretty much, extremely misunderstanding of what the data actually represents and resulting flawed conclusions.


MagusJanus wrote:


Well, it doesn't help that you're wrong about Galileo. He wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrism; the Catholic Church supported his research since so much of it by that point had proven accurate.

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Wikipedia wrote:

By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret the Bible were seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[57] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[58] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[59])

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[60]
The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction.[60] Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical fiction.[61]
Quote:


There's been a few studies of surveys and such; one of the favorite ones cited is the FBI statistics on DNA matches for rape accusations (typically, only 25% are confirmed). Another one is police department data of false accusations, which ranges anywhere from 2% to 90% depending on the department reporting.

Police department reporting is extremely weak evidence though, as there seems to be a very large variance in how police treat it. But even among the police, the amount of rape accusations that they deem "unfounded, unproven or false" are between 1.5% and 8%.

2% is the generally accepted figure in the US, both by the US Justice Department and the US National Crime Victimization Survey. Also, note that their figures pertain to false rape _claims_ which is different from _accusations_ (in whether or not anyone is pointed out as a perpetrator).

Also, in the US, it's likelier to be falsely convicted of murder than of rape, according to (IIRC) FBI numbers.


Scott Betts wrote:
I hear some people don't like homosexuality! That's weird, huh?

No.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gaberlunzie wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:


Well, it doesn't help that you're wrong about Galileo. He wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrism; the Catholic Church supported his research since so much of it by that point had proven accurate.

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Wikipedia wrote:

By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret the Bible were seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[57] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[58] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[59])

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[60]
The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction.[60] Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical fiction.[61]
Quote:


There's been a few studies of surveys and such; one of the favorite ones cited is the FBI statistics on DNA matches for rape accusations (typically,
...

Wikipedia is useful as as starting point but very bad for reaching final conclusions. The fact of the matter is that Gailileo was a lot like the modern Internet person, quick to jump to conclusions and prone to bite at the neck at anyone who disagreed with him, plus an incessant need to be right. His major mistakes were 1... to piss off someone exactly like him in a higher position of power. He was caught out by the fact that he did not have any science or calculations to back up his claims, he also erred by publishing his postulates as proven fact, when they were not.

Gailileo took the Pope's backing at publishing his works WITH the stated understanding that he would publish them as theory not as proven fact, He deliberately violated that trust, and ridiculed his benefactor. It's really not a good idea to bite the hand that patronises you.


Yes, well, the underlying politics of _why_ he was prosecuted doesn't really change _what_ he was accused of. So unless I've misunderstood something, it was still his claims of heliocentrism that where deemed heretical and what he was accused of.

Now, I might have gotten this wrong, and please tell me so if that's the case, but it seems like both wiki and your last post agrees with the claim that "Galileo Galilei was prosecuted for his heliocentrism" is correct, just like Chelsea Manning was prosecuted for whistleblowing regardless of the underlying politics.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

There's a lot more to the story than that. This is from the timeline on Wikipedia:

Quote:

1616 – Officially warned by the Church not to hold or defend the Copernican System

1616 – The Catholic Church places De revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the List of Prohibited Books, pending correction
1616 – Private letter Discourse on the Tides
1617 – Moves into Bellosguardo, west of Florence, near his daughters' convent; observes double star Mizar in Ursa Major
1619 – Kepler publishes Harmonices Mundi which introduces his third law
1619 – Discourse on the Comets
1621 – Maffeo Barberini becomes Pope Urban VIII
1623 – Publishes The Assayer
1624 – Visits Pope who praises and honours him, leaving with assumed permission to publish work on the Copernican vs. Ptolemaic Systems; used a compound microscope
1625 – Illustrations of insects made using one of Galileo's microscopes published
1630 – Completes Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and subsequently receives approval of Church censor
1632 – Publishes Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
1633 – sentenced by the Inquisition to imprisonment, commuted to house arrest, for vehement suspicion of heresy in violating the 1616 injunction

As you can see, he continued to work for the Catholic Church and even receive papal praise for years after he had been ordered to abandon heliocentrism. But what got him banned was the bolded part of this following excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the Galileo Affair:

Quote:
Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which was published in 1632 to great popularity,[38] was an account of conversations between a Copernican scientist, Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and a ponderous Aristotelian named Simplicio, who employed stock arguments in support of geocentricity, and was depicted in the book as being an intellectually inept fool. Simplicio's arguments are systematically refuted and ridiculed by the other two characters with what Youngson calls "unassailable proof" for the Copernican theory (at least versus the theory of Ptolemy—as Finocchiaro points out, "the Copernican and Tychonic systems were observationally equivalent and the available evidence could be explained equally well by either"[39]), which reduces Simplicio to baffled rage, and makes the author's position unambiguous.[37] Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also had the connotation of "simpleton."[40] Although authors Langford and Stillman Drake assert that Simplicio was modeled on philosophers Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, Pope Urban's demand for his own arguments to be included in the book resulted in Galileo putting them in the mouth of Simplicio. Some months after the book's publication, Pope Urban VIII banned its sale and had its text submitted for examination by a special commission.[37]

Note, also, what LazarX says about the issue of evidence; Cardinal Robert Bellarme, the one who delivered the orders to Galileo to not talk about heliocentrism (and who went beyond what the Pope recommended), is summarized on that same Wikipedia page this way:

Quote:
Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments.[26]

In other words... Galileo did not have proof of it; he had evidence of a hypothesis, and a strong one at that, but it was such counter to the thinking at the time that the Church itself would not accept it as being taught as physically real until more evidence was found. The fact he persisted to try to get it taught as physically real is why Galileo was banned from discussing it at all, and the fact he later used it as a device of fiction where he attacked the Pope is why he ended up with his reputation destroyed and confined to his house for the rest of his life.

Quote:

Police department reporting is extremely weak evidence though, as there seems to be a very large variance in how police treat it. But even among the police, the amount of rape accusations that they deem "unfounded, unproven or false" are between 1.5% and 8%.

2% is the generally accepted figure in the US, both by the US Justice Department and the US National Crime Victimization Survey. Also, note that their figures pertain to false rape _claims_ which is different from _accusations_ (in whether or not anyone is pointed out as a perpetrator).

Also, in the US, it's likelier to be falsely convicted of murder than of rape, according to (IIRC) FBI numbers.

Like I said: Misunderstanding what the data represents.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Yes, well, the underlying politics of _why_ he was prosecuted doesn't really change _what_ he was accused of. So unless I've misunderstood something, it was still his claims of heliocentrism that where deemed heretical and what he was accused of.

Now, I might have gotten this wrong, and please tell me so if that's the case, but it seems like both wiki and your last post agrees with the claim that "Galileo Galilei was prosecuted for his heliocentrism" is correct, just like Chelsea Manning was prosecuted for whistleblowing regardless of the underlying politics.

He was prosecuted for insulting the Pope; the charges being related to heliocentrism is just them being trumped-up so they would have something to convict him of that wouldn't be questioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what I've heard, he was already in hot water. That Pope was being nice to him and letting him publish his research (a lucky break for Galileo, thanks to the new Pope being an old fan), and Galileo decided to get b$@+$y with it and make fun of the Pope while he did so. So, yeah, pissing off the Pope was what got him in trouble, but the heliocentrism was the original source of strife.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Yes, well, the underlying politics of _why_ he was prosecuted doesn't really change _what_ he was accused of. So unless I've misunderstood something, it was still his claims of heliocentrism that where deemed heretical and what he was accused of.

Now, I might have gotten this wrong, and please tell me so if that's the case, but it seems like both wiki and your last post agrees with the claim that "Galileo Galilei was prosecuted for his heliocentrism" is correct, just like Chelsea Manning was prosecuted for whistleblowing regardless of the underlying politics.

That was pretty much the story that Galileo put out, along with that most assuredly false claim that he muttered "yet it does." Galileo was persecuted for essentially breaking his word and publishing his theories as true proven science WHICH THEY WERE NOT. Becaue observations alone aren't enough without the theory and the science. And by the way, your analogy is not even half baked.

Keep in perspective that the church practically begged Copernicus to publish his heliocentric theory which he kept practically to his death bed. Galileo on the other hand used his scientific pulpit to conduct his personal vendettas, and the blowback from all that, is what got him into trouble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the story about his theory publishing:
First, Galileo was blocked from publishing.
Then the popes change. New pope likes Galileo, so he says he'll let the guy publish his stuff as a dialogue piece—as long as Galileo portrays his own theories as losing the argument.
Galileo publishes his theories as a dialogue. One character is arguing in favor of the theories, the other, referred to as "The Fool", is arguing against. The Fool proceeds to use arguments the Pope himself has brandished against Galileo to win the argument.

So, Galileo followed the agreement, but very passive-aggressively—thus pissing off the Pope in a major way. The point is, the theories themselves were still unpopular with the church at that time. This is my understanding.


The reason why Copernicus was unpopular was because there was actually no evidence for heliocentrism until long after Galileo's death. Basically, it came under a lot of scientific scrutiny and didn't hold up (it wasn't unpopular for years after Copernicus published it, and only became such when an astronomer actually tried to test the theory).

In Galileo's case, the only reason he ended up banned from teaching it as a physical reality is because he had no evidence. They were actually okay with him teaching it as a theoretical model of how reality might work, but Galileo insisted that it was physical reality.

Basically, as a scientist, Galileo made just about every mistake in the book with how he looked into heliocentrism. In the end, that bit him on the butt.

Oh, and that Pope? The Pope was okaying heliocentrism to be talked about as long as opposing arguments were given equal weight... which were arguments backed up by the evidence of the time. Galileo responded by mocking him.

So, realistically, the Church had a problem with heliocentrism because it had failed the test of scientific scrutiny, but would have accepted it continuing to be taught if Galileo had not pressed his luck or been a jerk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
In Galileo's case, the only reason he ended up banned from teaching it as a physical reality is because he had no evidence. They were actually okay with him teaching it as a theoretical model of how reality might work, but Galileo insisted that it was physical reality

Well, they still teached a lot of other things they had no evidence for (like geocentrism). The fact of the matter remains, had his views been geocentric, he would not have been banned from teaching them, nor prosecuted from publishing them. The alternatives weren't better supported by evidence, so it's not like scientific integrity was the reason they banned him from it.

I mean, the difference between "being convicted for arguing for heliocentrism" and "being convicted for not following an order not to argue for heliocentrism" is basically just words. It's like a dictatorship (or, well modern day germany/ukraine/italy) arguing that it doesn't arrest people for protesting, just for them defying the ban on protesting. Protesting is still the crux of the matter.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:

The reason why Copernicus was unpopular was because there was actually no evidence for heliocentrism until long after Galileo's death. Basically, it came under a lot of scientific scrutiny and didn't hold up (it wasn't unpopular for years after Copernicus published it, and only became such when an astronomer actually tried to test the theory).

In Galileo's case, the only reason he ended up banned from teaching it as a physical reality is because he had no evidence. They were actually okay with him teaching it as a theoretical model of how reality might work, but Galileo insisted that it was physical reality.

Basically, as a scientist, Galileo made just about every mistake in the book with how he looked into heliocentrism. In the end, that bit him on the butt.

Oh, and that Pope? The Pope was okaying heliocentrism to be talked about as long as opposing arguments were given equal weight... which were arguments backed up by the evidence of the time. Galileo responded by mocking him.

So, realistically, the Church had a problem with heliocentrism because it had failed the test of scientific scrutiny, but would have accepted it continuing to be taught if Galileo had not pressed his luck or been a jerk.

From what I've read of his personality and dealing with others, I'd say that the jerk factor was a pretty high percentage of his problems. Keep in mind that despite all of this, with the change of the political climates, the worst that the Church could do to him was what it did.... basically put him on house arrest for the rest of his life. By this time he pretty much was almost totally blind from staring at the Sun for so long. Not a good thing to do with a telescope.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

Well, they still teached a lot of other things they had no evidence for (like geocentrism). The fact of the matter remains, had his views been geocentric, he would not have been banned from teaching them, nor prosecuted from publishing them. The alternatives weren't better supported by evidence, so it's not like scientific integrity was the reason they banned him from it.

I mean, the difference between "being convicted for arguing for heliocentrism" and "being convicted for not following an order not to argue for heliocentrism" is basically just words. It's like a dictatorship (or, well modern day germany/ukraine/italy) arguing that it doesn't arrest people for protesting, just for them defying the ban on protesting. Protesting is still the crux of the matter.

Actually, geocentrism had the most evidence for it at the time. When they looked up in the night sky, they could directly observe items within it moving relative to the Earth. That's why an astronomer was leading the charge to ban heliocentrism; by all direct scientific evidence he had at hand, it was simply wrong.

You can even observe what they did yourself; go out every night for about a couple months and, using a telescope, observe the movement of items within the night sky. Make it a point to chart this. Then keep in mind they had no direct evidence of the Earth's movement and had nothing more advanced that what is a cheap telescope today to make observations with. And keep in mind that Newton's theories did not even exist yet; Newton didn't come along until a couple decades after Galileo's death.

Pretty much, we have Newton to thank for heliocentrism being accepted; it was his work on motion, gravity, and Kipler's work that ultimately provided the basis for heliocentrism to finally be proven. Basically, Newton rewrote our understanding of physics.

And, no, the heliocentrism isn't why Galileo was ultimately punished; the Pope was okay with him publishing a book on it. It was the fact he insulted the Pope that got him confined to his house. Basically, the Pope turned the book over to the Inquisition and, if I read it right, basically hinted "find some reason to convict this guy." So, they used a trumped-up charge. If he hadn't insulted the Pope, nothing would have happened.

LazarX wrote:
From what I've read of his personality and dealing with others, I'd say that the jerk factor was a pretty high percentage of his problems. Keep in mind that despite all of this, with the change of the political climates, the worst that the Church could do to him was what it did.... basically put him on house arrest for the rest of his life. By this time he pretty much was almost totally blind from staring at the Sun for so long. Not a good thing to do with a telescope.

Agreed!


Should probably start a new thread Galileo...


Galileo continued here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
Galileo continued here.

I don't think there's really anything that much further to discuss.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz


Brox RedGloves wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz

Large wikipedia articles about stuff that isn't currently a big controversy tend to be very reliable. As far as I remembered, when it was compared to other large encyclopedias (including encyclopedia britannica) it has about the same average number of errors per article, and fewer errors per sentence (since wiki articles are usually longer).

On stuff that is currently a big controversy (say, the murder of Mike Brown) it's not as reliable, nor it's most fringe articles, but other than that it is generally about as reliable as any encyclopedia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz

Large wikipedia articles about stuff that isn't currently a big controversy tend to be very reliable. As far as I remembered, when it was compared to other large encyclopedias (including encyclopedia britannica) it has about the same average number of errors per article, and fewer errors per sentence (since wiki articles are usually longer).

On stuff that is currently a big controversy (say, the murder of Mike Brown) it's not as reliable, nor it's most fringe articles, but other than that it is generally about as reliable as any encyclopedia.

I know PHD chemistry students use it as their primary chemical lookup because it is more likely to be up to date and accurate about new chemicals and is easier to search.


Another hilarious MRA quote from youtube (not directed at me though):

Random MRA wrote:
Oh look a member of the youtube mangina crew .... been infecting youtube and twitter with your SJW PC dogma propaganda lately ? :) , haha Gamers are still going strong boy ... morons like you will always lose.

I couldn't make this s+%# up if I wanted.


Not really sure what you all are talking about at the moment, but an observation from my vacation that I would have liked to add to the defunct Street Harrassment thread:

Have been in Brooklyn since Sunday night. Walked Principessa Francesca's dog twice; went out for a coffee this morning because she's a devoted tea drinker.

Have been greeted by strangers on the street multiple, multiple times.

Down with Hollaback! racists and their "I'm so scared of the big city" internet apologists!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Not really sure what you all are talking about at the moment, but an observation from my vacation that I would have liked to add to the defunct Street Harrassment thread:

Have been in Brooklyn since Sunday night. Walked Principessa Francesca's dog twice; went out for a coffee this morning because she's a devoted tea drinker.

Have been greeted by strangers on the street multiple, multiple times.

Down with Hollaback! racists and their "I'm so scared of the big city" internet apologists!

Since you felt the need to call back to the Street Harassment thread, I'll remind you that the anecdote that started that thread was one involving douchey white bros yelling from a car window.

There were also some controversial videos or something that you construe as racially biased, but honestly, dismissing an entire category of personal harassment because of a video on a web tabloid is not a very enlightened policy.

So you were greeted on the street. You're a male. The whole point is that those greetings can have radically different interpretations based on your gender.

All I ask is for you not to be outright dismissive of a problem that someone close to me is living through. Well, no, I'm also asking you not to paint things as racist by association, that would be good too. (I'm still a little miffed at you for jacking that thread --the video was arguably relevant, but making it ABOUT the video and not the OP made it about the racism of that video. Yes, it is the off-topic forum, but I reserve the right to take umbrage when my expressions are transformed into a racist implication and then the thread gets closed, leaving me with nowhere to make my case.)

You don't really think I'm part of some gentrification agenda, right?


Brox RedGloves wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz

Please, go change the Galileo page on wikipedia. Tell us how long it stays changed.

1) I doubt your change will go through
2) If it does, it won't stay for more than a few hours, or even minutes.

For one, wikipedia does not immediately display anonymous edits. You have to register, sign in, etc. Second, if you aren't a trusted source (you've submitted information numerous times that has turned out to be true), your edits are not immediately displayed. The process of becoming a trusted editor can take months to years depending on how active you are in the wikipedia community.

Go test it. See how it turns out.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
You don't really think I'm part of some gentrification agenda, right?

Beats me. I've never met you.

Leaving aside all of the more interesting issues of race-, class-, and sex-bias that we could discuss, in the abovementioned thread I recall blanket assertions being made, over and over, that in major American metropolises such as New York City, Boston and Manchester, NH, strangers never greet each other on the streets unless they were catcalling or distributing pamphlets.

I'm only reporting my discovery over the past 48 hours that this assertion is as untrue about New York as it was about the other two cities.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm only reporting my discovery over the past 48 hours that this assertion is as untrue about New York as it was about the other two cities.

Well, Brooklyn.

And you're a man.

But other than that, yeah, sure, why not?


Shiznit, I'm apparently in a rather gentrified part of Brooklyn and it's still more of an urban environment than Manchester.

And I'm not a man, filthy pinkskin. I'm a goblin with the Not Particularly Afraid of Dogs trait.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm only reporting my discovery over the past 48 hours that this assertion is as untrue about New York as it was about the other two cities.

Well, Brooklyn.

And you're a man.

But other than that, yeah, sure, why not?

The point was made by men that no one ever acknowledges a mans presence, and therefore when women are acknowledged it is because they are women. I think the goblin is just pointing out that his experiences differ.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm only reporting my discovery over the past 48 hours that this assertion is as untrue about New York as it was about the other two cities.

Well, Brooklyn.

And you're a man.

But other than that, yeah, sure, why not?

The point was made by men that no one ever acknowledges a mans presence, and therefore when women are acknowledged it is because they are women. I think the goblin is just pointing out that his experiences differ.

I don't think "acknoweledged" is the correct word here. A man is being acknowledged when the doorman says "Good day to you sir." A woman facing catcalls and "greetings" which take the form of "Nice t!+!, Lady!" would not consider that acknowledgement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Please, go change the Galileo page on wikipedia. Tell us how long it stays changed.

1) I doubt your change will go through
2) If it does, it won't stay for more than a few hours, or even minutes.

For one, wikipedia does not immediately display anonymous edits. You have to register, sign in, etc. Second, if you aren't a trusted source (you've submitted information numerous times that has turned out to be true), your edits are not immediately displayed. The process of becoming a trusted editor can take months to years depending on how active you are in the wikipedia community.

Go test it. See how it turns out.

A friend of mine makes a hobby of defacing Wikipedia pages. I don't see the attraction, myself, but he likes it. Anyway, apparently you have to go pretty obscure to get stuff by. Like, making up false attributions of a speech by a Klan leader from forty years ago and linking it with David Copperfield (the magician) or some such.

I tried telling him he should get out of the house more, but he likes it inside.


LazarX wrote:
I don't think "acknoweledged" is the correct word here. A man is being acknowledged when the doorman says "Good day to you sir." A woman facing catcalls and "greetings" which take the form of "Nice t&@@, Lady!" would not consider that acknowledgement.

I got the sense from Wikipedia that the neighborhood I'm in was a bit old-money back in the day, but, for the record, I haven't run into a doorman yet.


I'm gunning for nuance here. Who'd have thought that would be so complicated!?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nuance is always complicated.

I have said that greetings between strangers are at least rare in most cities, and it's not just that comments to women tend to be actual wolf whistles and physical "compliments".

I've walked fairly recently in both Boston and NYC and not gotten much if anything in the way of greetings from strangers in either place. So there's a counterpoint to the Goblin's experience.

Part of it may be attitude? If you're strolling down the street making eye contact with everyone and smiling and nodding at them, some will respond - to males or females. If you're walking with purpose, eyes straight ahead and not making any such gestures, you'll get far less - at least if you're male. Women tend to get such approaches even when they're doing everything to avoid them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In all honesty, the holiday season is a huge variable that I believe is relevant to Doodle's anecdotal evidence.

People are a lot more likely to greet people during the holidays, for whatever reason. I've noticed this. It seems to exist.

Now, it's a totally facile argument to make in the face of the existence of sex-based harassment in public. The fact that lots of people said "hi" to Doodle on the street does in no way diminish the adversity faced by women being harassed while alone on the street. That's a thing also.

And I'm not saying racism ISN'T a thing, either. They're all things, actually.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Julie! Do The Thing!


thejeff wrote:

I've walked fairly recently in both Boston and NYC and not gotten much if anything in the way of greetings from strangers in either place. So there's a counterpoint to the Goblin's experience.

Apparently, pinkskins of both genders like dogs and the goblins who walk them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I've walked fairly recently in both Boston and NYC and not gotten much if anything in the way of greetings from strangers in either place. So there's a counterpoint to the Goblin's experience.
Apparently, pinkskins of both genders like dogs and the goblins who walk them.

Anecdotally, walking dogs does increase greetings. A safe thing to comment on, perhaps?


thejeff wrote:

Part of it may be attitude?

Mentioned the exchange about strangers in New York to La Principessa, a native Brooklynite, and she laughed and rolled her eyes and said "If you're walking around New York and nobody ever says 'hi' to you, maybe it's not them; maybe it's you?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Part of it may be attitude?
Mentioned the exchange about strangers in New York to La Principessa, a native Brooklynite, and she laughed and rolled her eyes and said "If you're walking around New York and nobody ever says 'hi' to you, maybe it's not them; maybe it's you?"

Well, given that there are apparently a lot of women getting attention they don't want, I wish I could market the secret.

But doing what I do, which works for me, doesn't work for them.


thejeff wrote:


But doing what I do, which works for me, doesn't work for them.

Oddly enough, I got the impression that she DIDN'T want to walk around her hometown for the rest of her life not ever being greeted by strangers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:


But doing what I do, which works for me, doesn't work for them.
Oddly enough, I got the impression that she DIDN'T want to walk around her hometown for the rest of her life not ever being greeted by strangers.

No. I get that. She probably doesn't.

But others do. Others feel harassed by the constant attention from men, even the seemingly innocuous greetings and compliments - any one of which might scale up to abuse if not handled properly or might not.

And some of us don't get these random greetings from strangers, at least in big cities. Some do, even when they're trying to avoid them. It would be nice to know how to make it go away if and when you don't want it.


thejeff wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:


But doing what I do, which works for me, doesn't work for them.
Oddly enough, I got the impression that she DIDN'T want to walk around her hometown for the rest of her life not ever being greeted by strangers.

No. I get that. She probably doesn't.

But others do. Others feel harassed by the constant attention from men, even the seemingly innocuous greetings and compliments - any one of which might scale up to abuse if not handled properly or might not.

And some of us don't get these random greetings from strangers, at least in big cities. Some do, even when they're trying to avoid them. It would be nice to know how to make it go away if and when you don't want it.

Be large and ugly.

Don't make me come down there and show you!


Lebanese-American porn actress receives death threats in her family's home country after she is voted sex industry's top star

Je suis Mia Khalifa!


Keep dreaming greenskin...


Recent forays into the world of dating have led to much bewilderment about how little (some) American women know about their own bodies, even hawt militant communist schoolteachers.

Damn, this country needs some women's liberation.

Kegels: The Secret to Better Sex


Continued from the LGBT thread...

Sissyl wrote:

Oh, but it is. It is a bit complicated and I can't remember the exact numbers, but the gist of it was: When checking those men who had assaulted women for other problems, they found that (say) psychiatric illness was present for 35%, drug abuse for 45% and economic or social issues in 60%. Slagen dam drew the conclusion that 40% of the offenders had none of the factors, and that such violence was not correlated to psychiatric illness, drug abuse or economic problems... This was the background for the slogan "alla män slår" (all men beat).

There is a difference between a study being deliberately false and being incompetently done. I don't really think Eva Lundgren wanted to cheat - she was just completely incompetent.

Honestly, I assume that Uppsala University is more reliable than your word on it. Since they did not order the study redacted, which was well within their power, even after having an inquiry about it, I assume the methodology was good enough.

I haven't read the study in a few years, I might want to reread it, but in general I tend to trust peer reviewed studies over what semi-random people on the internet say, especially when there has already been a politically motivated inquiry about the study that came to the conclusion that no wrongdoing had occured.
Especially considering that the university - which is still one of the most respected in the country - declared that they have, and I quote, "full confidence" in her. They also officially allocated more funds to her work as compensation for the false accusations.


Trust not too much in peer reviewed studies.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Recent forays into the world of dating have led to much bewilderment about how little (some) American women know about their own bodies, even hawt militant communist schoolteachers.

Damn, this country needs some women's liberation.

Kegels: The Secret to Better Sex

[Comes back from reading more woman-y health shiznit]

...And I haven't noticed her urinating after sex. Usually she just passes out, exhausted.

[Smirks smugly, while taking notes from Cosmopolitan articles]

2,501 to 2,550 of 3,118 << first < prev | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards