dib8rman said:
Kasz216 said:
dib8rman said:
Kasz216 said:
dib8rman said:
I would consider one more than enough.
child rape: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geolr36&div=17&id=&page=
the page is 411. (don't want to mess up the url)
Actually I don't see anything in my original post that was alluding toward conceptual perfection thus negative on your statement of it being an ideal sir. If anything it was a criticism in the form of a question.
As for the flat earth piece I've already said what I can about this with regards to Galileo as my example. If it would suffice then I'll use a different example. Carl Wilhelm Sheele discovered oxygen but found himself at the wrong end of common knowledge and had to flee his mother land for America.
|
So in otherwords... if someone who is raped is then thrown in jail because she "didn't seem credible" and then was later exonerated, that would be one too many and we should get rid of penalties for anyone that makes a false accusation roght?
Er, Galieo had nothing to do with the earth being flat though. It was an arguement between Heliocetnraism, (The earth is round, everything rotates it.), Tychonian Geocentrism (Some planets rotate around the sun, some around the eart, the sun rotates around the earth) and Geocentrism.
The first two were scientific equals at the time and mostly taught in universities while the third was what the Church maintained, but was content ignoring until Galieo started insulting church figures.
|
The point of the example must not be as clear as I thought then.
Galileo, and why did he start offending church figures? Nevermind the example was besides the point, I gave a much less disputable one anyway and again the point isn't the discoveries.
Hey if the ruling sticks with you so be it again it's an ethical difference.
As far as the rulings logic goes, the woman should never have been sent to jail because a 15 year old wanted to have sex with her -- bet she wished she had that judge for the rape trial.
|
Actually, he likely would of found her guilty for rape. The actual judicial arguement is
"This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrieds the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.... This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents regardless of their ages."
In otherwords... it would happen to a woman as well. Do i agree with the ruling? No. Is it any proof of any sort of sexism vs men? Also no. Which is the issue. You aren't actually proving any sexism.
Also why did Galieo start offending church figures? Because church figures perferred that things be taught as hypotheticals that disagreed with scripture unless you had demonstrable proof. This being an era where the burden of proof was higher then it was now, pure mathmatical arguements being considered not good enough. Galieo wasn't happy with teaching things just as a hypotehtical, even with an equally valid model out there. The arguement wasn't even about heliocentrinism so much as mathematics, and even then likely wouldn't have been tried for hearsey if he didn't call the pope a simpleton in his book, a couple dozen times.
Also, as far as I can tell Carl Wilhelm Sheele never fled Germany for America. I can't find refrence of him anywhere, fleeing anywhere. I'm not sure if your confusing him with someone else or what is going on with that or if it's just more misinofrmation. Was trying to figure out who outsed him... and it appears to be... noone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wilhelm_Scheele#Disproving_the_theory_of_phlogiston
Aside from which... you keep talking about non-experts trying to foist a different opinion on a group of experts. Which is exactly what you are trying to do.
Who is more like the Pope in the case of Galieo? An expert in their field? Or Nathansan and Young, two people with degrees in religious studies?
Do you perhaps have a case of a scientist being run out of a country by other scientist in the same field, perferably with a source so we're both sure this has happened?
|
Statutory rape covers corruption of a minor; however the minor conceded wanted to have sex with her that does not give standing for an injunction to be placed on a minor... but that's not for me to call as far as legal rights go this is the case.
Also at your flip side - that would require women impregnating men and so the argument meets a dead end there, as far as reality applies your argument can't be taken seriously even if it is a word game.
You didn't read my later post apologizing and correcting which scientist I intended to call on, I'm not sure if you still need me to answer your questions after that.
Anyway why did the Pope John Paul apologize for the persecution of Galileo and why did the church even put him on trial if it was the scientific community even more so the secular scientific community that objected to his claim?
I'm honestly curious about this and feel it's a loop hole, I did only a little fact checking but would like some resources if you're willing to share.
Again you're categorizing sexism in the same line as racism where as one is a issue based on physical and social differences and the other solely social differences. I call them the fairer sex and I've heard them called the adjacent species. My point is there are things that women can do that men cannot do naturally and those things are not a result of social understandings, they just are.
|
No it wouldn't? Impregnation has nothng to do with the ruling. It all had to do with both parents areeing to have sex.
Because Pope John Paul was a cool guy? It's not like the church was right for killing him. It's just not the reason most people think it is.
Also, no... that's my point. It wasn't the experts who objected or persecuted him. At the time, the Tychonian system was scientifically superior, but scientists didn't care what galieo said. (either way everyone thought the world was a globe.) The group that persecuted Galieo was a faction of the church with great power, though not the popes faction. The Pope was actually good friends with Galieo.
Generally, the popes ignore science, because usually the church had been a great facilitator of science rather then the opposite, but the "Inqusition" style branch gained a lot of power. The moves Urban made were actually in response to threats on his own life, and after Galeio directly insulting him in his book, he literally had to try him or risk his own life.
The catholic Church's power base is a lot more interesting then you'd think.
Anyway, that's exactly my point though... those in the catholic church, are more like your claimants, and less like mine.
