I currently have a habit of reading ancient classics that are a bit challenging to read. Trying to find the motivations of going through this book, even though I no longer work with physics or math.
An interesting book I found the other day from 1888 by a W.S Cassidy
https://archive.org/details/iscopernicansys00cassgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
Since I started to follow Simons research on the Solar system and understood it is sound, I've searched for earlier critics of the Copernican system. And I've realized that there's been disinformation/strawmen creation all along. Flat Earth. Geocentrism "because the Bible says so". I did however to my amazement find a Swedish dissident - Γ ke HemstrΓΆm, that published a book in the nineties. https://archive.org/details/tychobrahesvarldssystem
But yesterday to my delight I found this book from the 19th century that builds an excellent and honest case against Copernicus that brings up many of Simons arguments. Too bad he didn't think about an orbit for Earth though as Simon have and that so elegantly explain both annual and negative star parallax and the precession. Since this has been a problem to explain "outside Copernicus" critics tend to argue for the complete immobility of Earth - The entire universe orbits around us allthough observations and experiments confirms Earth is rotating. But apart from that flaw in the reasoning this is an excellent book.
Presumably the civilized Arab and Indian world has abandoned geocentrism, but when did it happen?
Underlying all the versions of Kantianism and and all the versions of utilitarianism I know about is an assumption that we consider all people to be in some formal way the same. How do we meet challenges to that assumption?
Consider as an example the following quote from Korsgaard's "The Sources of Normativity", in talking about the consideration "How would you feel if someone did that to you?":
>There is an appeal to consistency in this argument; it is meant to remind you of what the value of humanity requires. But it is not what makes you take my reasons into account, or bridges the gap between your reasons and mine, for there is no gap to bridge. Of course it's true that, as Nagel observes, the argument would not go through if you failed to see yourself, to identify yourself, as just someone, a person, one person among others who are equally real. The argument invites you to change places with the other, and you could not do that if you failed to see what you and the other have in common. Suppose you could say 'someone doing that to me, why that would be terrible! But then I am me, after all.' Then the argument would fail of its effect, it would not find a foothold in you. But the argument never really fails in that way... For it to fail in that way, I would have to hear your words as mere noise, not as intelligible speech.
But it seems to me the argument often does fail in that way, and it does so because the objector is frequently not the victim. Instead, two people who share some category A will argue over whether it is ethical to treat someone in category B in a certain way, and one of those people will appeal to their B-ness as evidence that they "deserve" it (by which they really mean that they don't matter). They'll say: "Someone doing that to me, why that would be terrible! But then again I'm not a B," where B might be anything from "poor person" to "uneducated person" to "criminal" to a race or religion or sexual orientation. Korsgaard argues that participation in dialogue already puts someone in the flow of intersubjectivity. But these labels that people use to dehumanize others also usually make them refrain from being in good-faith dialogue with those people. The agent doesn't consider them trustworthy or competent interlocutors; they are not in the flow of intersubjectivity with those people.
The usual presentation of both Kantianism and utilitarianism rests on the idea that we consider everyone in some formal way the same,
... keep reading on reddit β‘Seriously, at this point the calls for miles to get a new codename are just dog whistles. It reeks of "oh yeah I'd totally support diversity if it's done properly up to my biased ass standards. Only the "right" way. " usually the standards go something like" just don't make him "black Peter Parker" okay cool miles is his own character with different powers, costumes, he has different hobbies. Miles is more artistic and with his journal we see into his head to really see how he views everything, he's getting his own supporting cast and villians and yet people are still throwing out the same arguments from 2011 and still call him black Peter Parker.
Miles has cemented himself as spider-man. He's litterally the star of the best Spider-man movie ever! His comics run is fantastic, especially after bendis left. Culturally there's a whole generation where Miles is their Spider-man. The idea to make him to, "Spy-d" or whatever is just a glorified demotion.
Anyone can be Spider-Man. To take away the identity from miles is going against that core tenet.
I just want to point out to the insufferables that the Gillibrand amendment would not exist if it werenβt for the work of Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon.
This is why they left TTSA, to work on the government side and make real progress in Congress.
Shitting on Lue, while at the same time celebrating the passing of the NDAAβs UFO language, makes your cognitive dissonance-induced shitfits look childish and disingenuous at best.
Lue was essential in the creation of the first permanent UFO office in history whether you like it or not.
Hot take, yes, but hear me out. From episode 1 Season 1 all the way through S3, Greg hasn't shown to be good at ANYTHING, yet multiple characters will give him the "I like you Greg, I really do" and give him something he doesn't deserve. Even getting with Comfry and from there the "Duchy", like seriously? This guy skates through life. The Roy children are petulant, but you at least see brilliance in them amongst the flaws. Greg is consistently incompetent, inept, and at times dubious (but still gets a pat on the back). It baffles me because there really are people like this in the world lol
My second son, all of 3 days old is sleeping on chest, while my wife sleeps next to me. Iβm attempting to eat my pork belly bao without waking either and I dropped mayo covered pork belly all over my sons head. He didnβt wake up, and I wiped it up with a burp cloth. Is this the ultimate dad experience? Should I just go get some milk tomorrow and never come back?
Edit: my wife was not very happy that the baby smelled like bao during one of those hellish every 2 hour feeds. Oops
Edit: Typo in title itβs verses 3-4.
Iβve had this passage quoted to me many times, and I always found it ironic and wanted to vent. For those wondering this is the passage:
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Turning your ears from the truth and believing in myths. Who does that? Who ignores established science, and instead believes all of humanity was cursed when a talking serpent tricked a woman made out of a rib into eating fruit from a magical tree.
Pesky atheists should stop believing in the myths of science and reasoning, and instead believe the Bibleβs clearly βsound doctrineβ, which at no point makes any unrealistic, immoral, or outright impossible claims. Claims like people living for hundreds of years, 9 foot tall giants, sacrificing your virgin daughter to appease god, fitting 2 of every animal into a wooden box, sending bears to kill 42 children for making fun of a bald man, or people gaining hulk level super strength from uncut hair are all perfectly moral and the definition of sound non mythical doctrine. Also, Christians believe in eternal life from Jesus because itβs true. Not at all because it just suits their own personal desires.
