zapatos

Can you explain why an accelerating universe implies a younger universe? And when you say not as old as 'previously thought', what age are you specifically speaking of?

Our entire conversation is about how minorities perceive the monuments. And we specifically removed from the conversation the motives about who put up the monuments and are discussing how people today feel about the monuments. When swansont mentioned the Confederate flag it was in direct response to my comment about intimidation. You need to read the entire conversation. You can start with my first post on this page.

If you are going to admonish me for only using what I observe or imagine, then I think it only fair that you provide data rather than say "I THINK it's a constant reminder for people of color". Where is your data indicating that a majority of African Americans see these statues as a form of intimidation? Below are the results of a poll showing a majority of African Americans do not even support removing Confederate statues. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450866/confederate-statues-african-americans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments

I am not talking about the neo-nazis as I'm sure any of their lies about historical importance are recognized, as you say. I am talking about the other 99% of the population. When the statues went up, I imagine it was clear to most whites and blacks that intimidation was the primary reason behind it. But that is not (I don't believe) how the statues are viewed now. I find it unlikely that the average person sees one of those statues and equates it to, say, a burning cross. My point being, it was wrong back then because it was equated to a burning cross, but if that is no longer the case, then that reason for taking them down is diminished. And a handful of crazies in bedsheets scaring little kids is not necessarily indicative of the views of the rest of the population, and therefore should not be the sole reason we take down the statues. I thought Swansont made it clear that his objection was based on the lack of a statute that we fund a library dedicated to every general who ever served.

If a white man says (lies) to a black man that he likes the statues because they represent historical figures in their state, that is less intimidating than telling (the truth to) the black man that he likes the statues because they act as a reminder to blacks that we could legally beat you once and if you are not careful we can do it again.

Based on what I've been reading online it seems that most people who want the statues to remain are suggesting it be done for historical or cultural reasons. For all I know they may be lying, but if they are, that certainly takes some of the sting out of their intimidation approach.

I am less worried about the monuments if they were built to intimidate than I would be if they still intimidate. I imagine 99% of the population is not aware of why they were built, nor do they care. They like or dislike them because of what they currently mean to them. I'm sure no one is suggesting that many of the monuments in Rome be torn down just because they were built to celebrate some atrocity or other.

The difficulty with this stance is that given the constant change in mores, people in the future may find that everyone who lived prior to the 22nd Century committed crimes against humanity by eating meat, using hand sanitizer, and driving cars. It is somewhat unreasonable to condemn those who act in good faith, even if those actions are later to be considered objectionable.

I was impressed by how quickly you deduced the book was self-published. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Petr_Beckmann

What did your Bible say about using "insure" instead of "ensure"?

In my last post I tried to state that I might be misrepresenting DrP but I guess I failed. At my second attempt to be clear: I believe I was making assumptions about DrP's motives and probably also tilting the discussion based on my own feelings and not on what DrP said. I apologize.

Okay. I'm probably trying to read between the lines which is usually a bad idea. Again, I think I've probably misread what you were conveying. My fault. I've also been unhappy with solicitors who were less than polite when asking me for money.

I didn't mean that I didn't understand how taxation works; I meant that I didn't understand your stance. You are willing to contribute right now, but you won't because you don't like that you and others are not being forced to. Sorry for not being clear. By "they", I meant the actual recipients of the funds, not the people soliciting the funds or their families. I am skeptical that it is easier to get a new tax implemented than it is to stand outside a store and ask for donations. Ah, so the issue is that they are asking you. Which frankly is how you are coming across, what with the name calling and all.

Exactly how does "suggesting it should be paid for by taxes" help them out? They need money, not political viewpoints.

It strikes me as strange that you refuse to support an essential service because you don't like the funding mechanism. In other words, the only way you will support it is if you are forced to support it, and you want to be forced to support it. Everyone has their own motivations so I'm not objecting to your stance, only saying I don't understand it.

So sorry iNow.

Just got back to my house. It was totally awesome! Prior to totality it got noticeably cooler and kind of breezy. Started hearing night insects. And it was really eerie out, sort of that weird green kind of look you get before some big storms. During totality we were able to see Venus and Mercury in the vicinity of the sun. The diamond ring effect was perfect. And I clearly saw red solar prominences. The corona stood out during the entire period of totality. It's kind of hard to describe how it felt. I noticed after totality that I was breathing kind of hard. And it felt like I needed a cigarette. Luckily for me the total eclipse in North America in 2024 will pass within 1 hour of my house. Attached picture is totality taken by my daughter-in-law a few miles from where I was. For me the sky was crystal clear.

I recently read about a guy who stared at an eclipse for a short time a number of years back. The sun damaged his eyes in exactly the way the eclipse looked at the time. so that he now basically sees an eclipse in the middle of his field of vision all the time.

So far it is sunny here (in the path of totality) with wispy clouds. I'm going to start watching at my house, then as it gets closer to totality take a walk to a nearby park. I feel like a kid again!

The movie was nominated for one Oscar; Special Effects https://www.moviefone.com/2013/03/25/the-birds-alfred-hitchcock-25-things-you-didnt-know/

If you are in the South, I think it is a safe bet that the guy on a horse represented by the statue was a confederate.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp The primary utility of gold is probably that it has properties valued by humans to maintain its value in the long term. Just like the dollar, you place value on it because of your confidence that you can exchange it for something that matches the value of what you gave away for it.

Shouldn't the comma have been placed outside the quotes?

Meanwhile, back on earth...

Thanks Migl. Those explanations were very helpful.