3 ms·

> Merely that the text of the decision had no relevance to the original comment, and that stands. Wrong. The original comment claimed "for promoting heliocentr

by acqq 9y ago

> Merely that the text of the decision had no relevance to the original comment, and that stands. Wrong. The original comment claimed "for promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up." The text of the sentence with which Galileo was "locked up" contains specifically the "crime" for which he was sentenced: "vehemently suspected of heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" Moreover, heliocentric just means "the Sun is the center." This is in any imaginable case "relevant" for the starting claim. And I have already explained the details that prove not only that it's "relevant" but that it remained of highest relevance for the Church (which made that sentence) for centuries that followed. Not only is that "why" Galileo "was locked up" it's why his book remained on the index of the books banned by the Church for the following 200 years, together with Copernicus'.

vidarh 9y ago
> Wrong. The original comment claimed "for promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up." That's only wrong if you accept that the text of the decision is the true reason he was locked up. The person in question did not accept that, hence quoting the decision remains irrelevant.
- acqq 9y ago
  The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    > The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. So argue that with them, not with me, as I've not argued "that is not why" at any point. > And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. I didn't claim it is "actually irrelevant". I very narrowly claimed it is irrelevant to the argument put forward in the comment you originally replied to. To try one last time to make this clear to you: The original comment implies that the real reason is different from that stated in the verdict. The text of the verdict can not be authoritative on that, because the implied claim is that the reason given in the verdict was an excuse. You may very well have good arguments for why the verdict was the real reason, but I did not at any point question whether or not the verdict was the real reason. I only pointed out that if someone questions whether or not the crime stated in the verdict was the real reason for prosecuting him, the text of the verdict itself is not relevant as a counter-argument, because what they are questioning is not addressed by the verdict at all. He can be 100% guilty in line with the verdict, and the original argument could still be true (again: I'm not arguing it is), so to counter the original argument, quoting the verdict is irrelevant. Nothing you say can change that - it's not a matter of opinion. > Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite. Failing to understand the argument you're responding to doesn't make your argument more valid either. This is my final word on it, as we're going in circles as long as you keep failing to understand the argument.

by acqq 9y ago

vidarh 9y ago

> Wrong. The original comment claimed "for promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up." That's only wrong if you accept that the text of the decision is the true reason he was locked up. The person in question did not accept that, hence quoting the decision remains irrelevant.

acqq 9y ago
The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite.
- vidarh 9y ago
  > The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. So argue that with them, not with me, as I've not argued "that is not why" at any point. > And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. I didn't claim it is "actually irrelevant". I very narrowly claimed it is irrelevant to the argument put forward in the comment you originally replied to. To try one last time to make this clear to you: The original comment implies that the real reason is different from that stated in the verdict. The text of the verdict can not be authoritative on that, because the implied claim is that the reason given in the verdict was an excuse. You may very well have good arguments for why the verdict was the real reason, but I did not at any point question whether or not the verdict was the real reason. I only pointed out that if someone questions whether or not the crime stated in the verdict was the real reason for prosecuting him, the text of the verdict itself is not relevant as a counter-argument, because what they are questioning is not addressed by the verdict at all. He can be 100% guilty in line with the verdict, and the original argument could still be true (again: I'm not arguing it is), so to counter the original argument, quoting the verdict is irrelevant. Nothing you say can change that - it's not a matter of opinion. > Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite. Failing to understand the argument you're responding to doesn't make your argument more valid either. This is my final word on it, as we're going in circles as long as you keep failing to understand the argument.