6 ms·

Also seems quite nationalistic after what was broadcast before that. As a European quite unappealing.

by sschueller 5y ago

mulmen 5y ago
If it’s worth anything I am American and also find it unappealing.
keewee7 5y ago
- mulmen 5y ago
  - syshum 5y ago
    I am American taxpayer, NOT a Christian or any other popular religion, I would appreciate people allowing others to express their religion as they see fit, That is American... The fact this guy is being blasted because of his religion is not American at all. The freedom from religion atheists are more annoying these days than the evangelicals
    - mulmen 5y ago
      Wrong. keewee7 assumed all Americans are Christian. This is absolutely not true. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. Believe whatever you want, just don’t drag my name through the mud.
      - syshum 5y ago
        Wrong. keewee7 stated the Christian Americans Taxpayers paid for 80% of the program, turns out keewee7 is only slightly off, and as Christian American Taxpayers only paid for about 63%
        mulmen 5y ago
        The 80% number is based on US taxpayer funding. For that to be true all Americans would have to be Christian, which they aren’t. This was my objection. The difference between all Americans being Christian and some or even most of them being Christian is not “slight”. 80% and 63% are not close by any measure. Qualifying the original statement with religious affiliation still ignores the fact that tax dollars are not paid with religious affiliation in mind and JWST has no (official) religious meaning. Further calling out American Christians but ignoring the Canadian and European Christians further distorts the 63% number. This entire thread has been a textbook example of lying with statistics. Even if you manage to get them right the numbers don’t justify the message.
- geenew 5y ago
  Well, at some point in the past Denmark was changeable and was changed, so there is no reason to think that at present other places are changeable and will be changed in a similar way. Merry grav-mass!
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  I think it’s down to around 50%, according to the latest surveys.
  - keewee7 5y ago
    These numbers are from Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable they are: NASA: 8,800m ESA : 850m CSA : 200m ------------ All : 9,850m
    - mulmen 5y ago
      - syshum 5y ago
        mulmen 5y ago
        I still disagree with the argument that the religious affiliation of those taxpayers deserves a specific callout rather than any other characteristic. I also disagree with the initial characterization that all Americans are Christian. Or that Christian messaging is somehow “American”. It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. JWST is not about religion. Defending the directors poor choice of message with religious statistics reduces both American Christians and Americans in general to oversimplified caricatures. Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. To claim otherwise is insulting to both Americans and any contributors to the JWST, including the international community. Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Further, why choose the religious angle? Why not say it was half funded by women? Or by some ethnicity? Any way you apply these statistics is going to be insulting because they are irrelevant. This is why the directors messaging is problematic.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. I dont see it has either a stereotype, nor harmful to acknowledge Christians in our society, or their contribution. In fact pretending they do not exist is IMO more harmful >JWST is not about religion I dont believe anyone claimed it was, nor did the NASA director. What you are attempting to do however is exclude any mentions of religion from the topic, I would not want to make JWST about religion, but I also have no desire to pretend religion does not exist, nor am I so fragile in my beliefs that someone else expressing theirs causes me consternation or an identity crisis like it seems to have done with you. I recognize that it likely people of all religions have worked on some part of the JWST, I recognize that the current director of NASA is a christian, I can separate these thing in my mind, and believe that the director of NASA acknowledging his own religion in public does not paint either NASA nor the JWST program as "christian" >>Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. and this is where I believe you are wrong to a limited extent, in that religion is a part of the people that worked on JWST, all religions. As such all religions are a part of JWST just as people that do not believe in religion are a part of JWST. Denying this is to deny reality >>Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Now you have moved the goal posts, I suspect because you know the foundation of our argumentation is sand that is quickly disappearing out from under you The statement was limited to American's for which you took offense to what you believed was a statement implying all Americans where Christian, I then clarified the % of funding that could be attributed to American Christians, now you want to move the goal posts to talk about world wide christian contributions. I could do the math if you would like? not sure why that matters but... >> Further, why choose the religious angle? I did not choose it, I simply interjected facts into the conversation. I also interjected an opposing Agnostic position to that of Freedom From Religion Atheists that I have grown tired of over the years, something that has caused me to reject the label of "atheist" to describe myself because people that use this label themselves tend to be the most arrogant, toxic people proclaiming some level of moral and intellectual superiority over others. I would rather have a Jehovah Witness at my door telling me that I am going to Hell, than sit in a room with a Freedom From Religion Atheist complaining about some old guy saying "god Bless" >>This is why the directors messaging is problematic. Ohh Please, what is problematic is that fact that we have soo strayed away from the idea of Pluralism that people are sooo sensitive, that "political correctness" is soo run amok that we have to make a big deal about some one saying "God Bless" something... Jesus (and yes I did that intentionally) what a farce we have become. Hell that is not even Christian, the vast vast vast majority of people on this planet believe in a god... Saying "God Bless" should not be "problematic" or offensive. Come On Now
mabbo 5y ago
The reality is the Americans footed most of the bill. That gives them certain authority. Even as a member of a highly involved country (Canada) I can acknowledge that on this road trip, they're the driver of the vehicle and they get to decide what's on the radio. It would be nice if the Americans were more considerate, but that's a general problem and not specific to this. (I kid, I kid).

Also seems quite nationalistic after what was broadcast before that. As a European quite unappealing.

mulmen 5y ago

If it’s worth anything I am American and also find it unappealing.

keewee7 5y ago

mulmen 5y ago
- syshum 5y ago
  I am American taxpayer, NOT a Christian or any other popular religion, I would appreciate people allowing others to express their religion as they see fit, That is American... The fact this guy is being blasted because of his religion is not American at all. The freedom from religion atheists are more annoying these days than the evangelicals
  - mulmen 5y ago
    Wrong. keewee7 assumed all Americans are Christian. This is absolutely not true. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. Believe whatever you want, just don’t drag my name through the mud.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Wrong. keewee7 stated the Christian Americans Taxpayers paid for 80% of the program, turns out keewee7 is only slightly off, and as Christian American Taxpayers only paid for about 63%
      - mulmen 5y ago
        The 80% number is based on US taxpayer funding. For that to be true all Americans would have to be Christian, which they aren’t. This was my objection. The difference between all Americans being Christian and some or even most of them being Christian is not “slight”. 80% and 63% are not close by any measure. Qualifying the original statement with religious affiliation still ignores the fact that tax dollars are not paid with religious affiliation in mind and JWST has no (official) religious meaning. Further calling out American Christians but ignoring the Canadian and European Christians further distorts the 63% number. This entire thread has been a textbook example of lying with statistics. Even if you manage to get them right the numbers don’t justify the message.
geenew 5y ago
Well, at some point in the past Denmark was changeable and was changed, so there is no reason to think that at present other places are changeable and will be changed in a similar way. Merry grav-mass!
dwaltrip 5y ago
I think it’s down to around 50%, according to the latest surveys.
- keewee7 5y ago
  These numbers are from Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable they are: NASA: 8,800m ESA : 850m CSA : 200m ------------ All : 9,850m
  - mulmen 5y ago
    - syshum 5y ago
      - mulmen 5y ago
        I still disagree with the argument that the religious affiliation of those taxpayers deserves a specific callout rather than any other characteristic. I also disagree with the initial characterization that all Americans are Christian. Or that Christian messaging is somehow “American”. It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. JWST is not about religion. Defending the directors poor choice of message with religious statistics reduces both American Christians and Americans in general to oversimplified caricatures. Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. To claim otherwise is insulting to both Americans and any contributors to the JWST, including the international community. Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Further, why choose the religious angle? Why not say it was half funded by women? Or by some ethnicity? Any way you apply these statistics is going to be insulting because they are irrelevant. This is why the directors messaging is problematic.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. I dont see it has either a stereotype, nor harmful to acknowledge Christians in our society, or their contribution. In fact pretending they do not exist is IMO more harmful >JWST is not about religion I dont believe anyone claimed it was, nor did the NASA director. What you are attempting to do however is exclude any mentions of religion from the topic, I would not want to make JWST about religion, but I also have no desire to pretend religion does not exist, nor am I so fragile in my beliefs that someone else expressing theirs causes me consternation or an identity crisis like it seems to have done with you. I recognize that it likely people of all religions have worked on some part of the JWST, I recognize that the current director of NASA is a christian, I can separate these thing in my mind, and believe that the director of NASA acknowledging his own religion in public does not paint either NASA nor the JWST program as "christian" >>Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. and this is where I believe you are wrong to a limited extent, in that religion is a part of the people that worked on JWST, all religions. As such all religions are a part of JWST just as people that do not believe in religion are a part of JWST. Denying this is to deny reality >>Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Now you have moved the goal posts, I suspect because you know the foundation of our argumentation is sand that is quickly disappearing out from under you The statement was limited to American's for which you took offense to what you believed was a statement implying all Americans where Christian, I then clarified the % of funding that could be attributed to American Christians, now you want to move the goal posts to talk about world wide christian contributions. I could do the math if you would like? not sure why that matters but... >> Further, why choose the religious angle? I did not choose it, I simply interjected facts into the conversation. I also interjected an opposing Agnostic position to that of Freedom From Religion Atheists that I have grown tired of over the years, something that has caused me to reject the label of "atheist" to describe myself because people that use this label themselves tend to be the most arrogant, toxic people proclaiming some level of moral and intellectual superiority over others. I would rather have a Jehovah Witness at my door telling me that I am going to Hell, than sit in a room with a Freedom From Religion Atheist complaining about some old guy saying "god Bless" >>This is why the directors messaging is problematic. Ohh Please, what is problematic is that fact that we have soo strayed away from the idea of Pluralism that people are sooo sensitive, that "political correctness" is soo run amok that we have to make a big deal about some one saying "God Bless" something... Jesus (and yes I did that intentionally) what a farce we have become. Hell that is not even Christian, the vast vast vast majority of people on this planet believe in a god... Saying "God Bless" should not be "problematic" or offensive. Come On Now

mabbo 5y ago

The reality is the Americans footed most of the bill. That gives them certain authority. Even as a member of a highly involved country (Canada) I can acknowledge that on this road trip, they're the driver of the vehicle and they get to decide what's on the radio. It would be nice if the Americans were more considerate, but that's a general problem and not specific to this. (I kid, I kid).