Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
This is the silliest shit I’ve ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It’s been awhile since I’ve had an argument on topicality and it’s been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.
I disagree. IMHO, the accusation of blasphemy presupposes a dogma to actually make sense.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
… Any dogma? It’s like the claim “that’s illegal” presupposes a body of law. No matter which one.
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
Velocity is not suggestive because it is defined as speed in a direction.
In your example you are only taking speed, assuming direction and stating velocity.
Velocity needs a frame of reference, though, since there is no absolute frame of reference.
This is the silliest shit I’ve ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It’s been awhile since I’ve had an argument on topicality and it’s been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.