Now we can have more videos like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

You make some good points, but I really wish you'd research your historical claims. It's ironic that today we promote the idea that we require proof, and yet people often accept mere authority—and bad authorities at that—when it comes to historical claims. For example:

Galileo wasn't excommunicated. Excommunication is a very specific punishment that means that someone is not allowed to receive the Eucharist and is no longer part of the Church. Galileo was put on permanent house arrest and his books were banned. However, this was a relatively light punishment, since they didn't prevent him from continuing his work. In addition, while the Church was wrong to condemn Galileo, it's really pretty complicated to understand the full story around it. Galileo's combative attitude played a significant role. More importantly, Galileo's claims went against both established theory (including mathematical theory) and what seemed to be common sense experience. Galileo's eventual acceptance required a rethinking of what "empirical" evidence meant so that instruments like the telescope could be trusted more than one's own eyes.

While the Church was the source of science, this was primarily because the Church provided opportunities for education and scholarship that were otherwise lacking in medieval society. The Church typically did not declare on matters of science. The reason it crossed the line in the Galileo incident has a lot to do with paranoia over the Protestant Reformation. Also, I don't know of any medieval book of science that actually includes dragons. Dragons were a matter of superstition, but that doesn't mean that the educated people typically believed in them.

The real weakness of medieval biology was that it relied too heavily on Aristotle and Galen. Aristotle's biology was actually quite groundbreaking and in many ways it points prophetically toward modern biology, but it was still very limited especially because Aristotle had to rely on too much secondhand information. This is why he taught, for example, that hyenas could change their sex. This quirky falsehood made it into the popular mindset because Aristotle's biology lacked serious followup and correction until the modern era. Importantly, Aristotle's biology contributed pivotal things like the axiom "natura non facit saltum," which was taken up by Leibniz and Linnaeus. He also essentially began the science of empirical biology. However, as I said, the concept of empiricism had to change substantially at the end of the middle ages in order for modern science to develop.

Even in the early centuries of Christianity, the book of Genesis was commonly accepted to be symbolic in meaning. The modern fundamentalist mentality had not been invented yet. Augustine, for example, suggested that "six days" might not literally be six days. Interestingly, in Genesis light and darkness are created before the sun and the moon. This points to the sense in which it is not talking simply about physical creation but metaphysically: the very concept of light needed to be created before there could be an actual entity that produces this light. There's a lot more to be said about Genesis, but most importantly the story is intended to make clear that the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and other things are not gods. Other religions, most notably the Babylonians, saw these things as produced out of the gods and divine in themselves. The Hebrews recognized that the world is not divine and yet still profoundly good.

Anyway, your major points are well taken. You're right about how quickly the tide of scientific opinion can change. The problem with dark matter and dark energy is precisely that they are fillers. Yes, they are well-defined fillers, but fillers nonetheless.

You're right. Now, if these memecoins were at least liquid enough so you could trade them for a sufficient quantity of hell money, then at least you'd be ready for the afterlife! Still, I'm old fashioned even when it comes to graveyard economics. I prefer to get my hell fortune the tried-and-true Egyptian way. If you want to be the wealthiest man in Duat/Hades, you have to bury your servants and subordinates alive with you so they can continue to pamper you for all eternity! That's my plan, at least.

If they really want to go this route, then instead of telling people to HODL and implying that they will make a fortune, they should just tell them, "Think of it like you're buying a Beanie Baby.” Sure, they would get fewer buyers, but fewer people would lose all of their money as well. After all, it's possible for one or a few elite collectors to make money even off of Beanie Babies. But it's all the more obvious that most collectors will merely be buying them to have them, without any monetary return.

Don't conflate "sacred" with "worshipped." Something can be sacred without being considered a deity. Many pagan religions have considered the moon to be a god, but in other cases the moon has religious meaning without being divine. In some cases, it can also be unclear whether the moon is itself a god or merely an emblem of god.

Good point. They really shouldn't be spreading human remains in the first place.

Haha, funny. For a anyone too lazy to read the cited source, it was essentially a joke that a bishop told based on his reading of canon law. There is not really a bishop of the moon, in particular because a bishop belongs more properly to a people than to a place. If Catholics ever come to inhabit the moon, then there will be a bishop appointed for them.

Riiiight... so even murdering Christians by bombing an ancient church is OK as long as Hamas attacked first? https://www.aljazeera.com/feat... You have a twisted sense of morality.

That's great, and I certainly hope that the UK does abolish the monarchy--tomorrow. No, sooner. Today. Yesterday!

But talking about what could be done and what is actually done are two different things. My contention is that the principle is at least as important as the fact. Even if these states are rebellious as a fact but subordinate in principle, then I contend that they have not yet thrown off the British yoke. Moreover, back to the original topic at hand, it remains to be proven that parliamentary supremacy is "more democratic" than the American system. Both have their ups and downs. Personally, I like that the judicial branch can override the stupidity of senators, but I admit that too often this has been done problematically and undemocratically.

Let's look back at Canada, however, because my contention that raised your ire was that Canada is a "vassal state" of the UK. You may think that their oaths to the British monarch are mere empty traditions and "ceremonial roles," but what do they think of them? Check out this fascinating parliamentary discussion (they're so polite to each other!) that was raised when one senator (later revealed to be a crook) made a motion to add an oath to Canada: https://sencanada.ca/en/conten... Now, it's a long discussion so I may have missed something, but as far as I have seen they never say that the oath is a mere formality or outdated ceremony. Rather, some explain that they see allegiance to Canada as contained in the figurehead of the monarch. Swearing allegiance to the monarch appears more tangible to them than swearing allegiance to Canada (which is an impersonal collective).

Besides that, the funny thing is that parliamentary supremacy no longer exists in Canada:

So the UK parliament can dissolve the monarchy by its own authority, but the Canadian parliament is authorized by the constitution (as in the USA) and thus it would require a constitutional amendment to eliminate Canada's dependence on the crown. Interestingly, in the abovementioned parliamentary debate they also touch upon the question of whether the oath can be changed directly or whether it requires a constitutional amendment.

You're right that Canada's subordination remains in effect because the people have not yet acted to change things. But the view that they even have the power to change things is a slow development, not something inscribed within the Canadian government at its first "independence." In contrast, for better or worse, the USA was founded on the idea that political power comes originally from the people. I'm not saying that makes the USA better in any way. I'm only saying that until Canada excises all language of "allegiance" to the crown, it remains a vassal state. If they want to be a vassal state, then so be it. But let's not pretend that their governor general doesn't receive his or her appointment from the crown.

Haha, looks like I hit a nerve. "Zero authority" is a nice way of looking at it. And yet, the cited page from the Canadian government states, "the role of Commander-in-Chief was delegated to the Governor General..." which means, quite literally, that in principle the authority to command the Canadian Armed Forces officially rests with the British monarch, even though functionally it rests with the Canadian government. Of course, this Canadian government is officially appointed by the British monarch. Check Wikipedia:

The good news is that Canadians are free enough that they can desecrate a statue of Elizabeth II without fearing the king's wrath. https://nationalpost.com/opini... The bad news is that the Canadian governor general had to apologize when he accidentally touched the queen to help her down some stairs: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w...

It's true that Canada, Australia, and especially India don't always do what the UK wants. But their relationship then is a little more like the relationship of feudal kings to the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor's authority over other states was usually quite weak in practice, but that doesn't mean that these subject states were free and independent. The USA still suffers from the effects of British colonialism, too, but thankfully we don't swear any oaths to the crown.

Oh, and speaking of Canada's vassalship: https://www.canada.ca/en/depar... How is it that this perfectly free, independent, non-vassal state just so happens to have its armed forces swear an oath of allegiance to the symbolic head of an entirely different state?

Admittedly, the idea of "vassal state" has too many definitions to be useful for a more technical discussion. A feudal vassal relationship typically implies tribute, for example, which is not the case here. (Even so, it was the covenantal relationship that was more fundamental to medieval vassalship than money.) Instead, more to the point, my argument is that the UK is guilty of the same external control as the USA, though possibly on a larger scale. I've seen the British themselves complain about the UK policing the world, so I'm not alone on this. As far as India goes, it can be called a "vassal state" inasmuch as it still owes allegiance to the British crown. Why? Because the Balfour Declaration of 1926 defines membership in the British Commonwealth thus: "...united by a common allegiance to the Crown..." Allegiance to a higher nobility is precisely what vassalship is. While the Commonwealth is vague on exactly what that allegiance means, and in theory the Indians aren't required to do everything the UK wants, that allegiance is still there and is visible in the remnants of colonialism throughout their culture and geography. Take a look at this Indian opinion piece: https://www.theweek.in/columns...

Your problems with the USA are fair, but the claim that this makes us undemocratic applies just as much (if not more) to the UK. They say "the sun never sets on the British empire." Do you think they became an empire by being nice to people? Do you think the Chinese, the Indians, the indigenous Australians and North Americans, the Egyptians, massive portions of Africa and Arabia, and even the Irish--do you think these people voted to become subjects of the British crown? Sure, some of them have gotten away. China got away by becoming communist. But many of these states are still essentially vassal states of the UK, including Canada, Australia, and India. Calling it a "Commonwealth" only sugercoats the colonialism. So yes, the US often acts in undemocratic ways. But how does that really differentiate us from the oh-so-democratic UK?

+1. Where's my mod points when I need them? (Slashdot is being undemocratic!)

With this kind of obsession, you would think Asus had misprinted the Gospel! ...Oh wait, I guess they kinda did.