unbeliever Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 What's frustrating me a little here is that most to all of the arguments in support of imperial units are essentially that it doesn't matter. Many of us on the metric side have pointed out all the ways in which is does matter. But still the unfounded and demonstrably false assertion that it doesn't matter is trotted out again. When you ask them to do a simple bit of arithmetic with the bronze age units they change the subject or ignore you. I now feel quite justified in phrasing the poll questions as I did. I'm all validated and such. Ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Well I've not voted because I don't think you were especially fair in phrasing them the way you did, but I agree that imperial/us customs are useless. I bet if you ask the metric martyrs what the poundal, sthene, slug, dyne, erg etc are they wont have a clue which rather means they won't get why the systems are so deeply flawed. They just cherry pick the convenient bits off the surface and fail to see the disaster lurking under the sea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 Well I've not voted because I don't think you were especially fair in phrasing them the way you did, but I agree that imperial/us customs are useless. I bet if you ask the metric martyrs what the poundal, sthene, slug, dyne, erg etc are they wont have a clue which rather means they won't get why the systems are so deeply flawed. They just cherry pick the convenient bits off the surface and fail to see the disaster lurking under the sea... I wasn't trying to be fair. My intention was to post a biased poll. I wished to make anybody inclined toward voting in support of imperial feel silly and reluctant doing so. I hate imperial units so much that my normal sense of fairness (such as it is) is disabled for the purposes of this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 In which case then I'm sorry but I don't feel I can debate this or support you further on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 In which case then I'm sorry but I don't feel I can debate this or support you further on it. Because I've trivialised something you take seriously, or because you are determined to be fair even if bias is openly declared. I first confessed the bias on page 1. This was never intended to be terribly serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 No, by showing such bias you don't leave yourself open to the possibility that someone else may have an opposing but valid viewpoint. That's so anti science it's not something I could possibly associate nor tolerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) No, by showing such bias you don't leave yourself open to the possibility that someone else may have an opposing but valid viewpoint. That's so anti science it's not something I could possibly associate nor tolerate. This is getting interesting now. I do rather think it is open to opposing views. By being obvious and open about the tongue-in-cheek bias, I would think that I negate it. There's been no shortage of opposing views and I'm actually losing the vote. In serious matters I take open-mindedness and the scientific method as seriously as anybody. In jest I allow myself some latitude. Edited September 23, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm not saying there are no opposing views (which I find personally to be misguided at best and ludicrous at worst - sorry guys.) I cannot accept you taking a position though where your I hate imperial units so much that my normal sense of fairness (such as it is) is disabled (emphasis added by me). I'm not saying that your debate is wrong and I'm not passing any judgement on the way you are going about it - I'm saying that such a way is not my way (which may opr may not be correct) and as such I'm bowing out of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm not saying there are no opposing views (which I find personally to be misguided at best and ludicrous at worst - sorry guys.) I cannot accept you taking a position though where your (emphasis added by me). I'm not saying that your debate is wrong and I'm not passing any judgement on the way you are going about it - I'm saying that such a way is not my way (which may opr may not be correct) and as such I'm bowing out of this discussion. Okay. It's up to you. I would have thought it rather obvious that the statement you quote was intended as a joke. Perhaps my aversion to emoticons means that such things do not always come across in writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 You're stuck with the same number of days in a year. But the subdivisions of a day can be sorted out: micro days etc (10 micro days ~= 1 second) The French tried this in 1793 in their Revolution, 10 hours a day so noon was at 5 o'clock. It was really unpopular and soon abandoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now