So I want to know if I should add in the below paragraph to this article, which relates to the origin of the term "moralistic fallacy". ScepticWombat ( talk) 08:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Dangerous topics I am reminded of the COVID-19 vaccines that have ended up being associated in the public discourse with the private companies that patented them, while the vast majority of the actual investment costs were provided for by mainly governments with some help from various foundations, rather than the pharmaceutical companies. Much later comment here: Citing the “privatisation of space exploration” is also problematic, given that it is directly or indirectly supported by public coffers, from the actual launch facilities, over various grants, to tax credits and sweetheart deals. If I can think of something better I'll go ahead and replace it, but the floor's open. Obviously we'll have to wait and see whether privatizing the space industry really actually works, but it's limping along pretty well as it is. I think we need a new public policy example Reverend Black Percy ( talk) 01:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) If anyone's planning to expand it to a Gold article, toss in normativity somewhere in your blueprint (be it on the article or on another article with proper reference). I'll figure something out some other time. I left "WIP" in the edit note to underscore that while the concept of normativity itself isn't irrelevant to this fallacy by any standard, that ill-formed chunk of text in the summary made the article look like a walking candy apple. While I think mention of normativity somewhere in the article makes sense, be it baked into a subsection, linking outwards to the language or rhetoric category, etc, I think reverting my last addition on it was a good move (credit goes to FCP). ![]() As a result, the global flood and the supposed geological facts to back it up are an integral part of young earth creationism and " creation science".I figured someone ought to respond. From this assertion, the entire " science" of flood geology has evolved. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist on the literal historicity of the flood account - because if this was made up, then the historicity of the rest of the Bible is in doubt. The majority of intelligent modern biblical scholars interpret the flood story allegorically for example, they see it as a lesson of God's mercy toward the faithful. The narrative does not specify if very young children, babies (or even the unborn!), and almost all the world's animals were killed because they were wicked or if they were just collateral damage ( Genesis 6:8). The type of wickedness is left unclear so believers are free to develop imaginative ideas. ![]() The flood, according to the Bible, was brought on because every person in the whole world - except eight people God chose - was wicked and needed to be killed. The narrative in the scripture tells the story of a great flooding of the entire antediluvian (pre-Flood) world, in which every last human and animal died, except for the ones saved on the Ark, a vessel constructed at God's command by Noah. The global flood is a (fairly self-descriptive) catastrophic mythical event recounted in the book of Genesis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |