Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rama Set

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 29, 2017, 06:40:06 PM »
While you guys were discussing Donald Trump's sex life like the pathetic sexual deviants you pretend to hate, ...

Said the pizza-gater to the vicar.   ::)

2
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 28, 2017, 03:29:17 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted.

In your mind, yes.

Quote
But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic.

Modern astronomers have looked at the Earth through orbital telescopes, satellites and space probes.  Your denial of space flight does not change this. 

Quote
This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

No, this is why we need you to get out there and sight the ISS with a good enough telescope to see that it is a man-made object and then do some triangulation to verify it's altitude and consequently it's velocity.  You could do yourself one better and get some contacts in the southern hemisphere to plot the course of the ISS across the sky and then plot the results on a globe, or your bipolar projection and see which model the data matches best with.  From that information you will be able to dispel the misapprehension you are labouring under about the shape of the Earth and can stop impugning the credibility of people with knowledge you lack.


3
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 28, 2017, 07:41:12 AM »
Modern astronomers they do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.

Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.

This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

4
It's not really that complicated. Shaq made two statements. Only one of them was under duress.

That is conjecture at best, Thomas.  Any evidence of duress?

Quote
Why should we think the statement made under duress is better than the one which was not?

Does not follow from the premises.  As soon as you can show that the statement was made under duress, then we can entertain the possibility.

Surely you know me well enough to know that I'm a pretty neurotic person.

*hugs*


Yes. What he said in the first place is still valuable, though, and we should milk it as hard as we can. The quotes have been really helping us out on social media.

Then we good.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 26, 2017, 11:21:30 PM »
Tom is obviously tap-dancing like the late, great Gregory Hines. I think you can assume that he has no explanation for what causes the change in angular diameter of Venus and Mars in FET. Maybe someone else can propose an explanation, but you are wasting your breath questioning Tom. He has become the swordless knight in the FE crusade.

6
Why are you embrassed?  It's pretty neurotic to be embrassed for someone else. So at the very least we can agree that you supporter is not reliable and prone to flip-flopping on unprincipled grounds? I'm ok with that.

7
Vitamin C cures everything.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 07:57:35 PM »
Fine fine...

I'm not gonna argue with you.

Just as well, this is the least relevant Trump issue in this thread.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 07:30:02 PM »
He absolutely compromises. Why would you say he never compromises?  He did on the travel ban, he did on the healthcare bill, you can go on and on... Look at his actions, not what he says.
But he didn't do it by choice. 

Irrelevant

EDIT: every compromise is by choice. You don't get what you initially want, so you choose to compromise to achieve a modified goal and not lose the deal entirely. So not only irrelevant, but also incorrect.

Quote
(Also the healthcare bill that got curb stomped?)

Irrelevant

Quote
His wife's sleeping arrangements?  Totally his choice.

Incorrect.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 07:13:09 PM »
He absolutely compromises. Why would you say he never compromises?  He did on the travel ban, he did on the healthcare bill, you can go on and on... Look at his actions, not what he says.

11
Well, Dr. O'Neal says he was joking and I think we should believe him.

Who am I going to believe, a doctor of education; or you guys, who are not doctors of education?

He only said that he was joking after the story went around the world and he was mocked and ridiculed relentlessly. Kind of too late and not really obviously genuine.

Classic conspiratard thinking. When he says what you agree with you take him at face value. When he retracts that statement and says he is joking there must be something more going on beneath the surface. Back to the vitamin C clinic!

12

That is a weak argument. Shaq goes onto pod casts and tells his worldview in a seemingly serious manner all the time.

"expressed anything similar"

Quote
He does not go back and say "just kidding!".

But he did this time.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 01:12:31 PM »
Maybe Melania is different than the others?  Maybe she is better at manipulating him?  To dismiss it out of hand is not very smart and totally in character for you.
Previous media analyses of their interactions (e.g. during Trump's inauguration) seemed to agree with Tom's suggestions.

I don't think the mainstream media would avoid jumping on the idea that Trump is being manipulated by his wife if there was even a shred of evidence to suggest it. (cf. "Is Trump afraid of stairs?!")

Fair enough. Even conceding that, maybe Trump wants the separate beds because sleeping with someone else is not always conducive to a good nights sleep.

I am not conceding that Trump may enjoy ball-torture.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 11:15:29 AM »
How so? Trump has replaced wives before when he was not satisfied with them.

Maybe Melania is different than the others?  Maybe she is better at manipulating him?  To dismiss it out of hand is not very smart and totally in character for you.

I gotta agree with Tom on this one.


Trump is clearly the boss of the family and if he wanted to sleep together, he would not take no for an answer.


It could be he doesn't care either way but thats about it.

Why "clearly"?  Because reasons?  Powerful men being dominated in the bedroom is a common trope and there is no reason to think that Melania might put a diaper on him, pee on him, then do ball torture.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 24, 2017, 10:14:38 PM »
They probably never thought they would be in this position and like most people don't prepare a ton for the future. And who knows how well they could have prepped for these sub-caucuses that aren't willing to compromise at all?

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 24, 2017, 09:00:24 PM »
That doesn't make any sense. Trump is a billionaire. Why would he keep her around and stand for that? He would just replace her like he has done with past wives.

Maybe he is actually aware that he is a fat, orange misanthrope and knows this is as good as it gets? Also, just because they sleep in different beds doesn't mean he doesn't pop blue diamonds and get busy on occasion.

On a separate note, let's assume Melania never touches him and spends all his money.  Why would being a billionaire mean you can't be taken advantage of?

17
It's pretty obvious that this isn't Shaq's type of humor. If this is Shaq's character then show us where he has done anything similar. You can't because he hasn't.

It's pretty obvious that this isn't Shaq's worldview. If this is Shaq's worldview then show us where he has expressed anything similar. You can't because he hasn't.

Wow, it was super easy to refute your terrible argument!

18
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 24, 2017, 07:49:59 PM »
I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!

Who are you quoting?

Quote
Psssh, flimsy at best.

Well I'm convinced.

Quote
This doesn't address the issue.

There isn't anything to address.  You don't even define what "magic" is. 

Quote
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.

Maybe you should read the wiki a bit more then.  I point you to the explanation of sunsets and the EA as examples of completely straining credulity. 

Quote
At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not. 

UA does not explain the heterogeneity of gravitational measurements on Earth.  It's actually a non-starter because it does not match any observation.  The observations that falsify it have been around for centuries, and specifically the last century has shown it to be utterly impossible without some serious modification, which is non-existent, unless Tausami decides to show up.

Quote
Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!

It is completely consistent and extremely accurate at a wide variety of scales and has been perfectly successful at modelling and predicting a great number of phenomena.  You really should have said, "Gravity is simply not consistent with everything we observe!"  That would actually be a statement that could be taken seriously.  It isn't consistent at extremely large and extremely small scales, as has been already mentioned, for reasons that no one can state with confidence.  Obviously this is where the most important science will happen, and it will be found that indeed there is some aspect of the fundamental interaction called gravity that needs to be thrown out or modified, I hope it will happen.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 22, 2017, 01:16:18 PM »
Better than Heiwa... Or Tom for that matter.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 22, 2017, 01:15:32 PM »
Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.

Does it?  I was under the impression that on very small scales relativity breaks down.  Electrons don't orbit around a nucleus so much as zip and zap here and there.

I misspoke.  I meant it breaks down at the subatomic scale.

Quote
I've always found the fact that gravity is considered so obvious a fundamental force yet its functioning breaks down both at very small and very large scales suspicious.  But perhaps it can be easily explained by saying that a Grand Creator put it here so it could be easily observed but only at scales we can view with our own eyes, such that it wasn't until we tried to really examine things closely that we saw that it didn't quite work right.  Too big or too small and things get dark or random.  But here in Mama Bear's bed things are "just right" so that gravity is a perfect explanation for everything all the time.

Who said gravity is a perfect explanation for everything?  What a weird position.

Quote
  I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering.  How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?

Because of evidence.

Quote
FET requires no God because it requires no magic.

Yes, well if I make up properties of a theory to make it sound ridiculous it will also sound ridiculous.

Quote
That is why it is the superior theory.

And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.  If I were to be as dishonest as you, I would just use your terrible "Magic" argument on various components that have been offered up: like UA.  It is even less descriptive than gravity as a theory.  Gravity has trouble describing the very very big and the very very small.  UA has trouble describing anything outside a completely homogeneous space, which, as we know, does not exist.
[/quote]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145  Next >