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 - SexWarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144  Next >
Do you mean like the part where he said that he isn't serious 80% of the time?  Or the part where he said [other stuff]
No. It would take a particularly unintelligent person to think that's what I meant, and I know you better than that, markjo.

The typical flat earth map is what is called a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.


The bipolar map is a Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal projection
Both FES maps severely predate their use as "projections" of the hypothetical globe Earth. But hey, nice try!

the rest of us enjoy what he did for what it is
It's not "the rest of us". It's a handful of people here (coincidentally, it's the same handful as usual - the peanut gallery, if you will) who reject the expertise of virtually all media analysts and who desperately try to play it down (see garygreen's post if you don't want to indulge in too much self-reflection).

i don't see what evidence there is that anything negative happened to shaq as a result of him saying he thinks the earth is flat.
So, why did you decide to ignore Shaq's own words? Why is only part of his "haha I was joking" statement valuable, and why is the remainder of it non-existent?

Why are you embrassed?  It's pretty neurotic to be embrassed for someone else.
Surely you know me well enough to know that I'm a pretty neurotic person.

Well if "People whose job is literally to know" agree on something I guess we should take their word for it!
Close, but no cigar. When your side's claim is "you can't possibly know Shaq's character!", a response along the lines of "Well, here's a bunch of people who do know his character telling you exactly what we've been telling you" becomes quite relevant. Of course, you're welcome to ignore any and all evidence and just keep restating your baseless claims in the face of reality. It's just that not many people will take you very seriously if you do.

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.
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.

Was his retraction any farther out of character than his claiming that the earth is flat in the first place?

We all know that there's a horde of people who's job is to literally know Shaq's character that were just waiting for a claim like this from him.

Analysists have been eagerly waiting for a chance to analyze every single public move Shaq would make on supporting the flat earth theory.

You should all be writing movie scripts. You're very creative! That explanation is even more of a fairy tale than the flat earth theory is.
Thank you for confirming the accusations I've levelled against you. You're being too kind - you should have at least tried denying that your position is "NUH UH EVIDENCE DON'T REAL".

Yeah that must be it, we're not seeing the evidence that is right in front of our eyes.
Oh, you're seeing it all right. That's why you were unable to say much more than the above.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round earth definitive PROOF
« on: March 26, 2017, 09:46:50 PM »
    a. It did not turn around in the air at any point in its trip to face back the way it came.
Fascinating. So, assuming a Round Earth, and assuming your assertion is true, the global flyer just kind of flew off the Earth and into outer space, never to be seen again.

I have a feeling, just a hunch, that this would contradict GBR's records.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 26, 2017, 09:20:41 PM »
Maybe Trump is impotent.
But he assured us there was no problem there.

Why are we still arguing this? People whose job is literally to know Shaq's character agree that his retraction was extremely out of character, and that the original "joke" didn't make sense as far as Shaq's humour is concerned.

The media (who follow him quite closely) have pointed out this much, too. But hey, something something if it makes your life easier, right?

I’m not sure how Shaq saying on his own podcast, “The Earth is flat,” and repeatedly telling his bewildered and inquiring cohost, “Yes it is” — and then being quoted as such — “messed up” the point he was trying to get across, but OK.
If Shaq’s intention was to trick folks into thinking he was a flat-Earther, I’m not sure intentionally manufacturing fake news really does much other than lend more credence to the idea of fake news.

The second part is in reference to O'Neal's initial comments about the Earth supposedly being flat. That's, uh, quite an elaborate joke!
This, while rather confusing, seems to be Shaq saying that the general public should have known he was joking about the Earth being flat because he's Shaq.

We also know that some analysts are perfectly clear that the money+pressure mixture was involved:

The bigger point here speaks to something trickier.

Essentially, players -- current and former -- have such a built-in distrust of the media and the current environment, based on quotes being taken out of context and how every little thing is extrapolated into a controversy, combined with a natural predisposition as both athletes and multi-millionaires to want to agitate situations, that they routinely walk the line between being serious and “messing with us.”

The only time this gets straightened out is if money is involved, if a player is at risk of losing a job or endorsement money. Then all of a sudden, the jokes stop.

This is just a case of RE'ers going "NUH UH EVIDENCE DON'T REAL", and it's really quite embarrassing.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 12:09:13 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?!")

I can't quite work out which is the most tragic, insisting that the 7 foot multi millionaire has been bullied into retraction or Sexpest trying to come across as king cool.
Both of these happen on a daily basis, so I would describe neither as "tragic".

Or, maybe you guys just didn't know the character of Shaq really well and jumped the gun on bragging about his support.
I'm fairly familiar with Shaq and this was quite obviously out of character for him. The media (who follow him quite closely) have pointed out this much, too. But hey, something something if it makes your life easier, right?

I'm telling you though, you got played. Period.
Dude, saying "period!!!!" as the be-all-end-all of a conversation is so outdated. You should be saying "*drops mic*" these days. It will make you seem more right, especially if you're just presenting baseless claims.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: March 23, 2017, 08:41:22 PM »
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.
Why would you say something like that while simultaneously attaching a picture in which you, personally, circled several beaches that work within your blue oval?

Mostly though, what I’m saying is this ‘doctorate’ of his gains him zero insight into the shape of the earth.  No more than it would gain him insight into the events of 9/11, the efficacy of vaccines, the fate of D. B. Cooper, or the identity of Nicole Brown Simpson’s real killer.  It's fine for him to have opinions on these matters, it's fine for him to talk about those opinions, it's fine that you agree with him.  His degree is irrelevant to any of it, is what I'm saying.
A lot of what he said had to do with how people are being deceived - that is very relevant to his doctorate. In fact, the substance of what he says about FET is minimal - he doesn't say much more than "yeah, it's flat, it looks flat". The public deception bit is where his expertise comes into play.

Start listening at 9:30:
I'm late to the party, but: Thanks! I've posted an announcement (which will show up on our homepage, as per usual) and shared it on our social media.

Announcements / Dr Shaquille O' Neal joins the Flat Earth movement!
« on: March 20, 2017, 02:44:08 PM »
The one and only Shaq has just joined the Flat Earth fight! Dr O' Neal, who most likely does not need a lengthy introduction here, has recently voiced his support for the Flat Earth Theory after he was questioned on Kyrie Irving's beliefs.

You can listen to the full podcast here. The Flat Earth discussion starts around the 9:20 mark.

Theoretically, if you were high enough , had a powerful enough telescope, and filters or other means to penetrate the "atmoplane" (and they do exist) you should be able to see the "ice wall" from any place on earth ......if the earth was flat.
This is incorrect for more reasons than I care to list. Would you mind explaining why you think this might be the case?

I do find some portions of the flat earth claim to breach their own Zetetic demands.  How can Zetetic scientist believe in a dome they have never touched and a an ice wall they have never seen?   Isn't the Zetetic demand that one must observe it to embrace it?
I can only speak for myself, but: I have witnessed the Ice Wall, and I do not believe in the Firmament. The latter is not a particularly common belief.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2017 Dutch general election
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:40:04 PM »
Except that that is exactly what happened. They had 15 seats, and now they have 20. The voters who gained them those 5 extra seats must have voted for other parties in the last election (or not been of voting age, but that's improbable given that PVV is more popular among older demographics).
Oh, we're changing subjects now? I guess that's an improvement.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:39:06 PM »
lol i bet it's because she hates germany
Or maybe she just has a resting bitch face.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2017 Dutch general election
« on: March 18, 2017, 12:17:03 PM »
Putting it in those terms makes it sound much more plausible that Rutte's actions may have saved himself some PVV-curious votes, don't you think?
Yes, which is why I'm opposing putting it in those terms. Misrepresenting what happened to make it sound like what you want it to be is not OK

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 18, 2017, 11:28:20 AM »
Hey, that's pretty much the same reaction she's had to the German flag.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2017 Dutch general election
« on: March 18, 2017, 11:26:05 AM »
The only way it makes sense to consider the PVV voters who jumped ship for VVD as their "core electorate" is if all 13% of Dutch voters who voted for PVV were fence-sitters.
It's also possible that I was referring to a substantial part of the electorate rather than implying that literally everyone who supported PVV voted not-PVV, but I understand that you're working with a shortage of good arguments to support your side, so your resorting to shitposting is fair enough.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144  Next >