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 - Roundy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 8values
« on: Today at 02:58:12 AM »

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 04:36:28 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.

3
Thank you for being a disgrace to the human species.

I see my advice has been wasted. Very well, you can have the week-long ban you were promised.

How dictatorial, authoritarian, and dystopian of you.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 16, 2017, 04:24:31 PM »
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread.  Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof.  Look at the equinox thread thread that I started.  TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox.  He required data from every place on the earth.  He disregarded link after link that showed my claim. 

If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence.  I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots.  If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.

You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.

If we could confine things to what's happening in this thread and the people commenting in this thread, it would be swell.  Whatever Tom demanded of you in another thread is irrelevant.  Is Tom even in this thread anywhere?  You are free to stop taking Tom seriously if he really makes a demand of you that doesn't make sense; it is your prerogative; we fucking all do from time to time.  Similarly, if you are going to demand something that is blatantly impossible, why shouldn't we conclude that you've stopped taking the subject seriously?  What kind of response is that supposed to engender?  Ridicule for making such a dumb request is the only thing that makes sense.  If you want to give up on the debate that's fine, believe it or not you can do so without conceding that you are wrong, that's also your prerogative.

But if you and your cohort are going to demand something so dumb, a response like the one I just gave you is the only one you can reasonably expect.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 16, 2017, 02:24:56 AM »
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth map is wrong
« on: April 14, 2017, 06:22:56 AM »
Can you ever really be sure what intikam is saying?

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 14, 2017, 04:32:22 AM »
Look at the full quote. It is entirely clear that he is talking about warfare:

Well... yeah.  I acknowledged that.
I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment.

I don't think he was intentionally insulting millions of Jews.  Insensitivity doesn't have to be intentional. 

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 14, 2017, 02:19:20 AM »
It's actually pretty obvious what he was saying. Spicer said that even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He is saying that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as a method of warfare like Syria is doing. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in the battlefield against the Allies, or against their cities, which is a much discussed topic among military historians, as their use could have altered the outcome of the war. This is clearly what Spicer is referencing.

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all. The gas used in the Holocaust is used under a different context to what Syria is doing; the execution of prisoners (however unjust), not a weapon of warfare. It is transparent and ignorant that liberals would nitpick to that level, asserting that  the comments are insensitive, some even comparing it to Holocaust denial.

That's the tactic: to create outrage where there is none, to take something entirely reasonable and innocuous and blow it out of proportion and give it hidden meanings. Pathetic.

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment. 

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 13, 2017, 07:10:40 PM »
He's bluffing. What he's threatening to do will actually result in less uninsured than the bill he wants them to approve. It makes no sense. If I was a Dem in Congress I'd be like lol, k.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 12, 2017, 10:31:53 PM »
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.

You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2017, 06:05:38 PM »
Quote
And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!

What created God?

12
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Introduction Page - comments wanted
« on: April 10, 2017, 04:59:24 AM »
To be perfectly honest, its simply what I learned in the process of getting my degree in History. I DO have a degree in Philosophy, and I AM aware that different disciplines do vary in their styles. History and Philosophy vary in the way in which one cites "footnotes", for example. In History, one literally uses footnotes, or if absolutely necessary, endnotes, although this latter is discouraged. In Philosophy, one uses parenthetical notation. As far as citing titles of books, AFAIK, both disciplines underline them.

I don't think you will get your head ripped off for using italics, but in my experience, they are more commonly used for things like the proper names of ships and the like. Simply my input, based on my own academic  experience. Just trying to help.

Don't mean to undermine your expertise, it's just that I googled "underline book titles" and got back a bunch of results talking about how the proper thing to do is to put book titles in italics.

13
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Introduction Page - comments wanted
« on: April 10, 2017, 03:57:09 AM »
USUALLY a book title is indicated by underlining it, but italics is permitted. Quoting it is also allowed by some authorities. The best option would be to underline it.

What authority says underlining is preferable to italics?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 02:27:58 AM »
Definitely hypocritical.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 08, 2017, 08:34:53 PM »
Watch, he'll ban me without responding to the question.

I probably would.  There is an appropriate place to address issues with moderation, and there's a reason it's against the rules to do so within the middle of a thread.  Although if your only issue is that he didn't contribute to the discussion it's far from a valid concern.  As a moderator it's his duty to moderate appropriately whether he has something relevant to contribute to a thread or not.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« on: April 08, 2017, 01:19:50 AM »
in our gigantic expanding universe is the possibility that life emerged and is thriving in one form or another on other celestial bodies by the thousands, or millions, is far fetched?

Because if I don't believe in a God or anything divine, but submit to science and the discoveries we continuously make about our universe, that these results aren't a hoax, that the earth is in fact a globe, there's a high probability this is the case.

This seems like a bold assertion to me.  Can you show the math that leads to this conclusion?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor
« on: April 07, 2017, 05:29:06 PM »


For someone with an impressive list of mental skills, you sure know how to contradict yourself in an astonishingly short space of time.

Line one; “I also think it's lazy to assume the simplest explanation to be correct,”.

Line 4: “what we see is a Flat Earth.  What's the simplest explanation for this?  Eh? “from which you feel vindicated in not responding to a much more consistently and better argued list of points, almost as if you didn’t know what else to say.

Yes, I can see how you might think I was contradicting myself, but obviously I don't think it's actually that simple.  I was merely playing the game to show that even if he is correct in his faith in Occam's Razor he is incorrect in his interpretation of that (mostly worthless) principle anyway, and must conclude that the Earth is flat.*

Quote
And how you conclude that the conspiracy is a non-issue with no relevance, when without one, the whole flat earth nonsense crumbles, as we have satellites, space travel and bases in Antarctica, is beyond me.

I have explained my position in the past.  None of these things is impossible with a flat Earth.

*You can compare Kant's A Critique Of Pure Reason for a similar tactic.  In it he makes what appear to be cogent arguments for two contradicting metaphysical positions side-by-side.  In neither case is he actually trying to prove the position, he is merely trying to demonstrate the futility of using reason to prove a metaphysical position.  This type of thing is actually very common in philosophical discourse.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor
« on: April 07, 2017, 07:17:02 AM »
But it should remain that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct, as Occam's razor would suggest. Conspiracy aside, very few explanations I see on here fit with that.

I disagree with both statements.  I also think it's lazy to assume the simplest explanation to be correct, Occam's Razor be damned.  If it was that simple, we'd have it all figured out by now.

As for the second part, I refute it thus.  As regards the appearance of the shape of the Earth and the appearance of the shape of the Earth only, what we see is a Flat Earth.  What's the simplest explanation for this?  Eh?  Remember, we are discussing the appearance of the shape of the Earth only.  Do you see?

So I'm sure you recognize why the rest of your post is rather meaningless in the final analysis, and why I don't really feel compelled to respond to any of it.

Although I will say for the record and as I have said before that I am skeptical about the existence of the Conspiracy, myself, for pretty much the reasons REers cite against it.  I don't believe it has any relevance to the shape of the Earth itself.  To me the Conspiracy is fun to speculate about but really a nonissue.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor
« on: April 07, 2017, 02:58:28 AM »
Very in depth answer... hahaha.
"Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions."
Literally everything you say about a flat earth is an assumption because there is no actual evidence...

Don't expect much from these people, they do after all think the earth is flat.

It's empirical that the earth is flat. It takes spacious ancient Greek reasoning and appeals to authority to justify a round one.
Show me empirical evidence of a flat earth then that round earth doesn't explain. Show me empirical evidence of a flat earth that is as accurate and verifiable as the round earth explanation would be.

We don't have to, because it is the clear conclusion based on the observational evidence.  It's up to you guys to prove us wrong.  Also, I'm sorry, but just the fact that something can explain something doesn't mean it does explain it.  Besides being an illogical argument, it's just lazy.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth interrogation
« on: April 06, 2017, 01:51:23 AM »
Not sure, but were you questioning  the fact that the way to measure the distance was based on the earth being round ?

I didn't question anything that you said.  I'm sure that's what your lookouts think they were based on (i.e. that it's what your formula is ostensibly predicated on).  You say quite clearly "the lookouts compare their estimates of distances with those on the radars", thus highlighting the point that the formula wouldn't be trustworthy if it wasn't demonstrated empirically.  That was precisely the point I made in the post of mine that the statement was in response to. 

This doesn't seem to address my question about what you misunderstood in my explanation of how to get such a result empirically and free of dependence on a round Earth.  I recognize that I'm a lot more intelligent than the vast majority of people I come across either on the internet or in real life, so if you need a broader explanation of any specific point to help you along I'd be happy to provide one.  :)

Just don't expect figures and diagrams, lol, because I'm not drawing out something that can be so easily explained verbally.  I'm a philosopher, not an artist.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >