2001

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM »

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow? 

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

2002

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM »

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

He didn't say anything about rights. Trump said that he thinks its okay and to take it if I want to. And if I don't want to he agrees with me.

Which part of

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it"

Are you confused about? Yes, he agrees you have a right not to. Again, so do I. But his recommendation about what you should do is clear.
Let me know if you get any side effects.

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

2003

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2021, 09:14:13 AM »

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

He didn't say anything about being within rights. Trump said that he thinks its okay and to take it if I want to. And if I don't want to he agrees with me.

2004

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2021, 09:09:00 AM »

Well this is going to be a bit of a dilemma for Tom...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56424614

Former US President Donald Trump has urged his Republican supporters to be vaccinated against Covid-19, saying he would recommend it.
In a TV interview, he said the vaccine was "safe" and "something that works".

Actually Trump said that he that he also agreed with the people who didn't want to take it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/politics/donald-trump-covid-19-vaccine/index.html

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly," Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "But again," he continued, "we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

2005

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: March 16, 2021, 01:28:23 AM »

I don't need to argue it. You can see it for yourself, IF you align yourself at the same angle to the nearer globe and to the Moon. If you deliberately move around or align yourself at an angle to the nearer globe which is not the same as that to the Moon, you're defeating the whole point.

The above graphics showed your argument to be meaningless. The experiment does not distinguish between something tilted upwards upon the surface of a sphere or something that is being tilted upwards by perspective.

Your graphic moves the camera/observer to two points on opposite sides of your sphere. You cannot do this in real life, so what relevance does your example have?

Actually you can hold an object up to the Moon and get to the other side of the object from the Moon. That's exactly what you asked us to do when you told us to hold the ball up to the Moon.

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not.

Yes. But that isn’t how light behaves.
It’s not how light behaves in RE (light travels in straight lines) or in FE (EA makes light bends upwards.

If you’re looking from the right and the right hand I is the string then sure, the light could be going in a straight I parallel. It could really going in a C shape away from you, or even a crazy S shape:

S C I    I  <— Tom

These are all possible and would align with the string, but only one of them matches how we understand light to behave.

Matching directions alone is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless. It demonstrates that there is a straight line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator which points at the sun, contrary to how it appears. It “breaks” the optical illusion where there is an apparent mismatch.

The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism. The method you provide with the ball is unable to distinguish between the two.

Since you posted "Yes", you acknowledge that this is a faulty experiment which proves nothing.

2006

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: March 15, 2021, 06:22:31 PM »

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?

It shows where the object is pointing and how it changes orientation to perspective.

2007

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: March 15, 2021, 05:42:26 PM »

For info, Tom's photos and commentary from #90 above have been reposted and locked from comment in FE Projects;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

Have you come to a conclusion, Tom? Do you see how the whole point of the exercise is not to move the camera around with respect to the nearer globe, but to align it with the line connecting the nearer and farther globes?

You are arguing that if you align the ball with the Moon that it will point in the same direction. But this perspective effect also points in the same direction as direction at the directions on the outside surface of a sphere.

Below we have an orange cone which points horizontally and purple cones which follow the directions of the circle (representing part of a celestial sphere) around the orange cone, which are angled at +45 or -45 degrees in relation to the vertical.



The following are from Views 1 (Red Pointer) and 2 (Yellow Pointer):



Next we rotate the entire mechanism on its horizontal axis, 45 degrees to the right in relation to vertical:



From the views of the Red and Yellow pointers we again see that the middle cone points in the same direction as the cones on the outside of the circle:



The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

2008

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 12, 2021, 11:43:43 AM »

Me: Biden Bad

You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.

No. Once more for the hard of thinking:

You: Biden Bad

Me: 1) Biden not bad. 2) You are a hypocrite saying Biden Bad when you have spent 4 years saying Trump Good when he does the exact same things and worse.

See? Two separate points. I don't know how to make this clearer.

The problem is that you should have stopped at 1. In a discussion on Prince Andrew you don't need to justify Prince Andrew's alleged pedophilia by pointing out the famous pedophiles and criminal child abusers you think exist in America and the 'hyprocracy' of criticizing Prince Andrew. That's basically accepting the arguments against Prince Andrew and justifying his criminal behavior.

2009

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 12, 2021, 11:28:03 AM »

If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

Why are you ignoring my post where I clearly explained this? There are two separate points.
The first is that none of us find Biden an embarrassment.
The second "but Trump" point exposes your hypocrisy.

This is not difficult to understand.

Me: Biden Bad

You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.

In this argument you are accepting the argument that Biden Bad and try to counter it with something about Trump Bad. If Biden Bad had no merit you would have countered that I was wrong about what what he actually said, misinterpreted context, etc. This was not even attempted. You accepted the argument and went directly to Trump Bad.

2010

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 12, 2021, 04:17:12 AM »

It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.

What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."

Actions speak louder than words. If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.

I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.

If I were arguing this I wouldn't argue "But Biden". That would be conceding that there might be something to be embarrassed about. I would probably call into question your competency in determining context, because it was "There is clearly significant evidence of fraud. You only need to legally establish xx number of votes. You must be either incompetent or compromised because you are not doing your job."

2011

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2021, 04:55:50 AM »

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?

That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.

If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.

The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.

2012

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2021, 02:59:44 AM »

What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

Or the accuser is incorrect.

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did. The argument was "But Trump." 

2013

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2021, 02:49:51 AM »

What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you murdered someone, or that it looks like you murdered someone. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

2014

Flat Earth Projects / Bay Area California 02-21-21 "Ball Experiment" Test

« on: March 11, 2021, 02:34:16 AM »

I am reposting my observation here for posterity and reference regarding the Moon Tilt Illusion.

On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 1:

I placed the ball on a post along the side of a road. The sun was shining from a horizontal direction. The ball is half lit.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/6AMa1fZ.jpg



Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg



Image 3:

From a position front of the ball, with our back to sun, we can see that the illuminated portion of the Moon pointing upwards in the background. See Full Size for detail.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/yXGCLyR.jpg



Image 4:

Closeup of the Moon in the background, while zooming in the device created a digital leveling tool on the screen to help ensure the device was level. Compare the orientation to the Moon in the Full Size Image 3 above.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg



Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg



Another version of the Tilt - https://i.imgur.com/n1cYCrS.jpg

Image 6:

Finally, I turned the device and placed the ball across the screen from the sun on a wide frame. The illuminated portion pointed at the Sun.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/BNazZl6.jpg

2015

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: March 11, 2021, 12:17:20 AM »

2016

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 10, 2021, 10:23:04 PM »

Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment

Why would someone need to justify Biden's behavior if they didn't think it was embarrassing? Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.

2017

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 10, 2021, 09:51:04 PM »

Crown Prince of Whataboutism

Nope. You guys are the ones here desperate to try to talk about Trump when Joe Biden embarrasses himself.

It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment and need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something. It is a pretty pathetic defense if you have to implicitly concede that Joe Biden is an embarrassment in your argument.

2018

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: March 10, 2021, 06:21:52 PM »

On light bending, look into what Dr. Edward Dowdye has to say: https://sciencewoke.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/

2019

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 09, 2021, 09:53:33 PM »

By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.

Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.

The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.

Are you next going to justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?

2020

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 09, 2021, 09:29:54 PM »

Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.