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 ... 160  Next >
1
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Shots Fired at republicans!
« on: July 24, 2017, 09:07:20 AM »
Right. In a hypothetical scenario where non-violent Islamist extremists tried to take over, I'd agree with you.

3
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.

as well as a constant angular size for the sun
Once again, I already replied - there's a whole article about that in the Wiki. What is it with you and failing to read the basics?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA sociopathic organisation?
« on: July 22, 2017, 12:27:00 PM »
Why did you deleted my entire post, when you could of just deleted the picture that you didn't like. Didn't you see I was conversating with some buddy? Don't you know it's rude to interpose?
Just a friendly suggestion: You may want to start following the rules. This thread is not the place to discuss how upset you may feel about having been moderated.

5
Just in it for the lols: I've already criticised you for nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry. It would help if you tried responding to your debate counterparts. Repeating your error over and over again does not make your argument any more convincing.
Gecko: Yes, we know you think the Earth is round, you've said it about 1027 times at this point.

6
Announcements / Condemnation of a recent act of vandalism in PA
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:25:58 PM »
It's been brought to our attention that some members of the wider Flat Earth community have engaged in an act of vandalism in a community park in Erie, Pennsylvania. Benches and trees were spray-painted on. While we do not believe that the perpetrators had any affiliation with the Flat Earth Society specifically, we do believe that it merits a response.

To be completely clear, the Flat Earth Society is appalled to hear that there are people in our community who would willfully damage public property. We understand people's enthusiasm to spread the message, but this is not the right way to go about it. Firstly, it does not help our cause - people do not see kindly to vandalism, and our likely to be left with a bitter taste in their mouths after seeing something like this. Secondly, we believe that public property commands a certain degree of respect and dignity from those who make us of it. If we don't all take responsibility for spaces like this, who will?

By all means, please continue educating people on the Earth's shape. Do encourage them to research it and formulate their own opinions. But please, do so in ways that do not harm the community around us. Let's do better than this.


7
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 21, 2017, 12:10:52 PM »
I'm only bringing this up as a criticism of your judgment and supposed objectivity, not a rebuttal of your claims here.
I've never claimed to be objective. That would be a stupid thing for me to say. At best, I can argue that I'm non-partisan, but even that would be a stretch since I have a mild preference for non-Trumpian Republican these days.

And on that note, let's see here...one Democratic congressman called for Trump's impeachment, and another called for his legislation to be stalled pending the results of the investigation.
Oh noes, I recalled a couple of examples to respond to a very specific point instead of re-running us through weeks and weeks of a debate that's already been held. I bet that makes me wrong somehow!

That's you. And you know that's you
Lordy, lordy. Saddam, your melodrama aside (nice projection btw keep it up), this is a very simple issue. You've posted crazy shit from crazy people. You got mocked for it. You then pretended that you only supported the somewhat reasonable side of the Democratic inquiry. You weren't allowed to run away with it, so now you're screaming gaslighting (no, that's not melodrama or exaggeration, you literally said it on IRC, using that specific word) and accusing me of designing "escape hatches" (happened here, you've quoted it yourself in the post I'm replying to) so I can make myself sound like I'm always right. So, again, take a deep breath and think to yourself: Do you honestly think that I would waste my time to do any of that? Do you think others (primarily on IRC, I'll admit) would perpetuate it by treating you like the laughing stock you are? Previously you've accused Parsifal of being the leader of some sort of bandwagon against you, now you're just pretending that the others don't exist and that it's all me. I don't really know how to respond to this level of delusion.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Shots Fired at republicans!
« on: July 21, 2017, 12:00:37 PM »
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
That worked well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it?

10
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.

This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.

stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.

Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".

Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.

3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.

Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.

Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:


11
I already replied to the UA. Go up 10k ft, and with precise enough instruments, the rate at which objects fall would be less than what you would expect at sea level. Hell, "g" also changes with location, since the earth isn't uniform and the value of "g" is less at the equator due to Earth's spin. If we took in account of this made up "UA", then the value of "g" should be CONSTANT. It ISN'T.
No, it shouldn't. The heavens have a slight gravitational pull, which is not uniform.

If only you had read the basics before making a numpty out of yourself!

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 21, 2017, 10:01:31 AM »
This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
In order to convince me that it applies to all kinds of mass, please prove that it applies to bananas. Since you've just said it should be easy, I'm sure this will cause you no trouble whatsoever.

13
Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? No one here is a proponent of this density model. I think you have the wrong forum.
Looking at his other thread, it doesn't look like he's bothered to even read the basics. It's quite sad.

14
1. You have chosen to ignore Electromagnetic Acceleration and instead assume that light travels in a straight path. Your argument is valid, but you're not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory, but rather a strawman that you've invented by yourself.
2. Again, EA is not refraction.
3. It appears that you've assumed Cartesian co-ordinates when calculating the supposed Flat Earth distance. Again, not strictly a faulty argument, but you're attacking something different from FET.

Conclusion: If you make up a theory that's designed to fail, it will be easy for you to show how it fails.

16
I notice that people are getting banned from this forum for posting low-content
It happens very rarely.

however I also notice that some other people who post low-content don't get any bans. Is it because the rules apply to some and it does not apply to others?
No, it's because the rules are designed in such a way that a ban is an absolute last resort. If you have a look at the rule in question, you will notice that it is explicitly quite lax:

Quote
6. Avoid including material which does not contribute to the point you are making

This is a fairly vague rule, and as such, it will not be strictly enforced on a per-post basis. Rather, members who repeatedly make posts with a large amount of extraneous material will be asked to stop, and if they fail to do so, given a warning. After no less than three warnings for this offence, members may be restricted from posting in certain fora in order to prevent their verbosity from cluttering up debate threads.

Most people get warned a few times and then cut it out. Others get warned and choose to take it as a challenge. If you look, for example, at neutrino's recent posts (no idea why I'm bringing him up in particular, clearly just a random selection on my part), you will notice that he is not a contributive member who occasionally makes the odd off-topic quip. Most of the stuff he says is off-topic quips, and when the offending threads get moved to an appropriate forum, he just creates new ones.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fake Photo Fest
« on: July 18, 2017, 08:51:46 AM »
In this set of images I took the same picture twice; once with the ball focused and once with the background focused.  Neither picture captures a clear image of the ball and the surroundings.  But when I make a composite of the two photos I get a focused background and ball.  In some places around the ball I left a bit of a fuzzy halo and a little transparency on one of the fingertips.

To me this demonstrates that a composite picture doesn't have to be fake, or an invalid representation of reality.  In some ways it is a better representation of reality than what my camera can do in one picture.  Even though it is modified, it isn't a deception; it is an enhancement.  It is still a true representation even if it isn't raw. 

This is what I believe to be the case with the NASA composite photos of the Earth.  They are a collage of real photos, made composite with the edges smoothed out or sharpened, or the colors adjusted.  Yes, NASA altered the end image, but they didn't change the Earth from a flat disc to a globe.  The composite image still show a good representation of reality.
Why not just adjust the width of your aperture? Any amateur photographer would be able to capture this in one shot. Bring the right tool to do the job. This excuse is particularly poor for an organisation the size of NASA.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2017, 08:15:33 AM »
which interestingly fit your complaints far more than the current situation does
That's just, like, your opinion, man. But can I see those examples of Republicans Congressmen trying to shut down government over Benghazi? I'm not too familiar with that time period.

But let's say you're right. A bad thing happened in the past and Republicans were doing evil shit with it. I think that's terrible, the worst, believe me; but it also seems that it's firmly in the past. Even if what they were doing was worse, how does that affect the fact that what the Democrats are doing right now is shit?

Do we have to talk about every bad thing in the past before we're allowed to complain about the present? If so, you're no longer allowed to complain about Trump, because the Holocaust happened.

This question is related, but distinct from my previous one. If you wouldn't mind answering both, that'd be great
And what is it with the constant "Oh boo-hoo but the other meanies did it too" mentality, anyway? Are you unable to discuss the criticism of your own camp for a few minutes without making it about someone else?

No, not when it's accompanied by comments about this being "the reason Democrats are tumbling into obscurity" and the like. You're just tossing quick disclaimers into your posts again so you have an escape hatch if someone raises a point you're not willing to argue based on its merits. It's the coward's debate method.
Saddam, take a deep breath and think about the things you're saying about me. When I'm pointing out that you were wrong in the past, I'm not just doing that. I'm "gaslighting" you. When I argue that the Democrats' actions are hugely hurting their popularity (we've observed this in recent elections, we know it's happening) while simultaneously agreeing that Republicans fucked up similarly in the past, I'm just creating "escape hatches". Nothing I say has a simple meaning. It's clearly all a conspiracy, and one only you can crack.

Saddam, do you really think I'm some sort of shady schemer, devising intricate plans to "win" the Trump thread on FES? Could it be that I'm just a foreign guy with perspectives on politics which are vastly different from yours? Could it be that while I don't support Trump, I'm also strongly opposed to how the Democrats are trying (and failing - again, we've observed this!) to deal with him?

Could it be that the things I'm saying are just that? No hidden layers, no mystical secrets, no long-term planning? Because, honestly, that is exactly what it is - casual opinions without too much thought going into them. Try to be less paranoid. You'll feel better about things then.

19
2. Does knowing an archaic language from some family help with learning modern languages from that family?
For example, I've heard that, if you know Old Church Slavonic, you can basically understand all Slavic languages. Is that true?
It's kinda true, but knowing a modern Slavic language would yield much better results.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 15, 2017, 10:25:48 PM »
Ladies and gentlemen, SexWarrior!
Yeah, how very dare I expect people to respond to irony appropriately?

[Cue very serious responses to above question]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 160  Next >