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 ... 152  Next >
The wiki doesn't answer to this particular question, the distance between the sun and the earth, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

SexWarrior: as you clearly are a supporter of the flat theory and follow this thread, could you please confirm, question or deny İntikam's claim that the dome prevents us from doing proper measurements – at least those that are based on the assumption that the light travels in straight paths? (I know that this is not exactly a correct assumption because of reflection and refraction, but I believe that concerning this particular topic it is approximately good enough.)
I would start off by warning you about taking Intikam too seriously: he believes he's immortal and that the Illuminati time travellers are out to get him.

With that out of the way, I personally do not believe in a dome/firmament, so naturally I would deny his assertion.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:09:57 AM »
Excellent counterarguments, guys. Almost as convincing as SexWarrior's bulletproof debunking of the Trump-Russian connection by repeating the word "meme."
Oh, diddums, are you still upset about your conspiwacy theowy not being all that popular?

b-but the emails guys right haha? right? the emails thing justifies my bush-did-9/11-level stuff somehow yes???

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 26, 2017, 08:45:35 PM »
You wrote it with your own words, then that means you know the answer to his question. Why twist it around? He's just asking a what happens to the sun, not where he can find the answer.
Sorry, we don't make exceptions for lazy people. If we start re-explaining the FAQ to one person, then everyone else will rush here with already-answered questions. There's a reason virtually every subject in the modern world comes with an FAQ, and there's always a drove of entitled assholes who think they don't need to read it. I have zero sympathy for these sort of snowflakes.

but when someone use the arguments in the wiki against you and then you say "Yeah, but that's what the wiki says, not me" or "thee wiki is quite outdated". Is just a full circle of not commiting to anything.
I just ran a search for the words "wiki" and "outdated" on my own posts. I only found one, in which I'm calling someone else's Wiki outdated. Naturally, this post is now going to become the second result for future searches. I'm a big fan of correcting the Wiki when it's wrong (although I'm sure some will be eager to tell you that sometimes I take my sweet time to get round to it)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:17:48 PM »
BREAKING: Trump uses 3-ply toilet paper, but the rest of the White House is only stocked with 2-ply.

Announcements is not the right place for this discussion. Please see this thread, where your issue has already been raised and discussed:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 26, 2017, 03:59:36 PM »
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words
That's brilliant. Unfortunately, debating the very basics over and over is particularly uninteresting, especially when people ask the same question multiple times a day. That's why we wrote our own words down in the FAQ. It is expected of you that you will read it before engaging in discussions here. If you choose not to do that, well, that's on you, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than geckothegeek

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:52:52 PM »
just a simple question needing a simple answer
Isn't it convenient that the answer has already been given to you in a public document which you're expected to read before posting?

Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:30:07 PM »

Your illustration is misrepresentative and largely meaningless. The Sun never sinks below the Earth. Please at least read the FAQ before trying to argue.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You'll always find a way to discredit someone with an appeal to authority. Meanwhile, we will continue to welcome people with Doctorates of Education who talk about anti-FE deception in education.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Freakin' Roofways
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:17:02 PM »
To be fair, the prototype in Iowa seems to be doing well in the square.
Does it? What is your measure of success here?

It barely generates any electricity at all. The installation keeps breaking even in the relatively mild conditions that the test installation is exposed to, and the whole installation caught fire at least once.

What they promise is impossible from a technical point of view - they simply can't generate enough electricity to power sufficiently bright LEDs for the road markings to be seen during the day (that's why the Idaho installation uses relatively dim ones), let alone heat the road; and the engineering behind the idea is really shit.

You can see a live feed from the installation here. Try to catch a glimpse when it's not in the shade. And when the bloody thing isn't on fire. Live energy generation stats are available here. Over the past 2 months, the peak appears to be 1.30KWh.

They keep telling us they're doing well, but they really, really aren't.

"I do not go up and down a 360 degree angle" - are you quite sure you want this on your front page?   It does rather convey a tone of complete nonsensicality that you might want to avoid.
If you listen to the context of the debate, it's not surprising that his speech was a bit chaotic. It doesn't take away from the message he's sending.

(His doctorate is in Human Resources Development...not a strong math/physics requirement on that course, I suspect!)
He holds a Doctorate of Education. Whether or not you like his subject field is of very little significance.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 26, 2017, 06:27:34 AM »

This is just embarrassing.
Finally, we can confirm that Trump is racist. After all, this was the Prime Minister of Montenegro

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 25, 2017, 07:27:21 PM »
I've no idea how Trump's visits are going but haven't heard anything too bad so yay for that.
Oh boy you've missed out.

And also:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physical Proof...
« on: May 25, 2017, 11:59:34 AM »
What can explain the fact that there are different shadows around the world at different times?
Different how?

In addition, doesn't the fact that the mast of a ship appears first disprove flat earth?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Freakin' Roofways
« on: May 24, 2017, 02:21:26 PM »
At least this doesn't involve parking your car on top of the solar panels and doesn't claim to break thermodynamics by producing enough electricity to be useful and light up a fuckton of bright LEDs and heat your driveway so it never freezes over again.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 24, 2017, 01:29:04 PM »
Okay, first of all, and I'm going to go a bit off-topic here - you're not being true to yourself here. You're willing to set aside your moral reservations to analyze Trump's lewd comments and defend them as not being as incriminating as many people thought, but you'll sit back and act like a tu quoque argument aimed at Hillary's husband somehow implicates Hillary herself? I know you too well for this. Admit it, you don't think it's fair to criticize Hillary for Bill's behavior. You pride yourself on your rationalism far too much to let your political preferences override it.
You're completely right, except it was never my intention to claim that Trump's retaliation there was sound or in any way justifiable. Rama's pretty much nailed it - all I meant to convey was that the retaliation worked, not that it was morally right. For the record, both "grab 'em by the pussy" and "lol Bill is a rapist y'all" incidents are pure sensationalism that should have no place in public debate.

Second of all, at least this gave Trump time to respond, to fight back, to recover from a scandal that many believed at the time to be fatal to his campaign. Releasing the tape just one or two days before the election, letting people vote while the tape was still sinking in and Trump was still reeling in response, would have been a far better strategy for manipulating the vote, something that the media absolutely would have known.
I honestly think that's a sign of incompetence rather than any moral superiority.

A second batch of DNC emails were released the day before the election, and the Podesta emails (which I had been thinking of mainly, but mixed them up with the DNC emails in my mind, sorry), were released in installments every day until the election
Fair enough, I can accept that that was likely a strategic move on WikiLeaks' part. I would still be interested in learning when the e-mails were obtained and thus how long they actually "sat on" the data.

But even though I'm not as convinced as I initially was, I still think my original point stands: Both sides resorted to unethical reporting in an attempt at swaying the vote. That appears to just be normal in American politics. I'm genuinely uncertain why whether or not this sort of behaviour is okay varies depending on who's doing it. For example, CNN was trying to use the very same leaks to bolster their own agenda, telling people that it's okay when reporters look at leaks, but not okay when the everyday Joe does.

Everyone wants to control the narrative. And now that the "bad guys" seemingly managed it, it's suddenly a bad thing. I don't get it. Either we hold people to ethical standards in reporting and journalism or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:15:31 AM »
It's harmful because it's manipulative. There's a world of difference between a media outlet publishing the news as it arrives and a media outlet carefully hoarding information until it's close to an election, then strategically releasing it in a schedule designed to browbeat the public into electing one particular candidate over another with maximum efficiency.
Do you think the mainstream media don't normally strategise their coverage of politics? That seems to fly in the face of the fact that most American media are extremely partisan. They all carefully select what to report and when, don't they?

Can you imagine if the media had sat on the "Grab them by the pussy" video until one or two days before the election, counting on the shock value to cost Trump the vote? You and Rushy would have furiously protested, and rightfully so.
Sorry, but I disagree in multiple ways:

I recall protesting that one regardless of the timing, because it bore no substance, in my opinion. To me, it was sensationalist drivel. Saying that you can get rapey with woman when you're rich and famous is not evidence that he did get rapey. I'm consistently a fan of due process - I generally won't accept that Trump (or anyone else!) is guilty of anything until the accusation has been properly dealt with. And, in this case, I believe no one even levelled an accusation.

Also, it was a tape from many years ago that was conveniently released just before a debate. The timing was obviously deliberate. It ended up backfiring because Trump turned it around on Bill Clinton (by presenting people actually willing to accuse him).

Also, the "Grab them by the pussy" story ran in October 2016. The DNC leaks were published in July 2016. Of these two, which one was timed closer to the actual election (November 2016)? Honestly, the more I look into it, the more it sounds like they did sit on the story until just before the election. I don't know when the DNC attack took place (as opposed to when the data was published), so I can't comment on that one.

EDIT: Looking at the stolen e-mails, the most recent ones were from 25th May 2016. Assuming the actual data mining took place at that time, that gives us a 2-month turnaround, which is not unreasonable given the amount of data.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 152  Next >