1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Am I right or wrong

« on: February 08, 2018, 12:24:54 AM »

You come to the Flat Earth Society to ask if the Earth is flat?

Are expecting any answer other than yes?

Yes

No one can tell you what to believe, but you can learn how to think critically, empirically, and carefully.

Reason and doubt are your sword and shield. Question everything, even your own conclusions, until you have rigorously ruled out all other possibilities.

Beware of poor reasoning. It helps to familiarize yourself with some common logical fallacies:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Appeal to a lack of contrary evidence

« on: February 07, 2018, 07:47:08 PM »

Consider the following:

"We cannot know how much we do not know, therefore we cannot truly know anything."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why/why not?

Another way to look at this is through the classic "brain-in-a-jar" existential Descartes du jour; "you can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed sensory information, therefore you can't prove that you know anything true and real."

How far do you stray from "I think, therefore I am?" Or, do you not even go that far?

I see the appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance, crop up a lot in the flat earth circles I dwell most often (not including this forum). I wanted to gauge where everyone stands on this philosophical question.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 07, 2018, 07:19:49 PM »

Perhaps Reddit will be better-suited to your needs?

Yoo this is low-key one of the best insults you've served. 5/7

I just want to add that patience is really important in this forum, and that there's no reason for the whole 'why no responses?' bit or the drama in general. And to second starting a new thread, hopefully with cleaner arguments.

I thought six days and 200+ views was patience enough.

Mods, please lock the thread.

You guys are a sensitive bunch. I understand that you don't appreciate my tone, really I do. I just think it's more important to be frank, and forthcoming, than to curtail one's tone or restrain one's speech just to satisfy someone else's sensitivity. I see people use this as an excuse to dismiss legitimate conversation more often than I see myself or anyone else overstepping some critical boundary in etiquette. The way Pete takes it, you would think I had come in here waving my dick around and calling you all a bunch of retards...

How much do I have to tip-toe around someone else's feelings, walking my words on egg-shells, avoiding even the most basic of lighthearted slights, before it's the other person's responsibility to sack up, look past my tone, look past being butt-hurt, and respond to the actual content of the post?

idk, guys

I deal with so much worse than whatever niggling problems Pete or anyone else has with my tone, or my terms, or whatever. I just assume everyone else can let it slide as easily as I do, and just respond to the topic. Sticks and stones, etc. I guess I was wrong to make that assumption.

I'll try to make a more sanitized post. I do so under protest, because I don't think anyone, let alone me, should have to cave to this kind of bullshit, but seeing as we're fitfully derailed, I haven't much other choice if I want to continue the discussion.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 07, 2018, 11:55:07 AM »

I generally consider no response to mean they concede. I think you thoroughly won this one.

Nobody won anything.

Nobody came away from this learning anything.

This is a loss for both parties.

I fucking hate this suspicious space monkey race sometimes.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 07, 2018, 10:07:44 AM »

You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures...

No, see, you're twisting my words already like a smug cunt.

You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."

My only advice was that you not respond IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?

But I was being vague before, so let me be clear: You aren't interested in exchange. You want to lecture. Don't pull this smug, juvenile crap where you take my vague suggestion and turn it around on me. As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.

... and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it.

That's really big of you.

Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick...

Yeah... okay...

Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."

I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.

[...]

Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

That's about as close to my "terms" as I think we can get. Everything else dealt with the assumptions I listed off, which you already said aren't the problem. My "supreme reason-y" terms are the problem, whatever that means.

Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

: l

Am I "supreme reason" yet?

Am I foisting my "terms" upon you?

Or am I instead asking you to chime in if you have a problem with either my reason or my terms?

Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.

> nb4 Pete quotes that and says something smug like "yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way" like a predictable pedant

When at last we finally got into it a little, I even added the following concessions:

What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."

[...]

So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.

All you've done is piss and moan about some vague suggestion that I'm proclaiming myself "supreme reason" and somehow foisting or demanding that it be my way or the highway. Well, for one thing, it's my thread, and for another, if you honestly can't accept terms like "hey, maybe let people ask some follow-up questions," I say again that you have no business in any debate, nevermind this one.

Other than that one request, I've been pretty straightforward, from the get go, that I'm willing to work with the other side until we can hash out a few assumptions and start questioning them.

... you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men.

At least they aren't afraid of answering simple questions.

Like some people.

: \

And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.

Did you just skim past this next part or what?

"Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.

[...]

If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.

Keep spinnin' that yarn, Pete.

And you know what, there may be no one responding, but until you or someone else does respond, I have to assume that neither you nor anyone here can offer a reasonable explanation for the phenomena demonstrated in the OP. Your "supreme reason" criticism doesn't make a lick of sense, and I still maintain that you're attempting to sabotage the discussion by depicting it as illegitimate, until you can summon up the courage of your convictions to show me something different.

Last word's all yours, champ. I ain't got nothin' more to say to you if it's more smug, self-satisfied crap.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 06, 2018, 09:59:17 PM »

I'm not referring to your assumptions. I'm referring to your terms. To discuss your assumptions would be to engage you in the debate you're asking for.

What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."

I disagree, fundamentally, with your objection. I actually want to have a productive dialogue. From where I'm standing, you are attempting to shut down the debate before it can even happen with yet another vain attempt to delegitimize the discussion before it can begin. "Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.

So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.

If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.

EDIT: Also...

Combined with your recent addendum of "I'm only asking so I can show you why you're wrong", it makes for a particularly uninteresting thread.

Pretty sure that defines literally every debate ever. If you find it to be in bad taste when your debate opponent is motivated by a desire to prove their point and disprove yours, then you probably shouldn't engage in debates, ever.

I come in with the expectation that the other person is going to try to disprove my position. It doesn't mean we can't have an honest discussion, cede ground when called for, etc., it just means... that's how a debate works. Excusing yourself on this basis is just poor reasoning.

EDIT: ALSO also...

Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable". Therefore, per your own advice, I will not be responding.

You mean this advice?

I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

Yeah, no, by all means. If you can't accept the possibility that I'm going to ask follow-up questions or object to some things... you know, like an actual debate... then yeah, refrain from responding. Because that's not a debate, that's a lecture.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 05, 2018, 07:48:36 PM »

And, just because I found a much better example, I'mma add this here and in the OP:

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 05, 2018, 06:42:19 PM »

Almost 200 views and a full week. Narry a peep from Team Flat.

Guys, please. Don't just ignore inconvenient data. Address it head on. Give me SOMETHING to respond to, SOME kind of rationale, so I can hopefully show you... why that rationale falls short.

9

Flat Earth Theory / How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: January 30, 2018, 04:30:43 PM »

Hey, guys. How come this?









Expanded:

I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.

If we then assume that the sun and moon are hovering over the flat earth disc, rotating around it like the hands on a clock, then we should be able to make certain predictions about how they would appear to move... at least, that sounds reasonable to me.

Therefore, if we have some idea what the sun and moon do as they rotate around and around above the flat earth... why then do we observe the phenomenon described here?

Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

Regards,



supe

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Oregon FE meetup Sat 27 Jan

« on: January 29, 2018, 06:22:47 PM »

Hey y'all. I know this wasn't my event, but for anyone here who went, I just wanted to offer my encouragement.

I'm a skeptic, granted, but everyone I spoke to was open-minded and willing to have conversation. Even if we disagreed at times, sometimes passionately, I got the sense that both sides remembered that we were both there because we care about what's true.

I feel like some of the sincerity gets lost in translation over a cold, expressionless forum, where tone of voice and facial expression are absent. I feel like people are less willing to accuse you of being dishonest, or dismissing the conversation, when they're speaking to someone who can demonstrate their sincerity live, in person.

I don't agree with the flat earth model, but if you guys can maintain the level of civility and honest, open dialogue that I personally encountered in the four or five conversations I had there, I think we'll come to a consensus sooner or later.

That's all. If anyone else here was there, I'd be interested to get your take on things.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 26, 2018, 04:53:38 PM »

I've been reading around on the forum a bit, and I've noticed a common trend.

The senior Flat Earthers cherry pick what they respond to.  The creator of this topic puts in a lot of effort to thoroughly address everything Tom posts and is genuinely wanting to advance the discussion.  Yet Tom posts very short vague replies which don't address the majority of the topic creator's points, and obviously has no interest in furthering the discussion evident by the lack of replies for 8 days now.

Pete Svarrior rather than contribute to the topic, decides to focus in on the barely relevant car part of the analogy while dismissing later examples that directly show that a shape may not actually be what it appears to the eye

Thank you, that is a succinct and excellent summary.

To be fair, I haven't posted on this forum in over a week, but I been busy. I still owe totallackey a video explanation of a very bad chart that attempts to debunk the round earth model.

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: why would the government want to hide it if the earth was flat?

« on: January 26, 2018, 04:51:39 PM »

Yes I do...

Although let's pretend I meant round as in a disc is round.

I've made this exact same Freudian slip a dozen times. Flat earthers LOOOOVE to pounce on it when it happens... in my experience.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Oregon FE meetup Sat 27 Jan

« on: January 25, 2018, 08:52:01 PM »

Me and a friend are resolved to go. Is anyone else going as well? Just curious who I might expect to run into.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: January 21, 2018, 02:46:05 PM »

I am saying that all of that is just stuff happening and that you listen to it, as if you were watching a movie.

Well, like I said before, it's an interesting thing to think about, but the best information we have right now agrees with the idea that "you" are that "stuff" happening. Everything that makes your consciousness what it is - whether conscious or subconscious - is "you" acting and reacting and so forth. You may not always be 100% in control of everything, you may even find yourself manipulated through one means or another... but that doesn't mean you don't have willpower, and that doesn't mean that "you" aren't in control. All it means is that you don't have complete control, because you're not just a thinking creature, you're an amalgamation of organisms all working towards a common survival mechanism, and that's a much more base, instinctive level of "consciousness." You are no more in control of that aspect of you than you are your own heartbeat - and granted, some people can even control that, to an extent.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 21, 2018, 10:01:20 AM »

What's supposed to be the problem with that picture? It's got two ways to calculate the same number - why is that a problem?

It grows exponentially inaccurate with distance due to the way it measures the angle (θ) between a given two radii. They forgot to convert degrees to radians.

Understanding what that means took me like 30-45 minutes of research, so if you don't understand it, just gimme time to put everything together.

Hi.

I was wondering if you had a chance to put everything together and give us the scoop as to why the measurements are incorrect in the chart I have presented.

Thanks.

lol no

It has kind of evolved into a project now. I already gave you the short version in an above post, and that's enough to get you started if you want to figure it out for yourself. Rest assured, OP will deliver, I just need time.

Sorry lol

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: January 20, 2018, 06:39:33 PM »

It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.

1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.

The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.

Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.

Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.

2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.

I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.

3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.

Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.

I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.

I think this might just be an issue of semantics?
I am very interested in this idea of really seeing nothing. Are there any studies on this you can reference me to?
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "control your conscious mind" because you previously said that you cannot control your subconscious mind, only quiet it, and I'm pretty sure that all things that occur in the conscious mind are based on the subconscious. I can consciously make the decision to meditate and quiet my subconscious, however that conscious decision was based on a subconscious impulse. So, personally, I do not see the mind, conscious or subconscious, as me, because I can only perceive them each happening. I did not decide to write on this forum, the neurons in my brain cycled around, reacted to each other and new information from the outside world, and ended up typing this.

So I do think this is a problem of semantics. I always assumed that willpower meant total control over my body, but I can see how I might need to adjust my definition. Also my definition of who or what "I" am is different than yours. I am talking about the very basis of me, observing everything and having control over none of it.

What I'm saying is that the two respond to each other. It isn't simply a stacking mechanism whereby the subconscious impulses dictate vague subliminal directions to the conscious mind. That's happening, granted, but what I'm saying is that there's a positive feedback mechanism at work here. Just as the subconscious affects the conscious, so too does the conscious affect the subconscious. Does that make more sense?

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: January 19, 2018, 10:33:24 PM »

@supraluminus fMRI appears to show that these decisions that you are saying are willful are actually made before you are aware of it. That could very well mean that these decisions are not as volitional as we suspect. It doesn’t negate the possibility of volitional decisions but this is not a clear cut matter.

It's clear enough that we have more evidence to the contrary than we do to support the premise of the OP. I'm not saying that means it's definitely one way or the other, but it means that we don't really have to spend a lot of time worrying about it until more evidence can be obtained.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Burden of Proof

« on: January 19, 2018, 09:29:41 PM »

So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.

I don't know how this particular forum does things, but this is how I usually structure debate:

1 ) First person makes a claim. They may present evidence from the outset or bit by bit as the first person is plied with questions.

2 ) Second person rebuts the first claim, either by questioning the reasoning, or scrutinizing the evidence, or a combination of the two.

3 ) First person raises objections to the second person's rebuttal in an attempt to either clear up confusion or indicate to the second person why their reasoning is poor.

4 ) Both may then hash out any discrepancies or disagreements and either come to a consensus or agree to disagree.

You can get stuck in steps 3 and 4 ad nauseum, but that's why I stick to a rule of thumb like, "If two people have an argument for more than five minutes, they're both wrong." But I'm just spitballing.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: January 19, 2018, 08:38:56 PM »

It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.

1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.

The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.

Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.

Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.

2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.

I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.

3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.

Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.

I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is TFE the right model?

« on: January 19, 2018, 06:55:47 PM »

The question I have is why.  Why would you believe in FE over RE?  For FE NASA and scientists need to have lied to us and we need to use an unknown source of energy instead of gravity, while in RE, none of that nonsense needs to happen.  Why so desperate to cling to a more complex theory with less proof and say we've been lied to?  Why do you think FE must be right?

Because people think that just because science is difficult to understand, it negates Occam's razor.

For the earth to be flat, there are SO MANY THINGS you have to account for in order to explain what doesn't comport with reality, primarily the mathematics that go into PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING we do on the globe earth. Do you know how many engineers would LOVE to be able to do their planning using a FLAT PLANE instead of a curved surface? Odds are, if you do know, you're not a flat earther.

Yet, because it's "simpler" to look at the horizon and say to yourself, "Welp, it looks flat. Must be flat," flat earthers completely misunderstand what Occam's razor means by "simplicity."

Like I just said, for the earth to be flat, there are SO MANY OTHER COMPLICATIONS that you have to account for in order for such a model to be consistent with the real world. To date, NO flat earth model has managed to do this, and I submit to this community that the REASON for this is because NO SUCH MODEL CAN EXIST. Such a model would not be consistent with what we can test and confirm in reality, and so any and EVERY model so far has fallen "flat" in one respect or another - usually several at once.

That's the short-long answer for you, for my part.