1881

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: July 09, 2020, 10:51:57 AM »

I don't see how it would be possible to know how perpendicular your string is to the Moon without some sort of perspective clues.

The point about this illusion is that in RET the distant moon is illuminated by an even more distant sun and that is the only source of illumination the moon has. That means if you see the moon and can see its terminator line then the light must be coming from a direction perpendicular to that line.

When the illusion occurs it looks as if the terminator line is pointing up into the sky while the sun is low near the horizon. So it appears that either the moon is being lit in some other way or the light is bending in some strange way.

But, as the name suggests, this is just an illusion. The point of the string is it demonstrates that there is indeed a straight line which goes from the moon, perpendicular to the terminator line, to the sun. That shows it is just an illusion.

You must be familiar with optical illusions. Our brains are easily tricked. This is why the Zetetic method of just relying on your senses is not sufficient alone to determine the truth about the world.

Here is a better experiment. The next time you see the Moon Tilt Illusion, turn to look at the Moon so that it is in the center of your vision. Take a string and hold it out arms length, as far from your head as you can, against the Moon, keeping the Moon in the center of your vision. You will see the string shoot off into space:

Have you tried this? Because I don't think so.
If the string is angled so it is perpendicular to the terminator then it will point at the sun.

1882

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2020, 07:35:43 AM »

Also, many don't care.

"I'm Republican.  He's Republican.  What more do I need?"

Exactly this. They haven't forgotten, they just don't care.
And he wasn't Hilliary, that was a big factor in why he won. There were lots of "Anyone but Trump" people but a lot of "Anyone but Clinton" people too.

1883

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 08, 2020, 05:19:36 PM »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/07/donald-trump-mary-niece-book-eight-most-shocking-claims

Juicy stuff.

The stuff about his parents checks out.
He is clearly mentally ill with serious personality disorders. The way he acts when anyone questions, rejects or criticises him isn’t normal.

1884

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth

« on: July 06, 2020, 09:12:50 AM »

It seems to me that Occam's Razor would say that if you believe that there is data which seems to contradict one model, then the simplest explanations to that is either the data is wrong or another model may be likelier to be the truth.

I don't think that's anything to do with Occam's razor, aren't those the only two logical explanations?

1885

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 30, 2020, 09:38:23 PM »

Are you a trust fund kid or something?

I wouldn't go that far.
But I grew up in a stable home where while we didn't have a yacht or anything we were well off enough.
We didn't want for anything. We owned our own home, had nice holidays, could afford theatre trips and other cultural experiences.
My way was paid through university, dad set up some investments for me which helped pay the deposit on my first place. I'll inherit a fair bit of money which if invested wisely will mean I'm able to help my kids.
Things haven't been handed to me on a silver platter. I've done OK in my career, I earn above average and that is due to me working hard in my degree and career. No-one is paying my mortgage for me, I do that. But the stable and relatively affluent background I describe have absolutely given me a leg up in life. Not in the same way that Boris Johnon has - I didn't go to Eton, I'll never have the advantages which moving in those circles buys you. But having a stable, reasonably affluent family makes your life easier. And it's not to do with me being white, I firmly believe that were I from a black family that was as stable and affluent as mine was that I would have had the same advantages. The issue in the US is for historic reasons black families are rarely affluent. That doesn't mean that black kids don't have many of the same opportunities in theory, but it does make it harder for them to take those opportunities.

1886

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 30, 2020, 07:05:44 PM »

You are correct, and I would agree with you except for the fact that it wasn't their choice to live in impoverished locations, with low resources.

Yes, it is.

To be honest, I thought that was a Thork post, it's a very Thork thing to say.
It's not a choice when you don't have the money or resources to make any other choices.
And the reason black families tend not to have those resources is because of historic racist laws which prevented black families a couple of generations back from owning properties. White families were able to and that wealth has trickled down the generations in a way it hasn't for black families.

1887

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: June 28, 2020, 10:26:25 PM »

We are sovereign, any power we have ceded we have chosen to and can choose to take back.

Untrue.

Just saying "nuh-uh" isn't really a counter-argument.
Any sovereignty we ceded to the EU we chose to and we can - and have - choose to take back.

Your examples are not equivalent, Scotland need our permission to have a referendum for independence - permission which has been denied by Boris Johnson. Catalan tried to have one [the bastards, I was actually in Barcelona when that happened, had tickets for the Nou Camp and they played the sodding game behind closed doors because of anticipated trouble, what are the bleedin' chances?], it was declared illegal and the ring-leaders rounded up. The UK did not have to ask the EU if we could have one, Cameron has not been rounded up. We had a referendum and have started the process of leaving. Just saying "well other countries/regions can't do that" is not an argument. You're right, but so what? We could and we did.

Its none of our business who American's choose as their leader. We don't get a vote and we should respect their choice, even if its a dumb one.

It is our business because what goes on in the US affects the rest of the world because of their power and influence.
Nothing we can do about it of course but it's reasonable to have an opinion.

1888

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: June 27, 2020, 02:30:25 PM »

It's certainly true that older people mostly voted for Brexit and younger people mostly voted to Remain.
Concern over non-Brits taking jobs was maybe a factor but I think the fact that the UK is changing to a more cosmopolitan, multi-cultural place was a bigger one.
Older people don't like change - even though they're not going to have to live with it that long. Younger people embrace it - many have grown up with it like this and actually like it.
The UK being a small island which used to punch well above its weight on the world stage makes us quite resistant to ceding power to any foreign power. And I did myself briefly buy into the sovereignty argument - that we needed to leave the EU to regain our sovereignty. But it doesn't really work as an argument. We are sovereign, any power we have ceded we have chosen to and can choose to take back. The process of doing so may be complex but to start it we simply had to write a letter, we didn't have to start a war.

(I certainly don't claim to be an expert on US politics by the way, but I have an...opinion on Trump and what the US does affects the whole world so non-Americans quite rightly pay attention to what goes on there)

1889

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 26, 2020, 09:11:56 AM »

Maybe this is media/television bias, but I get the impression that England, Britain, and other parts of the UK are more 'proper' than US, is this true? If so, I wonder if it has an impact on the expression of racism in the UK. Keep in mind, I'm stretching on this one, and I have virtually no real reason to think this way.

We like to think we're a bit less uncouth than you lot and I think that's sort of true. You don't get so much of the patriotic (which IMO veers a bit too close to jingoistic) flag waving over here. We love a bit of pomp and ceremony - often around Royal occasions - but it's all a lot more dignified. That said, there's a large underclass here too who the rest of us secretly look down on while pretending not to.

And I don't think any of that has much to do with the issue of racism, I just think we're a bit further along the path than you are. It's shocking to us that segregation was a thing within living memory in the US. You're not going to go from that to complete equality overnight, it takes generations. I think we're a bit further along than you are but we're not there yet either, the racism here is just more subtle.

1890

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 25, 2020, 09:30:17 PM »

In the US, I think there is a correlation between the high rate of crime committed by black people, and the history of systemic racism in this country. After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws became a thing, and that dictated where black people could live, who they could associate with, what jobs they could have, and even what restrooms or public services they could use.

These racist laws (yes, Tom, enacted by the democrats) forced black people into impoverished areas where crime was practically an inevitability. Then, police brutality became a thing, and the US built up their prison systems. So now we have a bunch of poor, crime-ridden black communities that are suddenly being locked up and brutalized by police, only to be incarcerated and put back to work for no pay - just as they were when they were "slaves".

These racist laws were eventually abolished, and we have tried to make things equal, but the animosity has not gone. The implicit biases are not gone. Racism is still not gone. Now we can conveniently use poor black communities ridden with crime as an excuse to continue incarcerating them at disproportionate rates.

Right, exactly this.
Those historic laws meant most of the wealth in the US is with white people.
Crime is correlated with poverty.
Police are more likely to crack down on areas with high crime.
So black people are going to be disproportionately affected by police brutality etc.
I do think there's a racist element too but I'd suggest the history of it all is a bigger factor.

As for the UK, I wouldn't say racism is fixed here but it's more covert and subtle. There's good evidence that English sounding names do better when people are applying for jobs, for example. Things are changing but there's no quick fix, attitudes take generations to improve. I should note here that I'm speaking as a Londoner, it's a pretty multi-cultural bubble in the UK, outside of London things may be different.

1891

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 25, 2020, 04:39:36 PM »

You mention that you have been privileged in your life because you have money. This is not the same as "white privilege". There are plenty of wealthy black people. White privilege is being advantaged solely because your skin is white. nothing to do with being rich or poor.

Understood. And I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, but my feeling is in the UK at least a black person who grew up in the circumstances I did would have had most of the same advantages in life as I did. The incidents in the US where 911 is called on black people for spurious reasons are unfortunate although I would suggest they are rare, statistically speaking, and the stupid bint in Central Park who called the police on someone got sacked for it, so hopefully that will deter others from doing things so silly.

I disagree. If you have "young, white, male, dressed in a certain way", I think you will be stopped less than if you are black. Doesn't mean you won't draw suspicion, but not as quickly. However, I don't have any proof of this.

You're right, the stats show you're right, more black people are stopped. But that's because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So their race is absolutely part of why they might get stopped but there are other factors and I'd suggest it's based on statistics more than racism.

And yes, police in the US do kill a disproportionate amount of black people but, again, looking at the crime stats you can see why they might have more encounters with the police and thus more opportunity for these incidents to occur. The fact remains that if you're unarmed then you are very unlikely to be killed by the police no matter your race.

Are you saying the entire BLM movement is a strawman?

If BLM is saying that racism still exists and that's a bad thing then fine, I agree.
But if the argument is that systematically the police and other authorities don't regard black people's lives as worthy as white people's then I think that's a straw man. Of course individuals will have prejudices, some will be racist (as Avenue Q reminds us, everyone's a little bit racist, and white people don't have a monopoly on that). The person or people who called the police on the bird watcher. I can understand why people might have wondered what he was up to. Calling 911 is an over-reaction, agreed. Was that based on racism or stereotypes and is there a difference between those two things? It's a fine line and stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason (Again, Avenue Q "race jokes may be thought uncouth but you laugh because they're based on truth!")

I'm not saying there isn't a problem but I would suggest that society does not as a whole think that black lives don't matter, and that's what makes BLM a bit of a straw man. But the problem is people stereotype each other - but that isn't just based on race, it can be because of gender, age, social class, the way someone dresses, all kinds of things. And I don't know how you fix that.

1892

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 25, 2020, 04:17:35 PM »

Police aren't supposed to stop people because they fit a profile unless it is in relation to a particular crime and/or they have a good reason to.  Profiling practices were stopped because they were found to be a step too far for government involvement in people's lives.

If that's so then fine, but if they're going to do "random" stop and searches then making them truly random makes no sense.
I couldn't find any stats on which people are stopped and searched other than by race. My guess is that race is only one factor in the police's decision on who to stop. Let's put it this way, in all the videos I've seen online of people spluttering with rage about someone being stopped "because they're black", the person in question was also young and dressed casually. So it's not much of a stretch to say that while race is a factor it is not the only one but it is the one that people fixate on.

The point that many are making is that police forces are inadequate at preventing crimes but there are many ways to engage with society that cut crime and perhaps we should put more funding in to that?

Fair enough. And in a recent John Oliver piece about this he was explaining what "defund the police" means, and it isn't that you call 999 (or 911, for you Yanks) and get an answering machine, it's exactly what you say. Stop expecting the police to deal with lots of social issues and fund programmes which will help. I agree that makes sense.

As I pointed out earlier, every other type of police use of force is more likely to be applied to black people rather than white, and that is controlling for context and confounding factors.  The conversation shouldn't end at shootings.

Fair point. I'm not denying the police have prejudices and there is a racist element. I'm just frustrated by this perception from some that black people should be actively scared when they encounter the police lest they be shot. The numbers really don't bear that out.

1893

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM »

Had you lived here you would know that the the democratic party was the majority for a long time and infests all levels of government, corporations, and society and directly relates to Trump's rebellious movement. "I don't like the swamp" is a valid answer.

It is a valid answer and maybe this is where me not being American doesn't help. Maybe I don't understand what "the swamp" is, I thought he was talking about corruption - putting his relatives in senior posts and sacking anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't shout "swamp draining" to me. His pledge to do that was one of his catch phrases, you said that you liked that about him and yes, that is valid thing to like but you can't just like him saying it, he's president 4 years, has he done it? If so, how?

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest?

It's good for America's economy in the short term. It's bad for the whole world in the longer term. And this may be a surprise to most Americans but the US is in the world, it doesn't exist in isolation. Now, the US could say "Why should we bother doing anything while China and India are pumping out pollution and greenhouse gases like there's no tomorrow". Fair point, but it's a bit like saying "why should we not drop litter outside our house when all our neighbours are dropping litter outside theirs? The obvious answer being litter is a bad thing which affects everyone, it blows around so even if you're not dropping any there will still be some outside your house and if you do your bit then there's still less litter overall.
Now. If Trump had said that the Paris agreement was a bad one for the US and he thought there was a better way of the US getting their house in order and encouraging other countries to do the same then I'd have had some sympathy with that. But he didn't. He's a climate change denier who sees no reason to do anything, especially if the anything will affect the economy. He's an old, rich man, even if he's wrong about climate change (spoiler: he is) it won't affect him, so sod everyone else. And it's rich of you to speak of "selfish foreigners" when your and your president's attitude is the epitome of selfishness. And, again, the reason people who aren't in the US take an interest in US politics is that the US is a big and powerful country, things that happen there affect the rest of the world.

1894

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 24, 2020, 07:45:20 PM »

We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.

Many people in the US are famously insular and don’t seem to care much what is going on anywhere else. This may blow your mind but in many countries people do care about what’s going on outside their borders, especially when it’s stuff going on in a powerful country like the US which affects the rest of the world.

So yeah, when Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Climate agreement then I have an opinion about that. It might be a good thing for the US economy in the short term but it’s a bad thing for the world in the US in the long term. And contrary to popular belief the US is in the world so that will also be bad for the US.

And I have an opinion about him as a person. I have made that opinion pretty clear. I see almost no redeeming qualities. So I asked you what you see in him. Most of your answer was “I don’t like the alternative”. That’s not an answer. The bits you did answer:

1) He’s a businessman, not a politician - refreshing change, maybe, but I don’t see that qualifies him, and he’s failed in many business ventures. His business empire is based on inheritance, he hasn’t built it up from scratch.

2) He gave up billions of dollars - did he, though? How do you figure?

3) He’s “draining the swamp” - he pledged to, but has he really? How so?

4) He holds good values - by a distance your most baffling claim.

My criticism of him is based on the way he acts, the things he says and does.

I note you haven’t addressed my post, your response is basically “you don’t live here, you don’t get to have an opinion” which is a pretty weak response.

1895

Flat Earth Community / Re: What pushed you in the direction of belief in Flat Earth Theory?

« on: June 24, 2020, 04:33:39 PM »

Similar experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.

Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth - Runtime: 3m23s
Hernando County Waterways - Runtime: 2m34s

The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."

Thanks for sharing these, I’m pretty intrigued by the frozen lake video. I am honestly baffled for the time being, since I believe the earth to be round.

I think the experiment needs to be done with lasers instead of beacons. This would rule out the possibility of light refraction or reflection.

You can tell that the light is being refracted by the fact that the more distant lights flicker on and off (when the actual lights are steady).
That shows that the light is intermittently blocked by something. My contention is the something is the curve of the earth but at times refraction allows those lights to be seen, just not consistently. On a FE why would the light source ever be blocked?

1896

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 24, 2020, 11:00:48 AM »

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Which is fine.
What I don't understand is why people are such apologists for him.
Over here I voted for Corbyn because he wasn't Boris. And because generally I agree with his outlook on things and think he wanted to try and do the right things - obviously I agreed those were the right things.
But that doesn't mean I think Corbyn was an amazing choice, he wasn't statesman-like, he was indecisive, he was idealistic but not always realistic.
Opinion in politics - and just generally - seems to have got so polarised. There are a lot of Orange Man Bad people, maybe I am one, I just don't see much to like in the guy. But there are a lot of Orange Man Good people too who defend everything he does no matter how crass.

1897

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 24, 2020, 10:04:49 AM »

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

- Trump is a King David character, perhaps morally ambiguous on the surface, but holds good values and ultimately knows what is right for his country. More like a normal human, rather than a fake politician.

I'm going to leave the rest as none of it is why you like Trump, it's why you don't like the alternative. Which is fine to an extent. It's the same here, a lot of people voted for Johnson because they couldn't abide the thought of Corbyn being PM, and vice versa. Increasingly it does feel like we are forced to choose the least bad option because there isn't a good one. But I'm not interested in why you don't like the other party or why you do like the Republicans, I specifically want to know what you admire about Trump.

Why do you see him not being a politician as a good thing? I mean, running the economy is a big part of running a country admittedly but there are many other aspects which he has no obvious qualifications for. There's much debate about whether he is a good businessman. He's worth a lot of money certainly - although how much is impossible to know as he almost certainly inflates his true worth. What is on record is that he has had a lot of bankruptcies and his business empire was built based on money he inherited. He didn't build up a business from nothing like other entrepreneurs.
And is he draining the swamp? That was one of his catch phrases but has he done that? He's employed members of his family to senior roles and routinely sacks people who disagree with them - I'd suggest that's a sign of weakness and insecurity, not strength. How would you say he has drained the swamp?
And how has he given up billions? His businesses are still running, he hasn't given all his money away. He's not taking a salary so I'll give him that but that isn't billions.

Morally ambiguous is being kind. I don't disagree he loves the country but I see little evidence of good values. It's interesting that you hand wave away the "grab 'em by the pussy" comment. You dismiss it as a joke but that is rather undermined by the numerous women who have made allegations against him, his disturbing comments about his own daughter and his boasting about going backstage and into young girls' dressing rooms while involved with Miss Teen USA. It's interesting you say that if anyone else had said it then it wouldn't have caused a ripple. I completely disagree. I think it's only because Trump said it and his fans are such apologists for him that he got away with it

He claims to be a Christian but to me his recent waving around of a Bible was a shameless attempt to get evangelical Christians on board - a tactic which is depressingly effective. He claimed that the Bible was his favourite book but then when asked which was his favourite bit said "all of it" and declined to name a single verse or passage. The whole bit of that interview was like a kid trying to do a book report on something he patently had never read. He also said that he doesn't feel the need to ask God for forgiveness so if he is a Christian then he hasn't quite "got" it. As a friend from church often used to say about him "by their fruit...". What fruit do you see in Trump's life? Now, I'm not saying that it discounts him as a president, but one thing I really don't like about him is how he affects this veneer of Christianity to appeal to a certain type of voter who see him as "their guy".

There's the fact he refuses to release his tax returns which implies he's up to something there - I believe I'm right in saying he's the only president not to do so.

Then there's the lying, the endless, compulsive lying. Now all politicians lie of course but Trump lies like a child does, just obvious lies.
He reminds me of a story my niece told me of baby sitting a couple of friend's kids, one shoved the other over right in front of my niece and when she asked why he did it, he just said "didn't!", despite her literally watching him do it. It's kinda funny when a child does it, completely baffling when an adult does.

There's the constant self aggrandisement. The constant claims that he knows more about <x>, or he understands more about <x> than anyone. It's just a weird claim when he's talking about complex topics which he can't possibly be an expert on.

I said this before but look up the symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder and tell me he doesn't suffer from them.

1898

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 23, 2020, 11:27:21 AM »

Image removed

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much? Maybe you don't, but you sure do bend over backwards to defend him at every opportunity. What do you like about him? Serious question. Most leaders even if I don't like their policies I can generally find something to admire about them, with Trump I'm honestly coming up blank. What do you see in him, other than he isn't Hillary Clinton?

1899

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 23, 2020, 11:24:54 AM »

Black people live in crime areas because black people commit more crime.

Or another way to look at it is that people commit more crime because they live in an area with more crime, regardless of skin colour. And the reason there happens to be a lot of black people in those areas is because of a long history of racial discrimination.

Right. Exactly this.
Black people are profiled because, statistically, they commit a lot of the crime.
Not because there are inherent differences between the races in terms of propensity towards violence/crime, simply because it is correlated with poverty and black people tend to be poorer for historic reasons. That is the root of all this IMO, and I don't think there's an easy fix.

I don't know if I have "white privilege", but I definitely have benefited from "affluent privilege". We didn't own a yacht or anything but neither did I want for anything, my way through university was paid - all that confers a big advantage in life which I have definitely benefited from.

1900

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: June 23, 2020, 06:45:24 AM »

BLM is not about white people, so if you feel like you don't matter or you're being left out because of this movement - if you're someone who says, "but every life matters" -  that's what is called "white privilege".

If you fall into this category, and I did at first, try putting the word "too" after "black lives matter". That's what BLM is about.

Right. But it feels like a straw man. It’s arguing against a position which almost no one holds. Who says that black lives don’t matter?
I provided the stats above, it’s incredibly rare that unarmed black people are killed by police in the US. The George Floyd incident was indisputably awful but the people who did it are in jail - no laws need to change, what they did was already illegal. And the stats just don’t bear out this idea that a systematically racist police force are killing black people for no reason other than their race.

Obviously I don’t know what it’s like to be black in the UK, but my feeling is that the privileges I have enjoyed - and I certainly have - are largely because of my family’s affluence.