1641

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 10, 2016, 05:41:11 AM »

Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

Who said anything about gravity? 

Pretty sure I did in the OP.

We weren't talking about the OP, we were talking about a side comment by rabinoz that had little to do with the OP.

1642

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 10, 2016, 05:35:13 AM »

Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

Who said anything about gravity? 

1643

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 10, 2016, 05:32:33 AM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

1644

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 10, 2016, 05:11:26 AM »

Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

1645

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 10, 2016, 04:08:48 AM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

1646

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 09, 2016, 11:44:42 PM »

"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."

Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!

Given that Rushy himself is something of an ass,  does this surprise you?  I have no doubt he looks up to Trump as a paragon of character.

1647

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 06, 2016, 02:29:56 AM »

shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.

This honestly intrigues me.  Can you provide a picture of the sun's shadow?  Because personally my response to this one would be "The sun doesn't cast a shadow that we are able to observe."

1648

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 06, 2016, 12:59:15 AM »

www.loser.com

1649

Announcements / Re: Rapper B.o.B joins the Flat Earth side!

« on: March 03, 2016, 06:08:13 AM »

Wait to see what will happen to B.o.B. and Tila Tequila, it will not end well and the common denominator will be their thoughts on the Flat Earth.

There is some hope.  Sherry Shepherd was demonized for not even having an opinion about the shape of the Earth.  B.o.B. seems to have been treated a lot more fairly.  Tila Tequila has never been anything more than a stupid crazy bitch so nobody cares what she has to say.

As progress goes, it's not much, but baby steps!

1650

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 03, 2016, 06:02:26 AM »

Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.

But is that his intent?  The answer seems to fluctuate from season to season.  I'm pretty sure right now it's at "Keep Medicare" but who knows in spring?

1651

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 03, 2016, 05:53:18 AM »

In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.

So if your senses tell you that stopped cars in neutral really can roll uphill, then it must be true, right?

[/quote]

Please stop posting, Markjo.  I beg you.  You are kind of making yourself look silly right now.

Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?

You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true).  Ooh, I'm a weird fringe Flat Earther, what I say can't possibly make sense!

1652

Technology & Information / Re: e-readers

« on: March 02, 2016, 05:31:43 PM »

i have a paperwhite, and i'm a huge fan.  i enjoy reading from a physical book more than i enjoy reading from a device, but the sheer convenience of my paperwhite outweighs all of that.  it's just too great to always have my entire book library on-hand literally anywhere i want to go.

This, basically. I do still prefer reading a real book but the convenience overwhelms that.

1653

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 02, 2016, 05:49:47 AM »

Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.

And even then...

Really it could only make him more popular with his fanbase.

1654

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 02, 2016, 01:32:02 AM »

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.

Complete and utter nonsense.  It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.

In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.

1655

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 02, 2016, 01:11:07 AM »

I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.

Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.

Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Period.

After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining.  Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.

That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.

1656

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 01, 2016, 10:05:33 PM »

I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

1657

Science & Alternative Science / Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus

« on: March 01, 2016, 09:13:45 PM »

There are no Electron Orbits!

This is common knowledge; I don't understand why you are couching it as if some kind of cover-up is taking place.

1658

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 01, 2016, 08:47:22 PM »

Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.

Weird that you make such an assumption.  It is never stated or even implied in that post.

1659

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 01, 2016, 06:48:10 PM »

Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

1660

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 01, 2016, 06:15:03 PM »

Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).