301

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 16, 2018, 01:02:12 AM »

It is quite clear that you do not understand the definition of racism. I'm not sure how I can help here. Have you ever studied anthropology or psychology? Racism strictly involves biases toward race. So yes, it includes race, but it also includes biases. biases are culturally influenced. you do not inherit biases via DNA. I honestly cannot explain this any other way.

That's because you are not prepared to think of it any other way. You need to leave school and live life away from teachers that will all be Marxists. I mean, your biggest worry is the weather! This is the rhetoric of someone who has never engaged independent thought and is told what to like, what to hate and what to fear.

Weather is nothing trivial when it is the cause of thousands of deaths yearly.

302

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 11:29:26 PM »

Umm... where did I say that racism wasn't about race? Where can you actually pull that quote from?

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

It's impossible for "racism" to involve something that isn't inherently biological. Racism is only, exclusively, about race, which means it only involves biology. No culture or society involved. You don't become a different race by moving to a different country.

Therefore, saying "racism is fueled by culture and society" makes no sense, and simply stems from a complete misunderstanding of what race is.

It is quite clear that you do not understand the definition of racism. I'm not sure how I can help here. Have you ever studied anthropology or psychology? Racism strictly involves biases toward race. So yes, it includes race, but it also includes biases. biases are culturally influenced. you do not inherit biases via DNA. I honestly cannot explain this any other way.

303

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 11:11:57 PM »

People often, in the act of being racist ascribe cultural practices to people of certain phenotypes. Unfortunately though many educated people are still racist. There are strong evolutionary reasons to mistrust outsiders and as high minded as people get, “awareness” and education aren’t always the cure. Sometimes it’s patience and forbearance.

Assuming you are correct and it is some kind of weakness or bad habit.

But if it is a very natural way to stop competition in your own backyard, end subsidies to those leeching from your community and stop an upheaval of your own culture to make way for an invasive one ... then it should be encouraged, not 'educated away' or 'making people aware' that your viewpoint is the only one that is correct. This is a very dangerous experiment and it is only happening to white people. No one else is inviting the world to live with them. Everyone else has a home they can call their own.

I don't know if I can do this topic justice in just a few sentences or paragraphs....

Every society has had to fight for its right to be where it is. Societies all around the world are at risk of losing what they fought for to claim their society. History has shown this to be true, and will continue to be true until something changes. Until human nature evolves to be... perhaps less selfish... less focused on ones own life, but more focused on a greater life. A greater consciousness. At present our life is threatened not by other humans, not by war, not by famine, or disease (at least not globally/planely). We are threatened by our weather. By our rising seas, our ever-growing island of shit and trash in the pacific ocean. Our roads, lakes, beaches, rivers, forests, and oceans polluted with shit that we made. Shit that we chose not to be responsible for, yet willing to gain for (by consumption). We must change. We must evolve to a higher consciousness. If we do not, we will fail as a race, regardless what its definition.

304

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 10:48:08 PM »

People often, in the act of being racist ascribe cultural practices to people of certain phenotypes. Unfortunately though many educated people are still racist. There are strong evolutionary reasons to mistrust outsiders and as high minded as people get, “awareness” and education aren’t always the cure. Sometimes it’s patience and forbearance.

Yes, that is definitely true, and it has been shown in studies that societies do typically push away "outsiders". It is true that in most societies, if you cannot adapt to the collective, you will not survive, and there seems to be an evolutionary explanation for why humans conform.

Being racist is not necessarily a choice - people are not making a conscious decision to be racist, most of the time. It's called implicit bias. Often, we are not aware of our biases, and we act on them without even knowing. If you don't believe you have implicit biases, you should look online for an implicit bias test. I'm sure you can find one. I have set them up for professors in the past, so they can do research on the subject. It turns out that when trying to associate positive or negative words with either a black or white individual, or man or woman, we have slower reaction to some pairs and not others. For instance, you will be shown a picture of a white or black male, and also a word; either positive or negative. You might be asked to press a button if you see a black man with a positive word, if its a negative word, don't press the button. For example you see a black man and the word "nice". Press the button. You see a black man and the word "mean". Don't press the button. People who are white and take this test, often will take much longer to press the button in this case. If it is a white man and a positive word, they press the button quicker.

What this shows is a preconceived notion about the relationship of two variables. This is a bias. The same thing happens when a male is shown pictures of either or man or women and a particular occupation. Men will associate a picture of a woman and a science-related occupation more slowly than they will a woman and a humanity-related occupation. This shows a bias that men are more scientific and women are more artsy and crafty.

Reply to Rushy's new post:

You keep saying this over and over again, but once again I have to remind you that it's not up to you to randomly expand on the definitions of words. "Racism isn't about race" is a rather hilarious sentence, which I'm sure one day you'll garner the ability to realize why.

Umm... where did I say that racism wasn't about race? Where can you actually pull that quote from?

305

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 07:07:27 PM »

Black people aren't talented.

Incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression
(All black men.)

*Some video links*

That's it? Eddie Murphy, Muhammad Ali and Tupac? That's their best contribution to the world?

I raise you Isaac Newton, Michelangelo and Rachel Riley's backside.

Also I'm not sure having a higher response to extraneous testosterone injections is a 'talent'.

You might want to watch your words in this thread; I don't think you'll find much support for that way of thinking.

And here come the shit-eating leftists with their silence anyone who disagrees with them mantra. 

How about Neil degrass Tyson? Martin Luther? Barack Obama?

I will not try to silence you, my cautioning you was simply for your own benefit - being racist is not only unpopular, it is incredibly ignorant behavior and for you to be blatently prejudice demonstrates a real lack of intelligence.

I won't say "everyone" is racist, but most people are. Understanding that your biases and prejudices are born of ignorance and fear is the start of the end of racism.

306

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 06:20:27 PM »

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

You're mixing up the words "race" and "ethnicity". Ethnicity is your cultural background and race is your biological background. Your race cannot be determined by your culture and vice-versa. Racism is specifically prejudice based on someone's biological characteristics, though there are many people who have repeatedly tried to redefine the word to mean something broader, much like you're trying to do right now.

If you don't understand something I said, please ask for clarification instead of continually and impudentently straw manning me. RacISM is different than racE. I was talking about racISM. It is sourced by ignorant egoists and cultural bias.

Racism is merely an expansion on the term "race". Please read my fully edited post.

Not merely, they actually have separate meanings... Race is something you "are", racism is something you "do". People are not racist because of who they are or where they come from. People are racist because of social and cultural bias, ignorance, fear, and hate. None of those social characteristics determine your biology, and the act of prejudice is not due to your race.

307

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 06:08:36 PM »

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

You're mixing up the words "race" and "ethnicity". Ethnicity is your cultural background and race is your biological background. Your race cannot be determined by your culture and vice-versa. Racism is specifically prejudice based on someone's biological characteristics, though there are many people who have repeatedly tried to redefine the word to mean something broader, much like you're trying to do right now.

If you don't understand something I said, please ask for clarification instead of continually and impudentently straw manning me. RacISM is different than racE. I was talking about racISM. It is sourced by ignorant egoists and cultural bias.

308

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 15, 2018, 02:37:41 PM »

Society has already redefined the word "race". "Race" is just a word to distinguish between varying societies and cultures. Human "race" is nonetheless a race, no redefinition needed. And it's not pointless -  when try to distinguish ourselves from other variations of species, we tend to create a slight narcissistic view of the world, but it's only natural

Admitting variations between races is not narcissism, but simply realism. By trying to pointlessly redefine the term "race" and claim "we're all the same" you're denying that each and everyone of us has our own strengths and weaknesses. We're all different, some of us more different than others, and some of us exceedingly more similar to some races than others. In fact, I would argue that narcissism is believing that all of humanity is the same as you.

By stating we are the "human race" that does not mean I ignore differences between individuals. You have a knack for putting words in my mouth. I'm not denying anything; in fact, I agree with you that believing everyone is the same as "me" is narcissistic, so is thinking that everyone is different than "me" - it's the "me" factor that makes it narcissistic. As a human race though, we are all much more similar than we are different. It is when people forget this fact that they start buying into racism and prejudice.

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

Thork, either you are trolling, or you are a narcissistic bigot. You might want to watch your words in this thread; I don't think you'll find much support for that way of thinking.

309

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 14, 2018, 10:49:47 PM »

Why should we give a crap about any other race? (clipped jongoistic editorializing)

We are all humans.  There is only one race, you couldn't define a race if you wanted to.

I can define multiple races and am more than willing.

At the very least Asian, Caucasian and Negroid.
Your position is untenable.

What you have defined are variations in The species, but we are all still of the same species, and we are called homosapians, a.k.a. The human race.

Would you prefer the word "breed" then? What you're doing is trying (pointlessly) to redefine a word that already has a widely accepted definition. It sounds like you need to pick up a dictionary.

Society has already redefined the word "race". "Race" is just a word to distinguish between varying societies and cultures. Human "race" is nonetheless a race, no redefinition needed. And it's not pointless -  when try to distinguish ourselves from other variations of species, we tend to create a slight narcissistic view of the world, but it's only natural

310

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: September 14, 2018, 09:58:52 PM »

The danger comes into play when you stop believing in humanity. It gets dangerous when you lose sense of feeling, and become numb. Complacent. Apathetic. When you put yourself above others. When the cause becomes greater than humanity.

311

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 14, 2018, 04:34:18 PM »

Why should we give a crap about any other race? (clipped jongoistic editorializing)

We are all humans.  There is only one race, you couldn't define a race if you wanted to.

I can define multiple races and am more than willing.

At the very least Asian, Caucasian and Negroid.
Your position is untenable.

What you have defined are variations in The species, but we are all still of the same species, and we are called homosapians, a.k.a. The human race.

312

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The decline of critical thinking in the media, exemplified by That Everest Photo

« on: September 02, 2018, 04:14:01 PM »

I think Pete had a good point, and it is sad that people are so easily disillusioned - if they truly believe this is how the earth looks from Everest. If you put even just one ounce of thought into it, you'll realize the earth couldn't possibly curve that sharply. Even if you have never been to altitudes that high, or seen pictures from that high, it just looks off. Intuitively it doesn't make sense that it would curve so sharply. The curve isn't even consistent all the way across the photo. The angle appears to change and is more shallow on the left side than the right side.

Honestly, if people want to allow themselves to be so easily mislead, that is their problem and I doubt most would take them seriously anyway. At that point, you can't really convince someone to be smarter or be more intuitive. They will just be blind because that is what they want.

It would be nice if the RE FE debate could get passed the apparent or un-apparent curve as proof one way or the other. I think it's slowing the entire movement. The magnitude of round or flat earth would make any observation useless since we are so very small in comparison. And the fact the most people (if you believe in space travel) have not been to space to get such a vantage point, so most people don't have an arcetype or schema for perceiving such a massive object from such a narrow vantage point. Therefore our perception is very narrow as well. Shame on the media, and shame on REers for buying into it.

313

Arts & Entertainment / The great outdoors!

« on: September 01, 2018, 06:12:37 PM »

Take a break from reality! Take a break from technology! Take a break from comfort and amenities... go outside!

Being outside is a favorite pastime of mine. Whether it be working in the garden and mowing the lawn, camping/fishing, or hiking up a mountain. Even tried snowboarding a few times - love it!

In all honesty, I'm worried for our future generations. In the house all day, watching tv, playing vids, surfing the web, tablets, smart phones, all other types of electronic devices to grab (steal) our attention and turn us into non-existent beings putting all of our energy into a virtual-reality. What will we become when we lose our skills of gardening, wood-working, hunting/fishing, craftsmanship... are we failing to pass these skills down to our children? Many people I know can't even start and keep a fire going without dousing it with gasoline or lighter fluid.

To me, this is a very saddening truth, and as the years go by I feel myself getting more and more disconnected from virtual-reality and craving something more real.

Like backpacking on a mountain for four days above 10k feet elevation, getting water from streams and eating only small bits of dehydrated fruit and deer jerky. That's the life for me! Freezing in the middle of winter at minus 16 degrees, keeping warm by tending to a fire and using hot coals to heat a tent. Would love to try ice fishing, it's a bit of a phobia for me - the thought of falling through ice on a lake......

Anyway, please share your amazing outdoor adventures! Would love to swap stories! Or talk about the changing of future generations that are migrating from the great outdoors to computer screens and smart devices.

314

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun rays

« on: September 01, 2018, 12:26:32 AM »

Yes, "crepuscular" is the search term which will give you some results.

Meanwhile a have a similar "grounded" example for you, not so striking, as the length of the field is limited.
https://il9.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/11234123/thumb/1.jpg
(France, Lavender fields)
Reason is: Perspective.

The rays are practically parallel due to Sun being very far. Here is a very simple explanation: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm

Thank you both. The explanation makes perfect sense for either FE/RE. I like the picture of the rows of heather (or whatever it is). That is a good way to visualize and understand the perspective.

315

Flat Earth Theory / Sun rays

« on: August 31, 2018, 08:20:33 PM »

I've heard the argument used that if the sun is as far away as RE says then the light rays should be parallel with each other, not angled as they are in this photo.

I'm not sure I've heard that argument in these forums, so I am curious what tfes says about this.

This image shows what I'm referring to.


https://m.imgur.com/a/EMes10o

316

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: August 31, 2018, 05:08:06 PM »

OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....

What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?   

its just the drip drip drip of stories created by the PR depts for these space agencies.  if there are not constant little stories then people forget about the space programs and interest ($$$$) fades.   we are due for more "breaking news" on a Mars discovery in about 5 months, right on schedule.

It looks like USA's beloved (cough cough) leader is trying to get US back to the moon:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/09/nasa-is-going-back-to-the-moon-if-it-can-figure-out-how-to-get-there/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.03191bd9bc35

I'm not trying to offer this as an argument for or against space travel, rather trying to add to the previous post about media hype. It would make sense that if you want to create hype about space travel, soliciting news about going to the moon would work.

317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 30, 2018, 12:48:02 AM »

"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

OMG I know this!  See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like.  Their senses couldn't get it right.

I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.

OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!

I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic.  Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign.  My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.

So true... You can only beat a dead horse so many times! And you'd of had to be here for a couple months to get the "Martrix" quote (misspelling intentional, but unintentional at the time of original pose).... https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg158803#msg158803

318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 29, 2018, 11:49:50 PM »

"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

OMG I know this!  See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like.  Their senses couldn't get it right.

I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.

OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!! 

319

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 29, 2018, 02:45:10 AM »

i don't think that words like trustworthiness/reliability/accuracy/fidelity/etc have much meaning when applied to our sensory experience of the world.  our only access to reality is through our senses, and we have no "objective" measuring stick against which we can compare them.  they are what they are.  they are always only representations of reality, and the map is not the territory.

moreover our senses are just instruments.  they measure photon energies, changes in pressure, changes in temperature, whatever else.  they have precision limits and measurement error.  they're not a special class of anything.

If you are colorblind, are your senses as reliable to differentiate red and green or do you think you might have some difficulty? If you are hard of hearing, do you think you might be less reliable to hear a baby cry? If you have no nerves in your feet, will you be less reliable to walk?

If you are unable to fathom these scenarios, then we really have no basis for which to continue this discussion. These are all common scenarios and common ailments that we have that effect the reliability of your senses.

It is dangerous to assume your senses are always accurate. It's dangerous to assume your perception is invulnerable.

Parents leaving their children in the car all day while at work because they thought they dropped them off at daycare. What happened to their reality there?

Moreover, why are you so resistance to the idea that your reality can be skewed?

Its a perfectly normal human experience.

320

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 29, 2018, 02:05:40 AM »

And what do you use to view those instruments in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's not an instrument.

... at this point you seem to not actually be reading what I'm writing down.

Which was;

"You need instruments which translate the presence or absence of such things into visual or auditory displays in order that you can function with them."

Haven't I just told you, by stating "visual or auditory display" what you use to view/listen to the instrument with? You did read that bit, didn't you?

Do I really need to spell out that you use one of your senses to view an instrument, an instrument which renders the presence of something you cannot see or hear into a form in which you can?

BTW, the "first place" is simply the presence of the phenomenon that you can't see or hear. Viewing the instrument is in second or subsequent place to that.....

The discussion was merely about whether or not senses are trustworthy, you seem to have forgotten that somewhere along the line. I said senses are trustworthy, because they are the one and only thing you can perceive reality with. Then, an army of what I can only assume is psychics started telling me that senses are not trustworthy. If you believe senses are trustworthy, then you should be helping me tell these others that this is so, not arguing with me about using instruments or something.

This is about the third time we have gone back around in this circle.

Can you please answer these questions? Or if you have nothing further to add, please stop stringing this along.

1. Do you agree that instruments can benefit your reality by enhancing your senses?

2. Do you acknowledge that your senses and your reality are vulnerable to misperception?