1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 04:47:08 AM »

The Oklahoma school system responded and defended their requirements:

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4916077-oklahoma-trump-bibles-schools-ryan-walters/

Oklahoma defends Bibles-in-schools proposal after report that only Trump’s might qualify
...
“We are excited to bring back the Bible in its essential historical and literary context to Oklahoma classrooms. Superintendent Walters has committed the agency to an open and transparent RFP process, consistent with the norms for state procurement, that will be adequate to meet the needs of Oklahoma classrooms. There are hundreds of Bible publishers and we expect a robust competition for this proposal,” the spokesperson said.

They are saying that they are giving other Bible publishers a chance. I'm betting that other publishers can beat $60 for this unique project to bring Biblical study back into the school system under the context of American and constitutional history.

It is no longer the 1800's where custom stamped templates are created for every page of a book. It is not a labor intensive process to copy paste some freely available content into a word processor for book creation and get it printed. Books can be created on-demand now. It's more of a medium than a product. This situation is basically comparable to a school wanting a website which contains freely available versions of the Constitution and the Bible, with you guys here trying to convince me that only Trump can make such a website.

You would be better off arguing from the separation of church and state angle than this anti-competitive argument.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 05, 2024, 11:20:38 PM »

A Bible that includes the US Pledge of Allegiance and the US Constitution is pretty much a 1950's-era conservative meme. This is likely why the Bible that Trump endorsed was created in the first place. Neither Trump or the Bible printing company originated the concept of merging US Constitution studies and Bible studies - that is an old 1950's Americana thing.

The claims that this requirement is anti-competitive are weak, even if Trump is the only person currently selling that Bible and gave schools the idea for the concept. None of it is copyrighted, and none of it is original. For it to be anti-competitive we would have to play dumb and pretend that this is hard to obtain or create, or that no publishing companies have ever produced special prints for schools, which is false.

If someone who is eligible to make a bid wants to create that meme Bible, they can throw it together and order prints within a day with various online services. Any major publishing house has the resources to bid for the requirements easily. The God Bless the USA Bible that Trump endorsed is also $60. If someone can beat that price in a government bid, they get the contract.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 04, 2024, 09:42:45 PM »

We know that hundreds of people are trying to beat world records, and there are even yearly races around Antarctica (which we are often pointed to, but the details are rarely discussed). This represents the best boat, so your arguments are pretty invalid.

Most of also know that many world records, including circumnavigation records, have any number of categories based on the particular type of craft and crew size, so context matters.  Picking one record and saying that the rest don't matter is nothing more than cherry picking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_world_sailing_record

Lisa Blair holds the generic record for fastest circumnavigation of Antarctica by sailboat.

If you are sure that there is a category where sailing boats have sailed around it in a faster time then I would suggest finding it and then contacting Guinness World Records to inform them that they are incorrect about Lisa Blair holding the record for fastest circumnavigation by sailboat.

Come on guys. Now we are accusing Guinness World Records of being incorrect about the records. How about a response with something more than "NoOoO it could be this!"

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 04, 2024, 07:47:41 PM »

It looks like you guys are claiming that she had a bad boat. According to Guinness World Records Lisa Blair holds the record for "Fastest circumnavigation of Antarctica by sailboat". She did it in 92 days 18 hours 21 minutes 22 seconds. We know that hundreds of people are trying to beat world records, and there are even yearly races around Antarctica (which we are often pointed to, but the details are rarely discussed). This represents the best boat, so your arguments are pretty invalid.

Like many other topics, we would need to believe in a series of excuses to keep the round world theory together. Instead of providing direct and compelling evidence we are just seeing continual excuses.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 03, 2024, 01:28:14 AM »

So much passion.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 01, 2024, 11:54:22 PM »

The Antarctic circumnavigation world record of 92 days is at odds with the global circumnavigation (or 21,600 nmi) world record of 41 days, despite that it is known that the winds are faster in the Southern Hemisphere. Over the last hundred or so years there have been a community of sailors who have been competing to beat records. These aren't one-off attempts and represent the best possible record.

For the world record for circumnavigation around Antarctica, Lisa Blair set it at 92 days.

In contrast, the sailing world record for circumnavigation around the globe (or 21,600 nmi) is 41 days.

In this sort or race for the "around the world sailing record", the goal wasn't necessarily to make a perfect circumference around the globe for obvious reasons, and is really the fastest time someone could sail a distance of 21,600 nautical miles. Francis Joyon and François Gabart made this path:

https://goldengloberace.com/the-route/



This path takes place further northwards near the continents. The total course is 30,000 miles, but they only count the best time to 21,600 nautical miles for the specific record, since this is the circumference of the RE in RE Theory.

Not only is the Antarctic circumnavigation a shorter distance on a RE than the distance circumnavigation around a RE (or 21,600 miles), but it is known that the winds are anomalously fast in the Southern Hemisphere. A number of quotes can be found which suggest that the winds in the South are of an anomalous nature as compared to the North. They become more anomalous as you travel Southward:

See: BBC Earth

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151009-where-is-the-windiest-place-on-earth

  “ There are huge belts of wind caused by the uneven way the Sun heats the Earth's surface. 30° north and south of the equator, the trade winds blow steadily. At 40° lie the prevailing westerlies, and the polar easterlies begin at around 60°.

Ask any round-the-world sailor and they will quickly tell you the stormiest seas, stirred by the strongest winds, are found in the Southern Ocean. These infamously rough latitudes are labelled the "roaring 40s", "furious 50s" and "screaming 60s". ”

One would think that higher wind speeds would help, rather than impede, Antarctic world record racers.

While nothing is really proven to a certainty by looking at these times alone, this is just another feather taken out of the cap of the Round Earth Theory that there is a mountain of evidence in its favor. When we look closer at the details we just see anomalies and that things are not really in accordance with what is generally claimed at face value.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 01, 2024, 11:36:35 PM »

Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?

You guys certainly don't seem that concerned, considering that you want to dismiss all claims by claiming that there is not enough evidence to your satisfaction.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 27, 2024, 11:26:25 PM »

Trump was promising mass deportations before the Springfield story came out. Your interpretation about what occurred is invalid.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 21, 2024, 07:24:56 PM »

It's odd how we never hear anything like this about the Harris family, Biden family, or lifetime politicians in general.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1837219541178605744

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: September 18, 2024, 05:30:29 PM »

It looks like AATW forgot why the Second Amendment exists in the US, but I stayed true to his generalities and fixed it for him:

I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because of me.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: September 17, 2024, 05:46:37 PM »

People don't carry guns here. The police here don't routinely carry guns either. There are some specialist units who do but, in general people do not carry guns not feel the need to.

The only reason you keep bringing this up, even randomly unprompted in a discussion, is because you are trying to justify something. If you are sure of something, you don't bring it up randomly unprompted in discussions. This means that you aren't so sure if it is better that you are denied firearms, or whether it is wise to disarm the public.

Also, the primary intent of the Second Amendment in the US is not for the purpose of personal safety, so your safety argument is irrelevant.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 15, 2024, 03:39:52 AM »

Considering that she was a late presidential candidate to the race and was still largely unknown to the general public, this widely viewed debate was her chance to become memorable to the public sphere. Nearly 70 million people watched the debate. It was one of her few chances to make an impact.

Everyone already knew Trump, and he had nothing to introduce or prove for himself. He made sure that she was forgettable, and only Trump himself made the memorable impact. Most people who watched the debate now barely remember what Harris said, and any of her content has been overshadowed by what Trump said by far. Being a forgettable participant is terrible for her campaign effort. In this sense Trump expertly nullified her goal and won the debate.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 14, 2024, 09:45:12 PM »

I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA can surpass the speed of light without any problems.

« on: September 14, 2024, 05:04:19 AM »

In RE Theory some parts of the universe are accelerating at FTL speeds relative to other parts of the universe. Look it up.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 12, 2024, 07:44:28 PM »

Sounds like Kamala lost to me

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is the UK okay?

« on: September 12, 2024, 03:33:40 PM »

AATW concedes that UK laws are dystopian, but thinks that he doesn't live in a dystopia because the people in charge choose not to enforce the laws as much as they could.

Actually, this is a dystopia. If you look up the definitions of dystopia it involves a society which lives in fear.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia

dystopia. noun. dys·​to·​pia. (ˌ)dis-ˈtō-pē-ə
- an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives
- an imaginary place where people are unhappy and usually afraid because they are not treated fairly.

Ignoring the "imaginary" part of this definition that comes from literature, it appears to accurately represent the present day UK, where the government has degraded and taken advantage of its citizens unfairly to the point of them responding with 29 anti-immigration demonstrations and riots in 27 towns and cities in 7 days. Of course, AATW thinks that the protestors are wrong, and not the government for giving away their wealth and jobs and safety. AATW has commented several times in this thread that his UK friends are complaining that they are fearful to say anything these days, and for some reason he thinks this is acceptable. He also goes on unprompted rants about how he doesn't need a gun for safety, as if safety were a growing concern, and he makes desperate and laughable  justifications for the government restricting speech such as a comparison to this site with the statement "A banning on this site is analogous to a jailing in real life."

All of this sounds like denialism and an admission that he lives in a dystopia. In the books 1985 and Brave New World, those governments were not necessarily sending people to prison en masse, but did impose a lot of restrictions in speech and behavior and the people lived in constant fear that they would be sent to prison if they displeased the government.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is the UK okay?

« on: September 09, 2024, 08:31:32 PM »

In the UK the speech restrictions are vague and childish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace,[4][5][6] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety,[7][8][9] incitement,[10] incitement to racial hatred,[11] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism"

According to what I quoted above if I was in the UK and sent you an article that is likely to cause "distress" or "alarm" or "anxiety" in you, it could land me in legal hot water. Basically, anything that people could interpret as offensive or alarming or distressing can get punishment. Writing an article or book criticizing the Church of Scientology could run afoul of being behavior that is "likely to cause harassment" or cause "religious hatred" for exposing them.

Apparently, you can't even give the simple opinion that the Monarchy should be abolished, and you would face life imprisonment for such an opinion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry




Regardless of whether people have been recently prosecuted for this, this looming threat shows that the UK is an authoritarian state which does not grant its people freedom of belief. Anyone who wants to express this belief that it is time for the Monarchy to go away would be in fear of their freedom should they do so.

Since I have more rights than you do, I am free to express that my system of government should be abolished and re-done without worry of prosecution. This is something you are not allowed to express about your Constitutional Monarchy. That makes me better and freer than you.

The rulers of your tiny pinched loaf of a country simply needs to stop acting like a bunch of petulant children and learn that there is a difference between words and actions. Parents teach their children not to hit people in response to words. Someone may have some displeasing words for you, but they remain as words until they are not. Going around policing beliefs is an absurdity.

I guess it's like this place. You don't have freedom of speech on here - you can't call me certain things on here, definitely not in the uppers.

The difference is, of course, when you get banned on this website there are no legal consequences. No one is going to jail like the UK has sent people on social media to jail, and Pete isn't threatening you with life imprisonment if you dissent against his rule. When you get banned here it is a closer analogy to someone kicking you out of their house. The rule you live under is a total joke.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is the UK okay?

« on: September 09, 2024, 11:47:32 AM »

I didn't claim that 1989 was 2024. I posted it to describe that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech and that just because they weren't censor-heavy in 1989, it doesn't mean that they would continue down that path.

From the 1989 article: "It is important to remember that just because Parliament has chosen to exercise self-restraint in this area, there is no guarantee that it will continue forever to do so."

Today there is criticism that they are censoring speech. The UK Prime Minister has called for censoring social media and has arrested people for thought crimes, and everything else in that article you don't like. The same things mentioned in the Telegraph article are mentioned in this thread.

Perhaps if you come up with a real defense other than essentially saying "I don't like it" and "maybe they're lying" we would have more to discuss here. You should probably explain why you don't like it, and demonstrate that they're lying or misrepresenting the truth. I see that it is equally possible that any of the pro-labour journalists you like who claim that there is no censorship issue, and that their party is doing nothing wrong, are the ones who are lying.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is the UK okay?

« on: September 09, 2024, 12:11:59 AM »

It was your article, dude.

Correct. The article said it was from 1989 and I did as well.

This is today

And what's he talking about here? What's the context and how does that feed in to this conversation about freedoms?
(SPOILER: It doesn't, he's talking about economic decisions)

Sure, around that time stamp they were talking about his heinous policy of reducing winter heating money to pensioners (who tend to be conservative), but the statement that he doesn't care if his policies are unpopular is relevant considering that it was given as a general statement that he repeated with the words 'policies' and 'things' as plural and there is existing controversy over his unpopular censorship.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240903022814/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/02/2tk-readers-condemn-keir-starmer-war-on-free-speech/

"Barely two months into his role as Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer has wasted no time showing us the kind of leader he is and the kind of Government he runs.

Telegraph readers have collectively argued that he is authoritarian, runs a two-tier society that shuts down dissent and gives a free pass to people who are politically and ideologically aligned with Labour.

Following a spat with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who criticised Sir Keir’s handling of the UK riots and publicly embarrassed him by popularising the “two-tier Keir” (2TK) epithet, the Prime Minister has vowed to introduce controls on social media to limit “fake news” and he has scrapped the incoming cancel culture law that would have protected free speech at universities.

Telegraph readers are in agreement that Sir Keir’s moves to place controls on free speech is an over intrusion by the Government and that he is ignoring the underlying issues of the civil unrest, instead focusing on waging war against ordinary people with “unacceptable” opinions.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is the UK okay?

« on: September 08, 2024, 07:31:02 PM »

the United Kingdom, without one, does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

That was 1989. This is today:

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1832793896524665318