21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 29, 2024, 10:23:01 PM »

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax

« on: January 27, 2024, 02:42:48 AM »

I'm not terribly confident in the existence of the Conspiracy. The more individual countries seem to be involved; the more pictures they produce that are impossible to falsify as far we can tell; the more people you have to imagine have to be in it to some degree for it to even be possible; not to mention all the sources from independent sources that show the same sorts of images; it starts to stretch credibility to a small degree.

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Get a haircut, you hippie!

« on: January 25, 2024, 08:27:29 PM »

Where have I said anything negative about mask mandates?

Ok, I admit it. Apparently I was wr... I was wro...

I may possibly have been mistaken. Apologies for making an assumption based on your political leanings

Roundy, Tom wasn't against mask mandates as far as I know.

I was. Because they do harm people.

How so? 

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Get a haircut, you hippie!

« on: January 25, 2024, 06:42:36 PM »

Not my country, not my legal system, not my school board and not my choice of tonsorial elegance but, ffs, what is this; the 1960s?  Isn't a State court a rather heavy steamhammer against bad hair?  Jeepers, if your hair/attire/adornments aren't endangering or offending the public, what's the problem?

Dress code requirements are also not endangering the public, so what's the issue?

I thought you were the "land of the free"?

Tom picks and chooses what he feels we have a right to be free about. Mask mandates? Don't hurt anyone, ultimately help the public, fascist theft of our civil liberties. Dress codes? Don't hurt anyone, don't really help anyone either, perfectly reasonable theft of our civil liberties!

You see?

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 31, 2023, 02:45:09 PM »

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 22, 2023, 10:46:54 PM »

Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.

With all of the reals scandals that Trump was (and still is) involved in at the time, Hillary must have been very special to lose.

And yet it's a dead heat between Trump and Biden in the polls right now, with Trump usually coming out slightly ahead. I guess Biden's special too.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 22, 2023, 08:25:24 PM »

I fear the democrats are going to nominate the psychopath Patrick Bateman.. I mean Gavin Newsom. Same thing, really.

Sadly, in 2016, the Democrats found the only living organism on the planet that could lose to Trump. It will be a monumental achievement to top that failure but they could do it.

Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 20, 2023, 08:31:56 AM »

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Its ok, colorado usually votes blue due to denver.  So Trump can still win.  Right?

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 17, 2023, 08:12:58 PM »

I really don't care whether the value of Trump's NFTs have gone up or down. NFTs are little more than a scam to begin with, and any variations in their prices are due to the nonsensical vagaries of their nonsensical market. You can't treat them like a serious investment.

Collectible NFTs are tanking in general anyway. If someone bought some for $99 last year and sell now they turned a nice profit so in a limited sense Tom's right. I wouldn't bank on any of them doing anything but lose value in the long term though.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 14, 2023, 09:39:53 PM »

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

Two immediate thoughts:
-Trump's a grifting piece of crap.
-Are there really idoits out there that will buy this?

To the second thought: we're talking about MAGA here, so I'm gonna assume the answer is yes. That despite the original round of NFTs dropping significantly in value. Let's not forget that they are all morons.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 09, 2023, 08:30:07 PM »

The questions you replied to are "how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?" Presumably anyone replying to me with an argument must think that this should not be investigated.

Well there's your problem. You assumed something that, based on my response, was clearly not what I was arguing. It's ok Tom we all make mistakes from time to time.

Again this has already been investigated thoroughly without a shred of evidence (seriously, it's absurd for you to have this line of argument now anyway, given that Biden has already been so thoroughly investigated, but Tom gonna Tom). When is it time to throw in the towel? For the Republicans in this instance, never, because it's not actually about finding the truth, it's about smearing a political enemy. Leveling the playing field. Who cares if we've fished and fished for evidence of wrongdoing and found not a shred, let's impeach him anyway because it makes Trump look a little better if they've both been impeached.

Clown show. And puppet show (people like you are the puppets).

32

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 09, 2023, 04:46:17 PM »

Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.

Hunter Biden was collecting money on the suggestion of providing access to Joe Biden's political power. How is that not about Joe Biden, or warranting of an investigation?

The purpose of an investigation is to investigate things and collect evidence. Your statement of "without evidence that Joe was involved" suggests that you want Congress to investigate this and collect evidence. Oddly, you are simultaneously expressing a desire for an investigation while telling us that they should not investigate this.

Except I never argued it didn't warrant an investigation. The Republicans have been investigating this for years now and have turned up 0 evidence of corruption on Joe Biden's part. Try harder, Tom. 

Clown show. You're a part of it. 

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 06, 2023, 06:07:57 PM »

Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: November 30, 2023, 09:10:42 PM »

That was a brilliant move on Hunter's part, really. He knows they don't have shit and he wants to make sure the world knows, too.

This whole thing is such a clown show, smoke and mirrors to try to convince the country that Biden is somehow an even bigger criminal than Trump. It plays well to the base (who almost by nature are suckers) and maybe some gullible independents so why not?

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: I created a FlatEarth GPT (Chatgpt)

« on: November 28, 2023, 02:10:14 PM »

More like FlatGPT amirite

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 18, 2023, 11:05:25 PM »

Tom loves expressing opinions as absolute facts. Bonus points for it being something he has no personal experience with. He just knows, somehow. 

37

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: November 14, 2023, 04:29:39 AM »

No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to pre-emptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

I'm gonna disagree, because there have been versions of Aquaman that leaned into the badass burly trope in the comics and they tend to be the best iterations of the character. He's not usually such a himbo though.

In other news Loki is the best thing yet produced by the MCU. The ending (assuming it is over) was fantastic.

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 31, 2023, 06:28:45 AM »

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes.

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 09:34:43 PM »

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Not sure how common sense differentiates this.

I can almost believe that's true, but I know you better than that.

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 06:48:59 PM »

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.