[supaluminus]

Hey, guys. How come this?









Expanded:

I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.

If we then assume that the sun and moon are hovering over the flat earth disc, rotating around it like the hands on a clock, then we should be able to make certain predictions about how they would appear to move... at least, that sounds reasonable to me.

Therefore, if we have some idea what the sun and moon do as they rotate around and around above the flat earth... why then do we observe the phenomenon described here?

Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

Regards,



supe

[SpaceCadet]

Walking home one evening, looking up at the setting sun, I realised that the sun presents a round face to me all day everyday everywhere. The sun presents a round face to everyone everywhere. How does this work with a spotlight sun? Showing a circle in all directions is characteristic of a sphere.

More, at sunset, the sun even looks larger than it does when up in the sky. That doesn't help the sun-moving-away perspective lines.

[Obviously]

This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the FE hypothesis! I’ve brought this up before on this forum and many other places, and the usual answer is "perspective", which is a non-answer. Dismissing evidence like this with a word the definition of which you don’t actually understand, or saying "we don’t know" is a foolish cop-out.

Cmon flerfers, for a millionth time, try and give us a clear explanation (preferably with a drawing please) of how we can possibly see only the top half of the sun (or really top half of anything, like ships, the Chicago skyline from Michigan, etc.) with your FE "model"! And please don’t repost one of those silly perspective videos again, I beg you...

[AATW]

Wow. That really is a load of gibberish...

I think the answer to the OP, or the FE answer, is some kind of magical atmospheric magnification which means the sun doesn't appear to sink.
But then you have the problem of a sun 3000 miles above the earth appearing to intersect the horizon.
Tom can shout "perspective" all he likes, for the long shadows you see at sunset and for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically on the horizon.

[supaluminus]

Almost 200 views and a full week. Narry a peep from Team Flat.

Guys, please. Don't just ignore inconvenient data. Address it head on. Give me SOMETHING to respond to, SOME kind of rationale, so I can hopefully show you... why that rationale falls short.

[supaluminus]

And, just because I found a much better example, I'mma add this here and in the OP:

[Pete Svarrior]

Almost 200 views and a full week. Narry a peep from Team Flat.

Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable". Therefore, per your own advice, I will not be responding. Combined with your recent addendum of "I'm only asking so I can show you why you're wrong", it makes for a particularly uninteresting thread.

Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.

[Macarios]

Why is lower half shruk vertically and upper half isnt?
Does perspective work only partially?

Why is nothing shrunk horizontally?
Does perspective work only vertically?

[ShowmetheProof]

Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.

1.  Who is talking here?  A representative of a place where the FE'ers machine gun any chance of an equal debate.  Stop being a hypocrite!
2.  That isn't making a debate unfair, that is just debating well.  That's how you debate, you bring up evidence that shows you're right, then challenge others to prove it wrong.  It is a fine example of good debating. 

[OrigamiBoy]

Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.

1.  Who is talking here?  A representative of a place where the FE'ers machine gun any chance of an equal debate.  Stop being a hypocrite!
2.  That isn't making a debate unfair, that is just debating well.  That's how you debate, you bring up evidence that shows you're right, then challenge others to prove it wrong.  It is a fine example of good debating.

Yes, most debates are very one-sided, with one side having the upper hand. Hardly and debates are "equal". In fact, look at any post in the flat earth debate, they are almost all debating against the flat earth, not for it.

de·bate
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

"opposing arguments are put forward"
If the other side of the debate cannot debunk the arguments put forward, then the debate winner is very clear.

[juner]

post

Change your avatar. See rule 8.

[OrigamiBoy]

post

Change your avatar. See rule 8.

Rule 8 is about alts, this is my main account and the avatar is a joke, im obviously not trying to impersonate pete

[juner]

Rule 8 is about alts, this is my main account and the avatar is a joke, im obviously not trying to impersonate pete

I don't care if it is a joke. It can be misleading to people. I will give you one more chance to change it. You'll be getting whatever your next level of ban is next.

EDIT - Looks like a 7-day ban is up next since you have already had a 3-day.

EDIT 2 - Thank you.

[Pete Svarrior]

This thread is hilarious:

S: Debate on my terms or don't debate at all!
[...]
S: Why is nobody debating me?
P: Personally, I dislike your terms.
: Hypocrite! Scoundrel! Burn the witch!

[CynderHD]

Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable".

May I then refer you something stated in the OP

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

Regards,

supe

The OP states directly that if you have an issue with any of the assumptions made then state that and add why so you two can collaboratively define a model. Your accusation that the OP is MAKING you argue on their terms is simply false. So, therefore the most logical following question is: What issues do you have with the assumptions and/or structure in the OP's argument?

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm not referring to your assumptions. I'm referring to your terms. To discuss your assumptions would be to engage you in the debate you're asking for.

[supaluminus]

I'm not referring to your assumptions. I'm referring to your terms. To discuss your assumptions would be to engage you in the debate you're asking for.

What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."

I disagree, fundamentally, with your objection. I actually want to have a productive dialogue. From where I'm standing, you are attempting to shut down the debate before it can even happen with yet another vain attempt to delegitimize the discussion before it can begin. "Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.

So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.

If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.

EDIT: Also...

Combined with your recent addendum of "I'm only asking so I can show you why you're wrong", it makes for a particularly uninteresting thread.

Pretty sure that defines literally every debate ever. If you find it to be in bad taste when your debate opponent is motivated by a desire to prove their point and disprove yours, then you probably shouldn't engage in debates, ever.

I come in with the expectation that the other person is going to try to disprove my position. It doesn't mean we can't have an honest discussion, cede ground when called for, etc., it just means... that's how a debate works. Excusing yourself on this basis is just poor reasoning.

EDIT: ALSO also...

Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable". Therefore, per your own advice, I will not be responding.

You mean this advice?

I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

Yeah, no, by all means. If you can't accept the possibility that I'm going to ask follow-up questions or object to some things... you know, like an actual debate... then yeah, refrain from responding. Because that's not a debate, that's a lecture.

[Pete Svarrior]

You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures, and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it. Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick, you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men.

And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.

[supaluminus]

You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures...

No, see, you're twisting my words already like a smug cunt.

You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."

My only advice was that you not respond IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?

But I was being vague before, so let me be clear: You aren't interested in exchange. You want to lecture. Don't pull this smug, juvenile crap where you take my vague suggestion and turn it around on me. As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.

... and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it.

That's really big of you.

Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick...

Yeah... okay...

Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."

I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.

[...]

Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

That's about as close to my "terms" as I think we can get. Everything else dealt with the assumptions I listed off, which you already said aren't the problem. My "supreme reason-y" terms are the problem, whatever that means.

Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

: l

Am I "supreme reason" yet?

Am I foisting my "terms" upon you?

Or am I instead asking you to chime in if you have a problem with either my reason or my terms?

Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.

> nb4 Pete quotes that and says something smug like "yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way" like a predictable pedant

When at last we finally got into it a little, I even added the following concessions:

What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."

[...]

So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.

All you've done is piss and moan about some vague suggestion that I'm proclaiming myself "supreme reason" and somehow foisting or demanding that it be my way or the highway. Well, for one thing, it's my thread, and for another, if you honestly can't accept terms like "hey, maybe let people ask some follow-up questions," I say again that you have no business in any debate, nevermind this one.

Other than that one request, I've been pretty straightforward, from the get go, that I'm willing to work with the other side until we can hash out a few assumptions and start questioning them.

... you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men.

At least they aren't afraid of answering simple questions.

Like some people.

: \

And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.

Did you just skim past this next part or what?

"Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.

[...]

If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.

Keep spinnin' that yarn, Pete.

And you know what, there may be no one responding, but until you or someone else does respond, I have to assume that neither you nor anyone here can offer a reasonable explanation for the phenomena demonstrated in the OP. Your "supreme reason" criticism doesn't make a lick of sense, and I still maintain that you're attempting to sabotage the discussion by depicting it as illegitimate, until you can summon up the courage of your convictions to show me something different.

Last word's all yours, champ. I ain't got nothin' more to say to you if it's more smug, self-satisfied crap.

[Buran]

I generally consider no response to mean they concede. I think you thoroughly won this one.