41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 01, 2024, 12:04:38 AM »Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.
you get what I mean
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.
you get what I mean
Actually, that kinda, sorta already happens during the primaries as each state has its own rules for getting on the ballot. The party conventions are then held to sort out the party's candidate. Even then, there are third parties and write-ins that will vary by state in the November ballot.I mean, suuuure, but you get what I mean. Imagine a scenario in which your victory is almost dictated by how many ballots you can get your name on. It would be exhilirating to watch!
Unfortunately humor and a genuine Flat Earth Society doesn't really mix, and this is was Leo Ferarri's problem with his society.This is an unfortunate problem that I've also personally encountered. Oftentimes, if I made a joke mid-discussion, some idiot would decide that it's impossible to simultaneously be serious about core arguments and have a sense of humour.
Any Democratic politician with a decent record of their own, and yet isn't so high-profile that they've attracted relentless attacks from Republicans on the national level. Someone like, say, Andy Beshear, the surprisingly popular governor of Kentucky.Wouldn't you be worried about Trump having a potential advantage in a race against a relative nobody? I doubt many people who aren't terminally online/political would know who Andy Beshear is.
Does this really matter?You and I understand that. Unfortunately, a large proportion of RE'ers is much stupider than that. The number of people who were dead serious about it being real has been astonishing, which is probably what pushed Snopes to create the article.
You understand that most jokes contain something which isn’t true, which is the bit that makes them funny.
Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the electionwith whom tho
Does anybody know what he's talking about?He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.
But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.
Thus the earth is not flat.Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.
I was not referring specifically to that photoI'm very happy for you. If at any point you're ready to discuss the actual topic at hand, rather than something you chose seemingly at random, please let us know.
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.Ah, yes, skylines, those near-perfectly representations of the horizon.
Curios that this claimed wave never seems to passFascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time? Yes, friend, the wave in the still photograph does never seem to pass. That's one of the main selling points of photography.
but setting that aside what about observations over land?Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure - otherwise you're just reintroducing the same issue. Luckily, that would never happen with someone like y-
mountainsSigh. Try again.
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.
I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors.This:
That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.You have not accomplished that. This discussion concerns the horizon. You have yet to post one picture of the horizon. You posted plenty of pictures of things that are not the horizon and asserted that they prove your point.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you saidWhat I said now and what I said then is exactly the same thing. You are showing us something that you describe as a "sharp horizon", despite it not being the horizon at all. You're showing us a body obstructing your view long before the horizon would be seen. Functionally, it is identical to claiming that this picture shows the "horizon":
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT after a few months is not proof of you adapting to new information. If anything, it shows that you lack object permanence.
It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstructionWell, yes, if you restrict your options to 2 incorrect ones, it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It starts to matter once you consider the FE option.
You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say resembling that.Of course you did, and I helpfully quoted you saying it. Of course, it's possible that you have a perfectly good explanation for a metaphysical horizon, but so far you chose not to provide it.
should I report you for low content posting?I would sincerely advise against you trying to troll via the mod report function. You already have a track record of doing that.
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.Damn, RE light now exists outside of the realm of physics. And you say we're the ones with strange ideas about light.
I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.You and I approach things very differently. I don't mind that. Putting the "fun" in "fundamental disagreements" and all that.
No I don't. I provided examples.This is incorrect. You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors - and assert without evidence that these cases are the same as what's being discussed. In doing so, you engage in circular logic.
He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly.
I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller?I'm trying to be polite, or at least not immediately viscerally aggressive. Would you care to reciprocate by responding only to things I said, and not things you made up to make yourself feel better?
It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast.That's a decent excuse for not doing it immediately, in which case you have a perfectly good reason not to respond to these threads for a while. But you do respond, incessantly. In doing so, you forfeit your excuse.