41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 24, 2022, 07:55:22 AM »

according to Rowbotham the two methods aren’t compatible at all. According to him if you hypothesize or theorize, your conclusions are invalid.

What is it with RE'ers and this unshakeable obsession with Samuel Rowbotham? From what you're saying (which I didn't verify, because it's pretty unimportant) it sounds like Rowbotham was wrong. So what?

Superior methods produce superior results.  That’s what makes them superior methods. 

Once again you demonstrate the flaws of your philosophy. Superior methods produce superior results in a controlled environment. Your experimental setup is a shambles, since you haven't accounted for a plethora of factors unrelated to the method chosen; but still felt confident enough to draw conclusions.

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 23, 2022, 09:26:57 PM »

I don’t know what you are getting by sloppy and imprecise.

Then ask. Don't waste your time following up. "I don't know what you're saying, but here's a response anyway!!" In a way, this is a fantastic illustration of how picking a hypothesis out of thin air leads to wasted effort.

Here’s a question.  Using the zetetic method, what knowledge has been gained about the flat earth over the last couple of hundred years?

Considering that Zeteticism is backwards-compatible with science, and that it's a method of inquiry, this question doesn't even begin to make sense.

If the zetetic method is superior, it seems like a lot more should have been learned.

What do you base this assertion on?

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 23, 2022, 09:08:23 PM »

He didn't just post a random uncredited picture he found

But he did exactly that. He posted an image with no source (other than imgur, I guess) and made a bunch of empty assertions about it. That you mistake these assertions for a citation is very telling.

the software mentioned he could evaluate himself, and likely match his own observations and make new ones.

Excellent standards of inquiry, I'm impressed. You personally think that something is "likely", therefore it no longer merits scrutiny.

After all it's impossible to prove anything, except when using pure formal logic such as math.

But of course! Nothing is provable, nothing ever requires evidence! We should just state any old shit as fact and demand that others accept it, that'll get us places!

You don't think before you speak, do you?

Kinda sounds like you're describing the wiki.

You will stop shitposting in the upper fora, with immediate effect. The only question is whether you will do so by choice.

What sort of "proof" are you looking for?

My brother in Christ, this is literally your argument. It's up to you to evidence it, not me.

44

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 23, 2022, 08:20:16 AM »

I have used this specialized software and taken my own pictures of the ISS on many occasions on multiple continents.

You misunderstood my point slightly. My contention with stack is that he goes out of his way to Google for images that support his assumptions and posts them as if they were authoritative evidence.

The answer here isn't for me to do his work for him. That just lets him carry on being an intellectual slob.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 22, 2022, 11:50:42 PM »

You are being pedantic but it doesn’t really matter.

If you're willing to be sloppy and imprecise, then the differences between Zeteticism and the scientific method are indeed "minor". It's entirely up to you whether you want to explore them, or whether such differences "don't really matter" to you.

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 10:13:43 PM »

So, surprise, surprise; we're back to the "faked photo" response.

I said nothing of the sort. I simply asked you to prove your assertion. Surely you didn't state something with such great confidence if you didn't have proof?

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 08:54:53 PM »

With Scott Ferguson's observation, specialized software wasn't used to "see" the ISS. It was used to predict the position of the ISS.

Prove it.

48

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 08:34:38 PM »

I can use specialised software to see much more than a magical space station. Be bold, name what you'd like to see. Specialised software will sort it out.

49

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Home Page

« on: April 22, 2022, 02:56:30 PM »

It just makes it look like not much is going on round here.

Not much is going on around here, and the Announcements section feeds search engine algorithms their favourite stuff. It works. You don't have to like it, and, as you astutely observed, you are emphatically not its target audience.

Since you Don't Care But Will Incessantly Post About How Much You Don't Care™, and nobody seems to be available to contribute, I think it's about time we stop bumping this thread.

50

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Home Page

« on: April 22, 2022, 01:38:53 PM »

Maybe AllAroundTheWorld is saying that since we've all proven incapable of keeping up with announcements that the home page should be redesigned to exclude this feature.

The same reply applies:

If you're not willing to contribute, then your suggestion is that someone else should do more work. We're at capacity.

51

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 20, 2022, 09:07:10 PM »

you also can divine and assess my emotional state

Considering I was just calling you unperceptive, you're really not making this easy for yourself. Allow me to repeat myself: I assume that your expression of your own emotional state is truthful. This is no divination. If you don't want to sound like you're whining, you can just stop whining.

The way I see it, it's not evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry to hear about your predicament.

In any case, I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion to warrant insult.

You could have simply not started shit if you weren't willing to take it yourself. 🤷‍♂️ The "NUH UH NO U" post didn't exactly set the scene for your now-revised "oh nooooo I wasn't trying to be controversial" approach.

52

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 20, 2022, 08:18:56 PM »

I don't know exactly how you are able to gauge my level of contentment

It's pretty simple - I assume you express your emotions truthfully. If you're lying, hey-ho, you've got me.

I was just merely pointing out that both sides of the debate go about it pretty much the same way.

Yes, which is why I presented you with evidence to the contrary. I guess you're just gonna ignore that and restate your "point". That's cool.

53

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 20, 2022, 07:35:55 PM »

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

Coming from someone whose grasp of FE is non-existent and whose grasp of RE is somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre", that would be surprising. Nah, who am I kidding? You're exactly the type Pongo was talking about, and you just couldn't stop yourself from proving him right.

All that for a quick "UHHHH I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???" quip.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.

The Wiki addresses the most common arguments RE'ers come to us crying about. The only thing that "cuts both ways" here is your inability to ever be content. You pompously demand that we discredit your dogma, and then you complain that we humour you.

54

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What are astronomers observing?

« on: April 13, 2022, 05:47:17 PM »

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10086.0

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 13, 2022, 03:58:41 PM »

Liberals BTFO by a literal pigeon 

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: April 12, 2022, 03:04:42 PM »

Has tom even seen these "love letters"?
They're likely closer to "write a valenitne card to a classmate" which is very much "I like your hair" or "you have a cool pencil" or, if scandelous... "You're my best friend".

It's a literature class. They are writing a letter from one fictional character to another. Extremely common, extremely boring, except the characters are 👻 gay 🎃

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: April 12, 2022, 02:50:12 PM »

From what I am reading here it seems that you thought it was appropriate for the teacher to force the children to write a love letter. Why not defend that it is appropriate to force a child to write a love letter?

Tom, I will say this one last time. You are currently in PR&S, and you are expected to argue in good faith. If you cannot do that, please find somewhere else to post.

Is there evidence for this?

Ah, how peculiar that you suddenly require evidence, after ignoring so many calls for your own. But hey, of course I do! Here are just a few public resources in which educators shared parts of their lesson ideas around Valentine's Day. I'm surprised you haven't seen those before - considering your confidence in the subject, you'd have thought you at least ran a Google search.
https://www.pentagonplay.co.uk/news-and-info/valentines-day-lesson-ideas-for-eyfs-ks1-ks2-children
https://www.artistshelpingchildren.org/valentinesdaycardboxes.html
https://www.mrsmactivity.co.uk/downloads/i-love-you-to-pieces-writing-activity/

And here's a BBC KS1 resource proposing it as a follow-up activity to the broadcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/primary-school-assemblies-collective-worship-ks1-valentines-day/ztcysk7

Did the teachers instruct them to do this or is this something that students do on their own?

Come on, Tom. What is this insanity? 6-year old children left unsupervised to do something on their own? Now that would be grossly inappropriate (and it reminds us that you have absolutely no context on the subject you're discussing)! The teacher has ultimate responsibility for those kids, and, as you aptly pointed out, they have no capacity to consent to anything.

Here are some direct questions:

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to write a love letter?

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to pretend to be gay in classroom activities?

These are genuine questions from me which I would appreciate direct answers to. I genuinely do not understand how this is appropriate.

Neither of these entirely hypothetical scenarios would be appropriate. If you ever find any examples of this happening, please report it to the school and local authorities. They will be well placed to take appropriate action.

However, I must warn you: you are currently misusing the word "forced" in a very fanciful way, and one that would get you a very negative response from anyone with authority. You should reserve the above advice for actual cases, and not for super cool troll arguments.

If a teacher asks you to do something there is institutional pressure and an implied threat behind it.

That goes against the very core of what teachers are trained to do, especially at such a young age. I'm afraid that such an extraordinary claim would require some extraordinary evidence. Until then, it can be discarded.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: April 12, 2022, 01:58:08 PM »

So your argument is that children should be forced [...]

No, and if you cannot argue without these false accusations, then don't expect me to waste my time.

If students are writing love letters in school to each other on a personal level

Why would I talk about anything they do on a personal level? We're talking about what happens during class activities, Tom. Yeah, I'm not surprised you didn't know children write fantasy love leters in class (see also: armchair pedagogues with no experience of education), but now that this information is available to you, you can try and adapt your beliefs to it.

It appears that your justification is just than that the children are capable of it.

The way things "appear" to you is irrelevant. Respond to what's been said, and not to your imagination thereof. If you haven't understood something, ask.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: April 12, 2022, 08:48:47 AM »

I simply do not see how anyone can defend this sort of blatant conditioning. A school in Britain was making six year old children write gay love letters.

That's around the same age they'd write straight love letters in most UK schools. Why are you railing against one and ignoring the other?

School do not typically directly push heterosexual ideologies as a form of conditioning.

You have yet to demonstrate that it's a form of "conditioning", beyond just repeatedly calling it "blatant". It's not blatant.

Early stages of education can look pretty weird to adults who remember none of it, and who have since not engaged with it. That's why we need highly trained professionals and not armchair pedagogues to maintain the system.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do opposite sides of the earth see daylight simultaneously in a FE Summer?

« on: April 10, 2022, 07:59:57 PM »

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0