Show Posts

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.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 350  Next >
Pete, I already discounted the grain and blemishes
So have I.

My suggestion is that Action80's desk probably has an overall curvature.
Yes, I understood you; and I despair over your thinking that this is insightful. You've seen Ferguson's map, right?

Is it actually flat?
You would have thought that after four years here you'd know that nobody proposes that the Earth is a perfectly flat surface, or even a particularly flat one at all (though it does happen to be flatter than a pancake); much like how RE'ers do not propose that the Earth is a perfect ball.

Thus continues the plight of RE zealots - no matter how low the bar is set, you lot demonstrate that you're capable of being even worse.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Climate Change and Flat Earth
« on: January 25, 2024, 09:25:36 PM »
Reality is that we'd experience much different weather and climate outcomes right now if the earth was flat
I'd be curious to see why you believe this - it's quite a large claim to just throw out there as "reality", with absolutely no substantiation.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Get a haircut, you hippie!
« on: January 25, 2024, 09:17:53 PM »
Here is a picture of the offending student. To me, it makes no sense regarding any issue with hair length.

Wait, what? This person's hair isn't even long. I agree, this is silly.

and perhaps it’s only in the Wiki as an example of the silly things people believed in long ago. 
If you only wish to muse about the fact that you still don't understand how the Wiki works after you've had it explained to you so many times, please take it out of the upper. This thread derailment ends here.

If Parsifal’s equation is valid then Rowbotham proved with his Bedford Canal experiment that the earth really isn’t flat but must be curved the same way light is.
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.
Alternatively: RE'ers' obsession with a book from 150 years ago is baffling, and upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly buggers.

What is it with the RE zealots and the approach of "Aha! Someone else said a thing. You must take responsibility for it, despite having no relation to them!", anyway? You'd be very unhappy (rightly so) if someone else treated you that way.

Just imagine I demanded that you explain every single wrong thing a RE'er said here before I take you seriously. Now, imagine we extended that to go back hundreds of years - even to the ancient times before RonJs walked the earth! Yeah... it sounds dumb, because it is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does history support the Flat Earth Theory?
« on: January 17, 2024, 08:43:20 PM »
Second, arguing about the possible technical knowledge base of any government or political party - Nazi or otherwise - is hardly an endorsement of their politics or ideals. Shame on you (but with kind indulgence) for implying I endorse anything about fascists
You will, of course, notice that I didn't say anything about your endorsement of their ideals or politics. That's just something you made up. Shame on you, with no indulgence.

I'm arguing this:

1. As with OP's argument, let's assume there is a global conspiracy by the governments of all major (i.e., technically advanced) nations to hide the true shape of the earth - that it is flat, not round.
I see. In the future, reading the thread prior to contributing will help you not come across in ways that seemingly offend you. Your core assumption was rejected in the very first response to the OP. The rest of your post will be read in context of the discussion you chose to partake it, so if you ignore (or, in your case, fail to even read) parts of it, you put yourself at risk of being severely misunderstood.

The prevailing pattern here is that you seem more keen on responding to things you've imagined than your conversation partners' arguments. Might I suggest a personal blog for this sort of monologue? It doesn't belong here.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does history support the Flat Earth Theory?
« on: January 14, 2024, 12:57:27 AM »
One thing that baffles me about existoid's position is that, in its view, it is a necessity that people in the 1930s knew about things we do not know about in the 2020s. To the being which cannot cease to be, it is simply inconceivable that people 90 years ago did not have the knowledge that we still lack to this day.

Where does this inexplicable confidence in the enlightenment of the Nazis come from? Does The Being consider Nazis to be of superior intellect, to the extent where they'd be a century more advanced than we are? It truly boggles the mind.

Once we accept that the Nazis were not inherently superior to the modern man (a thought that I can't imagine being controversial today, but hey-ho, here we are), the entire mystery goes away - they simply did not know the things that we still don't know. It doesn't merit multiple paragraphs of deliberation, because it's a pretty basic concept. And if the persistently-existing being insists that the Nazis were inherently superior... well, it doesn't feel so bad to disagree with it. Back where I'm from, Nazis get punched.

You can substitute the same logic for its inexplicable belief in the Soviets, Iranians, Hamas, the North Korean regime, and the bloodthirsty "Z" orcs (since it apparently does not consider them the same as the Soviets). The existoid appears to be a being that simply cannot cease to put its faith in the inexcusable and reprehensible. A common failing of those who wish to oppose uncomfortable thoughts no matter the cost. :(

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does history support the Flat Earth Theory?
« on: January 12, 2024, 10:50:05 AM »
German geologists didn't notice that the antartic wasn't as they thought?
Why would it "not be as they thought"? And since when was Hitler a German geologist? I thought he was more of an aspiring artist/dictator.

You people really think scientists are dumbasses, don't you?
Not at all.

Because I don't see how there is really another option besides all governments hidding the true shape or all scientists in history being really stupid to not notice the true shape of the planet.
That sounds like a "you" problem. We can take no responsibility for what you do and don't "see". That said, familiarising yourself with what we actually propose might be a helpful first step here, rather than just assuming that your imagination is correct.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does history support the Flat Earth Theory?
« on: January 04, 2024, 11:09:02 PM »
I understand that it is a claim among flat earthers that the true shape of the Earth is concealed by all governments.
You're off to a very contentious start - it's not a claim you can easily attribute to all, or even most, FE'ers. It's also certainly not a common position within the Flat Earth Society.

I don't really know if I will be deleted for saying his name, but I think you know who I am referring to
There is no problem with mentioning Hitler's name here in and of itself. Obviously that might change with context.

If we believe that the Earth is flat, the only way to explain why this man never addressed the shape of the earth (not even in his private correspondence, nor even when death was coming) would be to believe that he was, somehow, an agent of the world conspiracy himself.
That's an extreme leap of logic, and one you don't really explain. Why do you believe this is the only possible option? It would be just as well explained by his lack of knowledge or interest in the subject, being a victim of deception himself, or the absence of appropriate historical records.

I can't disagree, tho I'd counter than a teacher who plagurized and regretted it would get the meesage across better than one who did not.
Yeah, I can see why some path to "redemption" would be desirable. On the flipside, if you make it to the supposed higher echelons of education, are you not a little too "mature" to be making these sort of errors? I honestly don't know the answer here.

If you have a non-research teacher, not a factor.
Ooh, I strongly disagree! We're talking about universities, and part of a lecturer's job is to perpetuate academic integrity. If they cannot adhere to it themselves, then they do not belong in academia. They can be perfectly good educators outside of the old boys' club, though.

Academics, especially nowadays, are not just teachers. Knowledge is no longer difficult to obtain - you can find free resources covering any subject you'd like to a very advanced level. Universities are supposed to help you figure out how to best acquire and apply knowledge, and a large part of that is upholding the values that brought our current progress forward. These values may yet turn out not to be "correct", and perhaps the entire system will be overturned - but if that is the case, the revolution should come from outside of the system.

Who is charged with defining the act of plagiarism?
So, from a very pragmatic perspective, this is defined by each university's own policies. Of course, there is a general agreement of what does and doesn't count as plagiarism, and if an institution chose to significantly deviate from societal norms, it may lose various accreditations and statuses, but at least in theory they have some wiggle room.

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

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2023, 08:13:00 PM »
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!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2023, 03:19:18 PM »
I'm not saying this is likely to happen (because, lol, it's not), but a hypothetical future in which each state has different sets of candidates on the ballot would be fascinating. Since America has already volunteered to be the world's Petri dish for flawed-democracy experiments, perhaps y'all should just double down on it.

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.

Ultimately, the RE mindset is at fault - it is in their best interest to discard controversial thoughts the moment they find an excuse - but it's still prudent to work around it to some extent.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 24, 2023, 01:48:38 PM »
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 understand that most jokes contain something which isn’t true, which is the bit that makes them funny.
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.

Is it important? It's a small piece of the puzzle in a much larger battle for the adherence to basic truth, but a small step is a step nonetheless.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 20, 2023, 10:48:29 PM »
Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election
with whom tho

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 350  Next >