Recent Posts

Flat Earth Community / Re: I created a FlatEarth GPT (Chatgpt)
« Last post by the33rdegree on Today at 03:25:33 PM »
More like FlatGPT amirite
What does this even mean?
Flat Earth Community / Re: I created a FlatEarth GPT (Chatgpt)
« Last post by Roundy on Today at 02:10:14 PM »
More like FlatGPT amirite
Flat Earth Community / I created a FlatEarth GPT (Chatgpt)
« Last post by the33rdegree on Today at 08:05:35 AM »
Its a custom GPT dedicated to prove the flat earth and provide answers arround it.
If you see some messages or stuff that you don't like put it here and i'll try to make sure it doesnt behave in some ways.

here is the link

and the twitter

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on November 27, 2023, 08:33:21 PM »
You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.
Rates of screaming is minimal.  Its not "improbable" its "typical".  You're thinking like a man.  You're tough and your fight or flight typically turns to fight.  So you'd scream.  You'd claw and bite and do anything to stop it.

But a woman?  A quiet plea.  A silent prayer it'll be over soon.  Because that man CAN and WILL hurt you.  And no one is gonna believe you.

Also, rape is rarely "man pushes woman to the floor suddenly and shoves his dick into her.".
Its usually more subtle.  A pushy makeout session that turns more agressive until you can't stop him.

A knife or a threat of violence.

An unwanted touch that doesn't stop from someone you know will be trusted more than you.  Who would believe Donald Trump, a man who can have any woman, would do this to you?  No one.  "And if you scream, I'll ruin your life." And you know those aren't empty words.
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Cheating in Chess
« Last post by Action80 on November 27, 2023, 07:36:13 PM »
Cheating in chess has garnered much attention over the past year, commencing with the former World Champion (2013-2023), GM Magnus Carlsen, withdrawing from the 2022 Sinquefeld Cup after losing to GM Hans Niemann in their third-round match of the event.

Since that event last year, much of the news involving cheating in chess has been centered on steps that major online platforms, such as and Lichess, have taken in an effort to detect cheating on their websites.

Most recently, GM Hikaru Nakamura, who is the second-highest-rated blitz player on the platform, has been effectively accused of cheating on the platform by former World Champion (2000-2007), GM Vladimir Kramnik. Kramnik has started a petition demanding perform and publish an analysis of the results Nakamura has achieved over a recent sixty-day period of play on

When the Carlsen-Niemann controversy erupted, I was questioning the governance policy/procedure FIDE (the governing body of professional chess worldwide) had in place concerning inviting or allowing admitted or proven cheaters to participate in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments, even those held in person and over-the-board. I do not believe persons found to have cheated during online chess should be invited or allowed to participate in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments.

This latest bit of news involving Nakamura becomes even more interesting given that Nakamura has qualified to participate in the next Candidates tournament.   
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on November 27, 2023, 04:33:52 AM »
Sexual abuse, not sexual assault. And let's not go crazy here - even setting aside statutes of limitations, there's no way anyone would be convicted in a criminal trial based on a he-said-she-said incident from over twenty-five years ago. For a civil trial, the verdict was reasonable, but even so, I suspect the main reason Trump lost was because he was caught lying about his preferences and whether or not he had previously met Carroll in his deposition, and that soured the jury against him. If he had acted like a normal person for once in his life and simply calmly and firmly denied the allegation, I think he would have won.
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by markjo on November 27, 2023, 03:39:52 AM »
Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case.
Lack of evidence?  Obviously the jury thought that there was enough evidence to find Trump liable for sexual assault.  That isn't a trivial charge.  If it were a criminal trial, he would likely be doing jail time and then be required to register as a sex offender.  Is that really the kind of man you want back in the White House?
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by Benjamin Franklin on November 27, 2023, 03:19:44 AM »
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 02:27:54 AM »
There are no numbers or percentages in that link. Do you seriously believe that a 52 year old woman who you pick to rape tomorrow in a department store dressing room will have a low likelihood of screaming to stop or screaming for help?

There may be "many" women in aggregate totality who do not scream when they are raped against their will, but this is not a denial that the great majority of women who are physically attacked and raped do scream. The article is an explanation for why some do not scream, and makes no effort to deny that most do scream.

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case. Because the arguments here are based on making excuses, it substantially weakens the case. It does not strengthen your case to argue based on a series of excuses.