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: [1] 2 3 ... 349  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 08:29:03 PM »
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 17, 2024, 10:43:03 PM »
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus.
This really surprises me. I'm no fan of Jo Biden, but to say that Trump is compos mentis1 seems off. Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?

1 - yeah, yeah, I'm just correcting your spelling here. Gimme a break.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 04, 2024, 07:02:35 PM »
I was under the impression you lived in Europe enjoying the peace and stability that Russia's defense of the continent brings.
That surprises me, and suggests that you might be stuck in a spiral of irrational hatred. You seem to act as if I was obliged to hold every view you find distasteful. Let's try and set you straight:

I'm an openly bisexual man with fairly strong liberal leanings. I don't think Russia and I have much in common, and I don't know why you'd think otherwise. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've referred to the Russian military as "orcs" on multiple occasions here, and I didn't mean it as a term of endearment.

But truthfully, there's nothing that would ever change the perceptions of a flat earther. They dismiss any form of evidence that doesn't agree with their beliefs.
There's that apparent hatred again. This conversation really boils down to:
-I read a thing
-Oh? Name a part you liked
-[A multi-paragraph diatribe on how naming one thing wouldn't change anything, because no one would believe you anyway (and it's everyone else's fault ofc).]

Surely you can see how that would affect anyone's willingness to believe you. Especially when you're claiming something as mundane as reading a PDF.
Nice. I still don't understand why you couldn't have recalled any details from a document you've supposedly read, or why you were so extremely defensive about it, but perhaps it has something to do with your visceral hatred of FE'ers, and your conviction that proving your points is unnecessary when talking to The Inferiors.

Coincidentally, I'm not sure you were around when this was put in place, but visits to this website from Russia are still redirected to Obviously that's trivial to circumvent, it's just an IP check, but I thought you might enjoy it nonetheless.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 03, 2024, 11:53:25 PM »
It shows personal growth that you admit you haven't read the document and admit your total ignorance on the subject.
Why are you so obsessed with what I do or don't know? I made no statement either way - I'm merely asking that you back up your own claims. But, for some extremely unclear reason, you keep trying to make it about what I know, not what you know.

It just boggles the mind. Why would someone so knowledgeable about a subject be so desperate to avoid recalling any of his knowledge?

My files are in large subjects generally chronological.  Since the invasion of Ukraine, Trump (and the Republicans) sucking Putin's dick just happens to be on the top of the stack right now.
So, no screenshot then?

As someone in the biz, do you sincerely agree with what Trump said about Russian attacks in 2016,
“I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke in to DNC,” he said."
What are you talking about? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia attempted to, and succeeded to some extent, to influence the outcome of the election. What does any of that have to do with your claims of having read a document?

As someone who lives in Europe

I'm guessing you are comforted by [shit that has nothing to do with electoral systems]
Please elaborate - what does your comment on the most common electoral system in modern republics have to do with [checks notes] Putin something something evil gays?

Surely you see that doubling down on this lie doesn't do you any good.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 03, 2024, 07:57:29 PM »
So here you are, preaching to me about the report and you've never read it.
Preaching? Where did you get that idea? I haven't made grandiose claims about having read it, nor did I say anything about not having read it. You're the one who suggested that you've thoroughly scrutinised it, and how you believe every American should subject themselves to the very same ritual... and yet you're being awfully defensive about mentioning even a single detail you recall. Y'know, by now you could have opened the PDF that's totally on your desktop, picked a fun fact, and posted it here.

Also, I'm amused that you've backpedalled from your "joke's on you I was merely pretending" line. You should have committed, it would have been much cuter.

Yes, I have years of files (almost a decade) about cyberattacks, breeches, malware and disinformation campaigns. Russia has a special folder all its own.
Are all of these in folders on your desktop, or is it just the Trump-Russia case that earns this special spot?

If you can't recall any detail from this extensive research (wow!), perhaps you could post a screenshot of your desktop, with all these neatly-arranged folders?

Trump tried to federalize the election system his first year in office (like Russia,)
I wonder - is there a document on your desktop listing all countries with a single nationwide electoral system, or is it just a PNG file with the word "Russia" poorly handdrawn on a laptop touchpad? Because, y'know, them's a few countries that should be on that list.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 03, 2024, 02:39:28 PM »
That was years ago
And you kept it on your desktop for years? Gosh!

and every American should have read it
Mhm, mhm. So, you consider it a foundational piece that all of your countrymen should have read, but you can't recall a single substantial detail?

I appreciate your attempts to set up a "joke's on you I was only pretending" conclusion, though. I'll dig out the jpeg.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 03, 2024, 10:41:32 AM »
I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit.
Then you'll easily be able to provide us with more meaningful detail than that you store your files on the desktop like a savage, or an approximate page count.

Read your reply and throw in a few "believe me"s and" "it's true... it's true"s. That's how believable your story of Studying That Shit is, because you forgot to offer anything of substance.

Is it not clear to you that I am not debating the multitude of possible forms of map, but directly Action80's contention that the Earth is flat, "everywhere (he) goes". 

Like his desk.  And most of the maps. 
It's quite clear. Your "gotchas" are already accounted for, and have been for a long time.

Just repeatedly restating your point and saying "nuh uh you dun get it" is not gonna be very productive in the upper. Please either address the point or concede it and move on. If you don't understand the point, ask clarifying questions.

Who knows, you might even earn yourself an actual compliment from someone, rather than just thriving on others pointing out that you're being silly.

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 349  Next >