581

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 12, 2022, 07:19:13 PM »

582

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

« on: April 12, 2022, 07:17:31 PM »

I remember in like 1st and 2nd grade the teachers handing out handfuls of these on Valentine's Day:



We would give them to other kids in the class. Imagine the horror and backlash that would cause today?

583

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

« on: April 12, 2022, 10:25:26 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.

I'm guessing this teacher should be fired under the law for grooming, downright conditioning her students regarding the result of a perceived sexual act? She makes baby-making look fun! Not to mention, her students know her as "Mrs." She must be married, she even probably wears a ring. She has a partner! A partner she probably has sex with! Full-on hetero grooming/conditioning if I've ever seen it. The horror!

Pregnant Teacher Asks Her 6-Year-Old Students To Give Her Parenting Advice And Gets These 16 Hilarious Responses

584

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 05:52:05 PM »

Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that Hawaiian Islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.

Zero people have made an argument that the Cook Islands "can't" be used. It's whether it's viable for an airline to need to use the Cook Islands as has been explained many times now.

Why won't you answer the questions about the scenario you yourself brought up?  You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?

If you believe it "works" on a monopole then you need to reconcile the above. Otherwise, it doesn't work as you claim.

585

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 05:12:31 AM »

Here is Air China operating an Air Canada itinerary through airports where Air Canada doesn't have "hubs".

So what? I never said planes don't stop in non-hub cities. If there is a need and economics work out favorably, then planes stop wherever it is in their best interest, you know, like filling a plane with paying passengers rather than an empty one. It's called capitalism, supply and demand economics. Give Air Canada and/or China Air a call and ask them why they hopped to Vancouver instead of a direct flight. I'm sure they'll be glad to fill you in.

In any case, you've completely abandoned where you started out. Aukland to Santiago, straight-line flight on a monopole:

As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?
 

586

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 03:46:31 AM »

Here's United's hubs:



Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?

Yes, because airliners never, ever, make agreements with other airports or airlines to optimally route their flights.

You seemed to miss almost the entirety of my post:

As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?

587

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 03:44:28 AM »

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:

Airspeed vs. Ground Speed

As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.

Actually it says from your link:

"While ground speed is the airplane’s speed relative to the surface of the Earth, airspeed – at least true airspeed – is its speed relative to the air it is flying in."

So the plane thought it was going much faster through the air than it thought it was traveling along the ground.

Planes aren't sentient.

Do some reading. Obviously, Jeran didn't:

https://skybrary.aero/articles/ground-speed

588

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 03:20:40 AM »

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:

Airspeed vs. Ground Speed

As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.

589

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 03:12:30 AM »

United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight.

Anywhere can be a hub though. This:



Makes more sense than this:




It is certainly possible that no one thought about putting a hub in the South Pacific to service New Zealand, Australia and South America. But it's just another one of those coincidences that happens to coincide with FET.

What's coincidental about it? Airlines have hubs. By your argument why don't all airlines have hubs everywhere there is a suitable airport?

Here's United's hubs:



Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?

Hubs and Spokes
Most of the 12 major U.S. passenger airlines in operation as of 2001 use a hub-and-spoke network to route their plane traffic. The words "hub" and "spoke" create a pretty vivid image of how this system works. A hub is a central airport that flights are routed through, and spokes are the routes that planes take out of the hub airport. Most major airlines have multiple hubs. They claim that hubs allow them to offer more flights for passengers.

The purpose of the hub-and-spoke system is to save airlines money and give passengers better routes to destinations. Airplanes are an airline's most valuable commodity, and every flight has certain set costs. Each seat on the plane represents a portion of the total flight cost. For each seat that is filled by a passenger, an airline lowers its break-even price, which is the seat price at which an airline stops losing money and begins to show a profit on the flight.

As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?

590

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 12:44:57 AM »

Why make stops in the USA when there are islands with international airports between South America and Australia?



https://www.travelonline.com/cook-islands/airports



This site says that this Cook Island airport can handle aircraft up to Boeing B789's and B747's:

https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/viewsource/viewpagesrc.action?pageId=15138862

"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s."

It's a giant airport:



It is modern and one of the largest airports of Oceania:

https://airportsbase.org/Cook_Islands/all/Rarotonga/Rarotonga_International_Airport



The plane in your example which supposedly traveled across the South Pacific was a Boeing 787:



Boeing 787:

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-787-dreamliner/boeing-787-dreamliner-specs/
Seating - 242
Range - 13,620 km

Boeing 789/C-FRSA:

https://www.planemapper.com/aircrafts/C-FRSA
Seating - 290
Range - 14140 km

And obviously if planes were a problem they would just use appropriate planes or upgrade the airport.

Irrelevant. We're talking about a direct flight. United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight. Call them up and ask why they don't have a direct between Aukland and Santiago. Call up any airline and ask them why they don't have a direct flight between X and Y cities. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be, "Oh, because it doesn't make sense on the monopole flat earth model..."

Not to mention I don't think the Cook Islands are necessarily a hot destination for United. Looks like only two airlines even utilize the airport:



You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

591

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 10, 2022, 09:55:14 PM »

Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model.

What does that video from Igan have to do with this? It seems to be about life origins or something.

In any case, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Why would the flight on your monopole fly over the US, or, as you conjured, it went way out of the way? Why? What are the kilometers (miles) in your suspected non-straight line path on the monopole?

Here's your monopole straight-line path on a globe:



And you're not taking into account the obvious: The path and distance flown as reported.

592

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

« on: April 10, 2022, 06:02:02 AM »

How are you defining "accosted" and "grooming"? Accosted how?

Children are unable to consent to anything, and rely on their parents to do it for them. This is why traditional sexual education classes require parental consent, and why the material is open for parental review before the class is given. Parents also consent to the traditional non-sexual education given in school.

Parents complain that they have not consented to this LGBT sexualization. Certainly, if it wasn't invited by their parents then their child is being accosted by this ideology.

I'm sure some parents have complained. But because some people complain that equals all children are being "accosted"? Every person who complains about something and that something still persists, the complainers' kids are "accosted"? You mean all I have to do is complain to feel "accosted"?

What is the results of this "grooming" you mention?

As this is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to say what the exact result of the mass LGBTQ indoctrination of children will be. But considering the historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT, and increase in pedophilia and sexual perversion, I can only assume that the results of this experiment will be horrifying.

What do you mean by "indoctrination"? You mean like religious indoctrination?

The ideology being pushed onto children now is quite blatant and questionable.

You may want to look at something that's been going on for a lot longer than this "indoctrination" you speak of:

High Glitz: The Extravagant World of Child Beauty Pageants Hardcover – September 8, 2009

High Glitz is a close-up and intimate look at America’s child beauty pageants, and in turn our society’s obsession with youth, beauty, fame, and fortune. Susan Anderson’s vibrant portraits of pageant contestants twist notions of sexuality and identity, with a new perspective on this uniquely American subculture.

593

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

« on: April 10, 2022, 01:18:15 AM »

My main point is I think people have power to choose a sexual activity or life-style (gay, straight, hugh hefnor, etc).

And my point is that young children do not have the power to make rational decisions. Developing children are accosted by a giant LGBT movement trying to make being gay cool, fun, admirable and who promote crossdressing as fabulous.

This is grooming:

How are you defining "accosted" and "grooming"? Accosted how? What is the results of this "grooming" you mention?

594

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies

« on: April 08, 2022, 04:18:15 PM »

I don't recall Trump specifically promising to nominate only a particular race, gender or religion. Can you source when he said it? I know I sourced when Biden did.

I didn't recall it either.

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week

More history, doesn’t make it right, just the way it is:

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
_____________

Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election, according to the Washington Post.

A year later, Reagan followed through, nominating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
_____________

In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his attorney general, "I still want the name of some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench," according to books by historian David A. Nichols, a former professor at Southwestern College, and Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
_____________

Contemporary reporting also indicated that President George H. W. Bush concentrated the search that ended with Thomas’ swearing-in in 1991 mostly on minority and female candidates, though Bush denied that he was trying to satisfy a "quota" by replacing one Black justice with another. Thomas replaced Marshall, a former civil rights attorney and the court’s first Black justice, who retired due to health issues.

595

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

« on: April 08, 2022, 09:51:33 AM »

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Yeah, no. When your friends and relatives opted not to push a sexuality onto their child in the above example I gave they did not advocate for a "heterosexual agenda". Parents who are "accepting" typically means that they have no agenda for their child, and which I would advocate for.

If your selected sexual preference isn't the norm in society then it merely means that it isn't the norm. It is not justification at all to push a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

Not sure why you are turning a blind  eye to the homosexual agenda by talking about hetrosexuality and leaving out all of the other sexualities you could possibly push onto a child. There is a flaw there. The child could be a sexuality that is neither homosexual or heterosexual. The smallest introspection on this will therefore show that it is wrong to deliberately push a sexuality onto a child by making their life as queer as possible under a "gay agenda".

In fact, you have no defense, which why you are unable to directly justify making a child's life or media queer or employing a gay agenda onto children, and have to argue with the "no u" tactic.

Define "norm". Is it a percentage thing? If so, because there are fewer black people in America than whites, is being white the "norm"?

Your problem is this thing you call "push". How is having a gay couple represented on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? Conversely, how is having a hetero couple on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? What's the difference? How is either "pushing" a sexuality onto a child?

596

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

« on: April 08, 2022, 02:53:12 AM »

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

The woman says that she is purposely making the content as queer as possible and declaring that she have a gay agenda. This is conditioning and grooming, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you think it won't work. It's still conditioning. It does not matter if you think that the script she received has heterosexual content, it doesn't matter. When you have an agenda and ideology and are purposely trying to find ways to push your views it onto children you are a groomer and are pushing an agenda. This is grooming and pushing an agenda, no matter what incredibly poor excuses are made for it.

Similarly if you get a book and cross out the male names and replace them with female names you are pushing a certain agenda, no matter what backassward excuse you make for it for trying to balance out society or whatever wacked justification. You are indisputably pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

597

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

« on: April 08, 2022, 02:01:59 AM »

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

If you listen to it she says that "wherever I could I was basically adding queerness" into her Disney content.

So? What's wrong with that inclusion? Are you saying that there should only be hetero couples in children's media?

Does your idea of "accepting" mean that your friends and relatives try to make the lives of their children as queer as possible before they have even decided that they want to be queer? Likely not.

How does including "queerness" into Disney content "make the lives of their children as queer as possible"? That's like saying the vast majority of heterosexual content makes gay people as straight as possible. It would literally mean there are no gay people because they were exposed to pretty much solely heterosexual content as children.

598

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 08, 2022, 12:02:28 AM »

A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.

Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".

So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.

Of course it's my opinion. What do you think adding "well that's just like, your opinion, man" actually adds to the discussion? All facets of politics are collections of opinions. Any possible argument or choice in politics is merely an opinion.

Fair point.

The US making stupid decisions over and over again is nothing new. I'm simply disappointed that Biden is yet another bad decision. I can't wait to see what the next bad decision our two-party system (also a bad decision in and of itself) will generate next.

It's not clear to me if all those "decisions" were stupid. I'd have to look at each and see if it was beneficial or detrimental. All I'm saying is that the way it's been used is as intended. It wasn't created solely for doomsday scenarios. The argument can be made for whether its intended use was incorrect to begin with. Maybe it should have been a system designed only for Defcon 1.

599

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 07, 2022, 11:56:45 PM »

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

600

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

« on: April 07, 2022, 11:43:08 PM »

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

1) The problem I have is that I don't know what "problem" it is trying to solve. Is there an issue today that requires such a thing? Is the very comprehensive existing FLA teacher's code of conduct and current mechanisms for oversight lacking in some way? That seems unclear to me.
2) Akin to #1, seems like a government overreach that is unnecessary
3) It's so vague and loose that teachers could easily be unfairly dragged into a lawsuit based upon such broad potential interpretations. Sapped by legal fees just to defend against something that could be extremely innocuous
4) And I do think it could be misused by some with an agenda