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.
Reality is that we'd experience much different weather and climate outcomes right now if the earth was flatI'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.
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.Alternatively: RE'ers' obsession with a book from 150 years ago is baffling, and upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly buggers.
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.
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 fascistsYou 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: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.
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.
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.
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 toThere 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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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 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.
You understand that most jokes contain something which isn’t true, which is the bit that makes them funny.
Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the electionwith whom tho
