It looks like a link to a thread on another forum.
It looks like a link to a thread on another forum.
Brilliant deduction Einstein.
I mean, is what FlatEarthDenial says on the thread I linked to legit? If it is, I think it should reach many more people.From what I see after a cursory glance, no. It looks like s/he is building quite the strawman, or using quotes from people that couldn't make a decent argument. First one:
If the Earth were spinning at a very high rate, everything would fly off into space.No one really makes this argument unless they are very new to the mechanics of RE or FE.
Horizon seems to be rising with you as you climb.This one seems entirely irrelevant.
The tops of the clouds are illuminated during the sunset as well as the bottoms. You can see this from an airplane. that proves our postulates about the perspective.The response to this one has no bearing on earth's shape. I am wondering who ever made these arguments, unless it was all from YouTube videos...
Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it.
Is there some secret stash of evidence that you are saving for a rainy day?
Is there some secret stash of evidence that you are saving for a rainy day?
Was there something about my post that indicated the evidence was anything other than anecdotal by people who have performed, or claimed to perform the experiment?
So you are claiming that you have seen the experiment performed
So you are claiming that you have seen the experiment performed
Are you feeling okay? I literally never said that.
do you know who has completed the experiment?
do you know who has completed the experiment?
Personally? No. Is that somehow relevant?
So you are claiming that you have seen the experiment performed
Are you feeling okay? I literally never said that.
do you know who has completed the experiment?Personally? No. Is that somehow relevant?
do you know who has completed the experiment?
Personally? No. Is that somehow relevant?
I just meant, do you know the name of someone who has completed the experiment.
So you didn't do it yourself, you don't know who did it, you can't provide any evidence of the experiment being done... and yet you still feel confident enough to say that it has been "confirmed"?
I am going to stick to my original conclusion: bullcrap.
So you didn't do it yourself, you don't know who did it, you can't provide any evidence of the experiment being done... and yet you still feel confident enough to say that it has been "confirmed"?
I am going to stick to my original conclusion: bullcrap.
Where did I say I feel it was confirmed? You've built up a nice strawman and a non-sequitur at the same time.
This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it.
I'm not sure where the "non-sequitur" is.
those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it
you still feel confident enough to say that it has been "confirmed"?
do you know who has completed the experiment?
Personally? No. Is that somehow relevant?
I just meant, do you know the name of someone who has completed the experiment.
The real name? No. I know very few names of people in FE communities.
I'm not sure where the "non-sequitur" is.Quote from: junkerthose who have completed the experiment have confirmed itQuote from: TotesNotReptillianyou still feel confident enough to say that it has been "confirmed"?
Your non-sequitur is your conclusion that does not follow the premise. Your conclusion is literally something made up by you even though you deceptively tried to attribute it to me.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
*beep boop* ...pedantic asshole mode engaged... *boop beep*
"those... have confirmed it" -- junker
"you... say that it has been confirmed?" -- me
How on earth is this a non-sequitur? I did not say that you personally confirmed it. I said that you said that it has been confirmed by someone.
I will now try to lay down the facts as clearly as I can, as far as I know them, based on what you have said.
1. "Someone" did an experiment which, according to them, confirms the statement "Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope."
2. You don't personally know this "someone".
3. You don't know the real name of this "someone".
4. You were not present when the experiment took place.
5. You don't have any good documentation of this experiment that you can share with us. (preferably video or photo documentation)
6. You agree with the "someone" that the experiment does indeed confirm the above statement.
Is this correct? If not, which part is incorrect? If it is, I feel safe sticking to my original conclusion: buuuuuuullcrap. (translation: I seriously doubt that the "experiment", if it even took place, confirms the aforementioned statement.)
What was the point of this post?
You are listing things in a way to make it look like I claimed something that I didn't.
When most people end up looking as foolish as you have up to this point, they tend change their behavior, admit they were wrong, etc.
Sorry, allow me to correct that...
But you are doubling down on your strawman efforts. Good luck with that.
You are being evasive about the details surrounding this experiment. If you don't want someone to misrepresent you, you should be more forthcoming and clear. I specifically asked for confirmation from you as to whether my "facts" were correct or not. This is the exact opposite of "strawman efforts".
You are being evasive about the details surrounding this experiment. If you don't want someone to misrepresent you, you should be more forthcoming and clear. I specifically asked for confirmation from you as to whether my "facts" were correct or not. This is the exact opposite of "strawman efforts".
You are making it sound like I have details that I am refusing to share.
Did you look at the OP? It links to a giant post with all kinds of crap. This was literally one anecdotal mention which I said the argument around was valid. At no point did I try to delve into specifics about an exact attempt at an experiment, as that is not what this thread is even remotely about.
...and claimed there was an experiment that backed up the aforementioned statement.
...and claimed there was an experiment that backed up the aforementioned statement.
I made no such claim. I said people who have performed the experiment have claimed that. You are bordering on intellectual dishonesty at this point by repeating the same falsehoods over and over.
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it.
you are indirectly appealing to the results of said experimentI am literally not doing that. You are inferring what you want to based on something that did not happen.
via "those who have completed the experiment", to support your statement.Other people completed the experiment was my statement. So yes, saying other people completed the experiment is what I said to support my claim that other people completed the experiment.
I realize that you are just trying to wiggle out of this through extreme pedantry, but you really didn't leave yourself enough wiggle room.I am sorry that this is such a hard concept for you to understand. You've simply become a liar at this point and confuse logic with pedantry. Feel free to continue your strawman arguments and non-sequiturs, I won't try to stop you as it seems you simply have no integrity.
I have to agree with totes.Cool story, bro.
It is pretty obvious Junker that you either are not aware of any "people who have performed this experiment"It is almost as if there is a search function on this site and even the other one you could use. Failing that, maybe there is a website you could type a question into and research results.
or are deliberately avoiding being specific about your knowledge either in an attempt to troll or to cover up a mistake or deficiency.Literally what? What special knowledge do I have? I have seen claims of people saying they have performed the experiment and it confirmed their conclusion. There are probably people out there who claim to have done it and say it didn't confirm the conclusion. I am not trying to troll anyone, I answered OP's question with a few general statements. That is it. I really don't know what it so hard to understand about this or why round earth proponents are trying to invent a claim that simply never happened.
Please feel free to give more specific information, but at this time, you look shifty and shady.What do you want? Names, addresses, phone numbers of every single person I have seen make the claim of trying the experiment? I have no specific information, which I have been very clear about from the beginning. If you need me to hold your hand and search for some of the old posts or websites, I can try to do that for you. It seems you two would rather just make up baseless claims and accusations than taking 5 seconds to research something you seem interested in.
Sorry, not how this works. You support your claims. I support mine.I think you are confused. The only claim I have made is that I have seen others make claims. I am not sure how you expect that to be supported other than my first hand account. You haven't supported any claims, especially your nonsensical accusations towards me.
Feel free to admit that you know of no one who have performed the experiment and so can not comment on its legitimacy.
Or continue complaining about how unfair we are being.
Blah blah blah... I technically sort of kinda didn't quite say that if you read it upside down with your eyes crossed... blah blah (paraphrased)
What do you want? Names, addresses, phone numbers of every single person I have seen make the claim of trying the experiment?
If you need me to hold your hand and search for some of the old posts or websites, I can try to do that for you. It seems you two would rather just make up baseless claims and accusations than taking 5 seconds to research something you seem interested in.
Sorry, not how this works. You support your claims. I support mine.I think you are confused. The only claim I have made is that I have seen others make claims. I am not sure how you expect that to be supported other than my first hand account. You haven't supported any claims, especially your nonsensical accusations towards me.
QuoteFeel free to admit that you know of no one who have performed the experiment and so can not comment on its legitimacy.
Do I personally know anyone who has? No. Do I know of people who have (or at least claimed to have)? Yes. Do I recall every detail about those people? No. I feel like I am repeating myself but you seem to not being getting it, or are being intentionally obtuse, so I can restate things until you are satisfied.
QuoteOr continue complaining about how unfair we are being.
I never claimed or complained that anyone is being unfair. This is literally another example of you making things up.
Blah blah blah... I technically sort of kinda didn't quite say that if you read it upside down with your eyes crossed... blah blah (paraphrased)
Poor victimized junker, no one is blindly succumbing to his pedantry! Such lies said about him... :( (http://i.imgur.com/Zp2cEAy.png)
I never claimed or complained that anyone is being unfair. This is literally another example of you making things up.Sorry, am I being unfair?
Blah blah blah... I technically sort of kinda didn't quite say that if you read it upside down with your eyes crossed... blah blah (paraphrased)
Poor victimized junker, no one is blindly succumbing to his pedantry! Such lies said about him... :( (http://i.imgur.com/Zp2cEAy.png)
Ah yes, the childish tactics that losers of an argument frequently stoop to. Good luck with that.I never claimed or complained that anyone is being unfair. This is literally another example of you making things up.Sorry, am I being unfair?
I don't think you are being unfair, just dishonest (as evidenced by the quoted example).
Blah blah blah... I technically sort of kinda didn't quite say that if you read it upside down with your eyes crossed... blah blah (paraphrased)
Poor victimized junker, no one is blindly succumbing to his pedantry! Such lies said about him... :( (http://i.imgur.com/Zp2cEAy.png)
Ah yes, the childish tactics that losers of an argument frequently stoop to. Good luck with that.
I wasn't dishonest. It seemed pretty clear that you thought we should be looking up your claims. That implies some sort of inequity, that we owed you something or we owed a standard of behavior some sort of action. Not sure why, since all we asked was for you to make a somewhat general statement specific. Somehow is calling you out on that means we lost an argument. Don't ask me how, and I won't ask you because that has proven to be an exercise in futility.
Blah blah blah... I technically sort of kinda didn't quite say that if you read it upside down with your eyes crossed... blah blah (paraphrased)
Poor victimized junker, no one is blindly succumbing to his pedantry! Such lies said about him... :( (http://i.imgur.com/Zp2cEAy.png)
Ah yes, the childish tactics that losers of an argument frequently stoop to. Good luck with that.
Between the accusations (lying, logical fallacies, lack of integrity) and the straight up denial of the obvious, I just couldn't take that rant seriously. Sorry. If you want to have a serious discussion, slow down with the constant accusations. I am not lying to you. Rama is not being dishonest. I did not make any logical fallacies in that post. My integrity is just fine, thank you very much.
All we want is some evidence to back up the "statement" that you claimed is "legit". In light of the complete lack of evidence, I shall maintain my conclusion: bullcrap.
I wasn't dishonest. It seemed pretty clear that you thought we should be looking up your claims. That implies some sort of inequity, that we owed you something or we owed a standard of behavior some sort of action. Not sure why, since all we asked was for you to make a somewhat general statement specific. Somehow is calling you out on that means we lost an argument. Don't ask me how, and I won't ask you because that has proven to be an exercise in futility.
Yes, you were dishonest. No matter how much you try to backtrack now. Keep denying, that is fine, it isn't like a dishonest person owns up to it anyway. The only implication was the one you perceived, which doesn't reflect reality, just what's going on in your head.
You didn't ask for a general statement, I gave a general statement.
You literally gave a "non-exclusive" list of questions, the absolute opposite of a general statement.
I'm pointing out actual things you said, while you're simply making up things. Huge difference.
A reasonable approach would've been: "hey this thing you said isn't clear to me, could you provide some specifics about what you know?" But, no, you decided to just make up a bunch of stuff.
do you know who has completed the experiment?
Personally? No. Is that somehow relevant?
I just meant, do you know the name of someone who has completed the experiment.
The real name? No. I know very few names of people in FE communities.
Sorry, not how this works. You support your claims. I support mine.I think you are confused. The only claim I have made is that I have seen others make claims. I am not sure how you expect that to be supported other than my first hand account. You haven't supported any claims, especially your nonsensical accusations towards me.
Where did you see it? In person? Where? What was the set up? This is a non-exclusive list of questions you could answer.
To help you out further, if I said, I know of people who have looked across a body of water with a telescope and seen details impossible on a RE view, to support that I could do this:
The Bishop Experiment (http://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence)
Please note this is only an example.
Do you remember anything about them? Anything at all?
Happy to move on, as we will never agree on this, and that's even before discussing an experiment. However, I have zero interest left in this particular discussion as it has veered totally from OP's topic.
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."
From what I see after a cursory glance, no. It looks like s/he is building quite the strawman, or using quotes from people that couldn't make a decent argument.He said he used most of those arguments trying to convince people that the Earth is flat on The Philosophical Vegan Forum, and that they explained to him why they are wrong.
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."
Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.
I have zero interest left in this particular discussion as it has veered totally from OP's topic.
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."
Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.
Hi Jura, normally I would be happy to track down stuff,
as you are a rational person.
But, as previously mentioned:I have zero interest left in this particular discussion as it has veered totally from OP's topic.
Maybe next time.
This thread obviously being a notable exception.
Quoteas you are a rational person.
>Criticizes people for fallacies
>Loves dem Ad Homs
Or, more likely, you probably couldn't even if you have interest.
This thread obviously being a notable exception.
Why is it notable? I used the word "normally" as a qualifier, meaning that I don't do it every time depending on certain conditions, concluding that there are exceptions. The exception in this case is that I lost interest from dealing with people who are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty by literally making things up and presenting them as fact. That along with juvenile tactics made me not care to debate FE topics with those responsible for said behaviors.
Quoteas you are a rational person.
>Criticizes people for fallacies
>Loves dem Ad Homs
QuoteOr, more likely, you probably couldn't even if you have interest.
Any more baseless conjecture you care to add to this thread? You look more nonsensical with every post you make here. Which is a shame, because you are also usually rational and pleasant. This thread obviously being a notable exception.TM
I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama,
lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.
Why is it notable? I used the word "normally" as a qualifier, meaning that I don't do it every time depending on certain conditions, concluding that there are exceptions. The exception in this case is that I lost interest from dealing with people who are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty by literally making things up and presenting them as fact. That along with juvenile tactics made me not care to debate FE topics with those responsible for said behaviors.
I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama, lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.
I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama, lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.
You deflected my requests for information right off the top of the thread.Irrelevant.
You can ignore that or lie about it all you want, but it does not change the facts.I haven't ignored or lied about anything. Oddly enough, what you are saying here literally makes no sense as a response to what you quoted from me. Seems silly, but that's none of my business.
Your motivations appear to be duplicitous, as you were evasive before anything became heated.
I do have a very strong basis to suspect this: you repeatedly deflected straightforward requests for information. You did the same in another thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5131.msg99581#new), immaturely criticizing post formatting.I didn't deflect at all. OP in that thread came in and made a series of demands that MUST do x or y, as if he is entitled to a response by anyone. The formatting was just a rib at him as he is notorious for terribly formatted posts and has been asked to not do that.
You claim to have knowledge, but have done nothing to substantiate it.What knowledge do I claim to have? That I have seen claims made by other people? Is my word that I have seen people make claims (whether those claims are true or false) not enough to support my claim that I have seen people make claims?
Claiming I am nonsensical is just another Ad Hom.Using the word "another" implies that there was a previous one. You are trying to spin some kind of narrative here and no one is falling for it. While calling you nonsensical may possibly be an ad hom, your behavior is reflecting the definition of the word, so it fits.
I love you guys too. Nothing Junker says here can ever change this.
But, but, but... Tom!Davis is fair game but you leave Tom the fuck alone.
I know you were homie. I am down, but Rama has to apologize and atone first. If he wants to wash my car in a speedo or something that should suffice.
You deflected my requests for information right off the top of the thread.Irrelevant.
I haven't ignored or lied about anything. Oddly enough, what you are saying here literally makes no sense as a response to what you quoted from me. Seems silly, but that's none of my business.
QuoteYour motivations appear to be duplicitous, as you were evasive before anything became heated.
I'll take that as an apology.
I do have a very strong basis to suspect this: you repeatedly deflected straightforward requests for information. You did the same in another thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5131.msg99581#new), immaturely criticizing post formatting.I didn't deflect at all. OP in that thread came in and made a series of demands that MUST do x or y, as if he is entitled to a response by anyone. The formatting was just a rib at him as he is notorious for terribly formatted posts and has been asked to not do that.[/quote]
QuoteYou claim to have knowledge, but have done nothing to substantiate it.What knowledge do I claim to have? That I have seen claims made by other people?
Is my word that I have seen people make claims (whether those claims are true or false) not enough to support my claim that I have seen people make claims?
QuoteClaiming I am nonsensical is just another Ad Hom.Using the word "another" implies that there was a previous one. You are trying to spin some kind of narrative here and no one is falling for it.
While calling you nonsensical may possibly be an ad hom,
your behavior is reflecting the definition of the word, so it fits.
I love you guys too. Nothing Junker says here can ever change this.
But, but, but... Tom!Davis is fair game but you leave Tom the fuck alone.
QuoteShips over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."
Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp perform the experiment, document all logistics and results, then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!
I started a thread dedicated to Junkers "experiment" and this is his first reply!
I was quite innocently implying "the experiment you claimed had been performed".I started a thread dedicated to Junkers "experiment" and this is his first reply!
Not sure why you are calling it my experiment. Unless you intentionally didn't use an apostrophe to indicate a possessive and aren't actually referring to me. It isn't my experiment. I haven't done it, nor have I claimed to. It was one of several points that were mentioned as a response to OP.
We work from experiment to experience here. We have standards.So obviously this documentation is available.