281

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: October 25, 2018, 03:54:42 PM »

The correct racial classification for a person who had one black parent and one white is a Mulatto. Simply saying "I don't know what this race is and therefore you don't either" once again shows how ignorant you are. You literally, LITERALLY have unlimited access to the shared compendium of humanity's knowledge and apparently you haven't figured out how to use it yet.

However, personally, I go by the one-drop rule. If you drop a piece of mud into pure water it becomes muddy water, regardless of how much or how little mud you've stirred into it.

There you go again, putting words into my mouth.

I simply said that a person's classification can change depending on where they live, which makes the term (and concept of) race arbitrary, and dependent on society and culture.

You can try to classify all white/black mixed people as "mulatto" if you like, but I assure you there will be trouble - for instance, what do you call someone who has African, European, and Chinese heritage? Or someone with latino, European and African decent? How about a mix of all the so-called races? What are they called?

You also did not answer my question:

If someone's race can change depending where they live, how is it solely based on biology when biology does not change?

Keep strawmanning me all you like, but it only further demonstrates your inability to look outside your indoctrinated view of the world.

P.S. - My ability to google "race" has nothing to do with this discussion. Please try to stay on topic.

P.P.S. -

However, personally, I go by the one-drop rule. If you drop a piece of mud into pure water it becomes muddy water, regardless of how much or how little mud you've stirred into it.

Congratulations, you have unwittingly demonstrated the social ambiguity of racial classifications. You "personally" view someone who is black/white mix as black. This isn't how every society or individual classifies a black/white person.

282

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: October 25, 2018, 02:13:23 PM »

Umm... where did I say that racism wasn't about race? Where can you actually pull that quote from?

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

It's impossible for "racism" to involve something that isn't inherently biological. Racism is only, exclusively, about race, which means it only involves biology. No culture or society involved. You don't become a different race by moving to a different country.

Therefore, saying "racism is fueled by culture and society" makes no sense, and simply stems from a complete misunderstanding of what race is.

This picture (and caption) really says it all..... Race is about much more than simple biology.

Lol no it's only biology. In animals we refer to "races" as subspecies. We don't with humans because people get offended although we fit all the criteria.

Different cultures, sure.

Gentlemen, I know this is difficult to understand given that you have been taught your whole lives that race is a categorization of an individual's biology; however, this understanding is narrow and archaic. This is also why you are participating in this forum, is it not? - To expand your view and think outside the indoctrination you were born into?

Since the expansion of transportation, humans have been able to travel, change cultures, create new societies, and breed with these other cultures and societies. Someone who is considered "white" in one culture, may be considered "black" in another culture. Someone who is considered "Mongoloid" in Europe, might not be considered "Mongoloid" in China. Hence society classifies people arbitrarily based on an ethnocentric understanding of their world - based on society and culture, not biology.

Here are the traditional "races" that I'm assuming you are referring to:

    Caucasoid (White) race.
    Negroid (Black) race.
    Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race.
    Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race.
    Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race.

Let's assume these are solely based on biology.

Now, an African male and European female meet and have a baby. What "race" is this baby? Are they caucasoid? Negroid? Well, that depends if you are in Europe or if you are in Africa. The 'race' of this baby is now based on where that individual lives - what society and culture they belong to. If we assume race is based solely on biology, we now have a discrepancy - A person's biology does not change, yet somehow their race does?

 If race were based solely on biology, this would not and should not be possible. I guess there must be other factors that go into a person's race other than biology.

283

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: October 24, 2018, 12:15:08 PM »

This picture (and caption) really says it all..... Race is about much more than simple biology. We don't classify "race" based solely on biology, as this picture demonstrates, that would be impossible. Culture defines race much more so than biology. In fact, in Africa, someone who is African American, would be considered "white". In America, they are considered "black". Is that not interesting?

Over a month and you still don't understand what race is. Incredible. In fact, you seem to even think "African American" is a race! The absolute state of American education.

Also, in the future, add width=200 to your images. I don't care to have my entire screen space taken up by a single page of a book you've completely misunderstood.

Your ignorance is astounding and your stubbornness is closing off your mind ... did you even read the text? Do you even care? Now that you have shrunk the image, you cannot read it so good job silencing free thought. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

BTW: I don't have a problem understanding race, it is you who seem to not understand. Or you are just trying to argue for the sake of argument, but if that's the case, at least come back with an argument....

Your narrow view of race might have been ok during the hunter gatherer days when there weren't billions of people interbreeding with each other, but within the past few centuries, that view has been upgraded to account for a vast expanse of cultural variation. Race as we know it is based mostly on culture, and racism itself has fueled a mindset of segregation which causes people like yourself to think very ethnocentricly.

284

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: October 24, 2018, 02:14:56 AM »

Umm... where did I say that racism wasn't about race? Where can you actually pull that quote from?

Racism is fueled by culture and society more so than biology.

It's impossible for "racism" to involve something that isn't inherently biological. Racism is only, exclusively, about race, which means it only involves biology. No culture or society involved. You don't become a different race by moving to a different country.

Therefore, saying "racism is fueled by culture and society" makes no sense, and simply stems from a complete misunderstanding of what race is.

This picture (and caption) really says it all..... Race is about much more than simple biology. We don't classify "race" based solely on biology, as this picture demonstrates, that would be impossible. Culture defines race much more so than biology. In fact, in Africa, someone who is African American, would be considered "white". In America, they are considered "black". Is that not interesting?



Edit by Rushy: don't attach enormous images without making them smaller.

Edit by timterroo: At least let it be large enough to read it....

285

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: October 05, 2018, 05:39:19 PM »

The universe has always existed and it always will. It has no beginning or end.

This is a philosophical debate. Describing something as having no beginning and no end is a concept that 3-dimensional perspective cannot really understand. I think this is why it is so hard for us (people) to imagine a universe with no beginning and no end. It doesn't work on a Cartesian plane. You cannot 'picture' a 3-dimensional object in this way because there is always a beginning and an end to our perspective. Higher dimensions would better describe an infinite system. Unfortunately, our concept of reality doesn't include any dimensions higher than 3rd. That is why this debate of god, the universe, and infinite existence will always be that, a debate.

I prefer to think of it like this:

Without a shadow of doubt, I know that I am here, now. I can't say that I remember when "I" came into existence, but I do know that "I" exist - at least to me, that is true. This perspective is what makes each and every conscious being a narcissist - unavoidable narcissism.

NOTE: The modern definition of narcissism has become something of an evil. Traditionally, however, narcissism simply means a love of oneself.

286

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: October 01, 2018, 07:34:49 PM »

"you can never 'not trust' your own reality".... this is completely wrong and utterly naive of you to say, or think. I hope for your sake that you never have to deal with any serious mental diseases, alzheimer's, dimensia, prosopognasia.

You can easily distrust your own reality. Many times it's healthy to do so. I do almost every single day.

I'm colorblind. If my wife sends me to the store to get a green box of rice and I see a green box of rice my own reality says that this box of rice is green. I come home to my wife and she says I have brought home a yellow or orange box of rice.

Because of this I have to, on a regular basis, never trust my own reality. When it comes to colors I have to trust the reality of everyone else.


In my reality the water makes the arrows change directions. Lucky for me I am able to distrust my reality and say that arrows don't change directions and there must be something else going on. Maybe refraction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls

I think you misunderstood my post. I was quoting rushy, (I think) who said "you can never 'not trust' your own reality"...

My response to that quote: "...this is completely wrong and utterly naive of you to say, or think. I hope for your sake that you never have to deal with any serious mental diseases, alzheimer's, dimensia, prosopognasia."

287

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: September 29, 2018, 02:10:53 PM »

There is an neat experiment that anyone can do in their livingroom. It demonstrates how easy it is for your brain to misinterpret reality.

What you need:

sunglasses lens
string
coin or small object to tie onto the string

Tie a small object such as a coin onto a string, and using a single lens from sunglasses, cover one of your eyes (only one). Now swing the pendulum from side to side in front of you. It's easier if you have someone else swing it while you watch.

You will notice the pendulum swinging circles, not merely side to side. Why is this?

Light slows down as it passes through a lens, so by the time it hits your eye, it is milliseconds slower than the light that hits your other eye. In order for your brain to interpret this mixed signal, you perceive the pendulum moving in a circles even though it is really moving side to side.

This demonstrates that your brain will create perception even in spite of reality.

P.S. - In light of this experiment, perhaps we shouldn't be talking about the "reliability of senses"... but rather we should be talking about the "reliability of perception"?

288

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 28, 2018, 12:29:30 PM »

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

Which is fine if the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, as it is in real life.
In FE though I thought it was only a few thousand miles away at most.
If that is the case then if you move sideways a few thousand miles there should be a very noticeable difference in what part of a sphere you can see.

Yes, thank you for reiterating my point!

Please see my post above for the mathematical explanation to support this claim.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10785.msg167329#msg167329

289

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The great outdoors!

« on: September 27, 2018, 01:01:56 PM »

By contrast, here are some views from the plains where I live. We make the best of what we have!









First and only tornado I've ever seen in person

290

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The great outdoors!

« on: September 26, 2018, 12:55:55 PM »

Thank you for sharing! I enjoy seeing pictures from far away places - seeing difference in plants and trees. Where I live it is quite dull... I live in the great plains and there is a lot of corn and muddy creeks and rivers. Not much to look at it. And it's flat.... REALLY flat. Great place to study the curve or non curve of the earth though, not much to obstruct your view.

Here are some pics from my hike up Pikes Peak in Colorado Springs, CO, USA. We were on the mountain for almost 4 days, 3 nights. Two of my friends got elevation sickness shortly after these pics were taken. Once we got back below the tree line, they started to feel better.

In these pics we are between 13 and 14k feet elevation. Huge difference compared to the 900 feet where I live.

In this pic, I am looking to the east, back towards the plains. You can see Manitou Springs off in the distance - where our hike began.


This is looking out over a 1500 ft cliff called "Cirque" cliff. I was standing only a few feet from the shear drop off.


Another beautiful pic just above the timberline at about 12k feet.

291

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 25, 2018, 07:23:38 PM »

Per your P.P.S. Yes, that is somewhat related to my understanding. Toms 'example explanation' goes about like this as I recall:

"Put a Rubik's cube 30 feet up and move it side to side by 30 feet. There's a lot of change in what you see right? Put it 1 mile up and move it side to side 30 feet. Almost no change. This is evidence for how perspective changes things at long distances."

I don't pretend to know or understand what he's talking about, and frankly believe it's all ad-hoc to explain observations. But your claim is just incorrect. Neither model predicts a large change in what we see of the moon from moving from one hemiplane to the other. Showing there isn't any (or very little) change does nothing to disprove FE, when they 'predict' exactly that too.

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

But you are saying that FET does not predict there is a change in what we see. If this is true, then FET is leaving out an explanation for why it does not predict a change when the math is pretty clear that there SHOULD be a difference. FE moon should be noticeably different to each observer, while RE moon should remain nearly the same.

Without a valid explanation (for why FET moon does not predict a nearly 42% difference in what is observed), you cannot say I am incorrect. I might be going against FET, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect. FET is very much still up for debate, and many aspects of it have not been fully understood or articulated. Everything we discuss is subject to falsification.

292

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 25, 2018, 05:38:23 PM »

Still incorrect. FE asserts essentially the same thing as RE, simply through different mechanisms. Two most common are "perspective" and electromagnetic acceleration I believe.

You telling me I am incorrect, does not make it so.

FE asserts that the moon is roughly 3000 miles above the earth. RE asserts that the moon is 238,900 miles above the earth. How is this the same thing?

How does perspective and electromagnetic acceleration change what we are seeing in this case? Perspective doesn't change the viewing angle that you are from the moon. What does electromagnetic acceleration have to do with this?

Here is an illustration of my calculations for a FE.



The 52.8 degrees is only half of the angular difference between observers, so by doubling it, you get approx. 105 degrees. If you use the same method to calculate this for RE, theta in this figure become .9 degrees. Double it and you get 1.8.

There is a big difference between 1.8 and 105. Shouldn't this be noticeable?

P.S. - I can diagram this for RE if you want, it's just harder to do it in paint when there are curves and arcs to draw and try to keep aligned and to a relative scale.

P.P.S. - Are you claiming there is a perspective effect similar to that which affects how we see the sun and moon set on FE?

293

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 25, 2018, 04:20:18 PM »

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

This is not the case.

Indeed, you should still see at least 75 degrees of the same face. On a 180 degree surface (half of the moon), that calculates to about 42 percent of the side that faces the earth.

This image is not to scale by any means, it was created in "paint", so forgive the crude design. However, the location the arrow points to is the overlap that each observer would see. That is the 42 percent that should remain viewable by both observers. The rest of the side would be different for each observer. This is what I want to test. In RE there should be much less difference, and much more overlap as the moon is much further away.

294

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 23, 2018, 07:22:03 PM »

If your talking strictly about angles, RE should see only about 1 - 2 degrees difference, while FE should see about 105 degrees difference. I think this should be a noticeable difference that can be calculated. Assuming both observers can get a good photo at the same time and assuming there is a way to cslculate the observed difference from comparing two photographs.

It would be difficult to test, but it seems like there should be enough of a difference between FE and RE theory that you could determine if the actual viewable difference is closer to what FE predicts or closer to what RE predicts.

295

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 22, 2018, 03:23:26 PM »

I can't think of any experiments you could do while in the air, but I've been curious about how the moon will look to two observers who are thousands of miles apart and looking at the moon at the same time.

If the moon happens to follow a path that will allow you (while in New Zealand), and someone else (while back in the UK) to see it at the same time, you could snap some photographs and then compare what it looks like. You might be able to form some relative angles to determine if you both see the same surface of the moon, or if you each see something slightly different?

Edit: Since we should be able to calculate the theoretical "difference" based on both RE and FE, if you can get two photos, you might be able to calculate what you are actually seeing and compare to what you 'should' be seeing according to both theories.

296

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon phases

« on: September 18, 2018, 01:53:11 AM »

You are both missing the point. I think I incorrectly named the thread.

It should have been named something like "does the moon appear different or flipped in the north vs the south?" Not sure how I would name it...

What I am saying is, in RE there should be very little difference, so little that I doubt you could even tell unless perhaps you are in the extreme situation. In FE there should be a very noticeable difference.

This is something that we should be able to test and verify. What does the moon look like for each observer if they are 7k miles apart and looking at it at the same time?

Edit:

And by "difference", I mean the difference in the viewable surface of the moon. I believe the "phase" should remain the same for each observer, but one would see more of one side, and the other would see more of the other side. I understand it will be flipped relative to the observer in either case (I have come to this conclusion after thinking about this for bit... as it sets to one observer, it would be rising to the other in either FE or RE).

297

Flat Earth Theory / Moon phases

« on: September 17, 2018, 02:33:34 AM »

Lunar Orientation

Q: Why does the orientation of the moon look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?

A: It doesn't. The orientation varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

The lunar orientation varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20070218184023/http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1137

This is a quote from the wiki about how we experience moon phases.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

First off, I think there should be a way to empirically test this theory by having two people stand several thousands miles apart, on the north and south sides of the earth and observe a crescent moon. According to FET, if you observe the moon from the north, it will be flipped in the south and vice versa. Please read the wiki for an explanation.

FET backs up this claim by suggesting that you would notice a similar effect in RET. I propose this to be false. I do not believe there would be enough difference on a RE for the human eye to notice the angular change from standing on one side or the other.

In fact, (in theory) if you have someone standing exactly on the North pole, and someone else standing exactly on the south pole, the angular difference in their perspective of the moon would be the diameter of the earth (7,917.5 miles), and this angle works out to be about 1.9 degrees difference when the moon is 238,900 miles away. If the two people are standing closer together (which is more realistic), the angle gets even smaller.

Would the human eye actually notice this difference?

If the earth is flat, and two people stand the same distance apart as in RE (7,917.5 miles), and you assume the sun to be 3000 miles high, the angular difference between the observers becomes 105.68 degrees.

Would the human eye notice this difference? You'd have to be blind to not notice. That's enough of a difference that each observer would be looking at different sides of the moon. Which is why the wiki explanation says the crescent moon should flip when being on one side compared to the other.

This should be a testable, and verifiable theory. Does the reflection of the sun off the moon flip when standing on one side or the other?

298

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 16, 2018, 05:21:20 PM »

It is quite clear that you do not understand the definition of racism. I'm not sure how I can help here. Have you ever studied anthropology or psychology? Racism strictly involves biases toward race. So yes, it includes race, but it also includes biases. biases are culturally influenced. you do not inherit biases via DNA. I honestly cannot explain this any other way.

That's because you are not prepared to think of it any other way. You need to leave school and live life away from teachers that will all be Marxists. I mean, your biggest worry is the weather! This is the rhetoric of someone who has never engaged independent thought and is told what to like, what to hate and what to fear.

Weather is nothing trivial when it is the cause of thousands of deaths yearly.

How many people did you know that have been killed by the weather?

This is a very dry statement/question... Does me having personally experienced a catastrophe make it more real? If I have never experienced a catastrophe does that mean it doesn't exist? I'm not following your question. It seems very naive. If I don't know someone who has been directly killed by weather, thank god.

That's like someone saying, "Violence is a huge problem in new york... people are raped, or shot and killed all the time."

And you saying something like, "psshh... How many people do you know that have been raped or shot and killed?" Like that somehow invalidates the claim that violence is a problem in new york.

Do you understand how adolescent that question sounds?

Edit: Furthermore, you know almost nothing about me, so to assume weather is my biggest worry is an absurd proposition. The weather is getting more fierce and sporadic due to climate change - which we as humans are at least partially responsible for, and everyone posting here can relate to that. It's a problem now, and it will be an even greater problem in 50 years from now.

299

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White

« on: September 16, 2018, 05:11:51 PM »

Cool larping. I never said anything remotely like that. Resisting change because you prefer the past is a bad place to proceed from. It’s called Golden Age Thinking. You are the one that wants nothing to change and who wants a return to some idea of Britishness that probably didn’t exist in the first place.

The difference between conservatism and liberalism is whether you look forward or back.

Conservatives look at the past, and make decisions made by the lessons of history. They are adverse to change and don't like to turn things upside down.
Liberals are 'progressive'. This means they want to change everything all the time until they hit on something better. They never learn from history. In fact anything old must be wrong.

Example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45525979

Note how the word 'archaic'is used to describe something that has worked for hundreds of years. And that if you support it, you must be stuck in the past and backward. Divorce laws are actually quite modern ... when compared to something like marriage which has been around for thousands of years.
In this instance they want more hedonism. Liberals are all about hedonism. They don't want people to work at marriage. They want them to be able to divorce at the first argument. And that's fine ... until they have kids. And we end up with more single parent kids which historically are disadvantaged over dual parenting. This will increase the divorce rate and leave more men broke by the time they are middle aged. It also means few men will be part of a family as they age ... but screw them right? It doesn't matter if men are lonely, ostracised and broke. As long as women get every freedom they might want. Women's rights trump those of men because 'go progressives!'

I am conservative. I think changing things that more or less work is bloody stupid. Such as your culture. Or marriage laws. Or whether you can speak about certain topics without having someone destroy your opportunities because of a thought crime you committed back when you were 15 years old.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45539740

Liberals tend to be younger because they have no past experience to draw upon. But as people age, they drift to the right and become conservative because they can see the errors of the past. Liberalism is the politics of those with empty heads. Once those heads are filled ... liberalism is a folly.

I appreciate your attempt to categorize conservative and liberal views, but I whole-heartedly disagree.

You say conservatives are learning from past lessons, but then why do they continue to promote laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment with little restriction? In the US it is the liberals who championed for tighter restrictions on automobile manufacturing to keep fuel consumption lower and create less carbon emissions. Conservatives have fought to keep their political and social power by exploiting things like expensive gas guzzling cars and coal power plants.

In fact, I think it is the liberal view that pays more attention to the mistakes of the past and recognizes that change is good. If we aren't moving forward, we are moving backwards... an economy cannot remain stagnant - it is fundamentally impossible for an economy to remain the same. The trend of young people taking a more leftist, liberal view is likely due to a direct observation of our current economic situation. Fewer jobs for young people, fewer homes to buy, less land... more and more people are moving to urban communities and living in shit conditions that costs half or more of their monthly wages, forcing them to team up with others in the same situation so they can split the cost of living.

In the U.S., it is our republican party that champions to eliminate policy that would benefit the environment and provide for a healthier, happier, and more inclusive people... liberals can see this, why can't conservatives?

Why would change be inherently bad? The computer industry is changing all the time. Would you say this is bad? It might be hard to keep up with, and if you resist the change, you won't last long in the field, but does that make it bad? Or does someone's lack of wanting to change indicate a lack of adaptability?

"Liberalism is the politics of those with empty heads. Once those heads are filled ... liberalism is a folly."

An empty head with a history book at their side. Learning from the past, but keeping an open mind for the future. Being able to respond to any situation that arrises, and adapt to the changing of the times. Not just accepting that times change, but actively helping society move into the changing times as a united population.

Many conservatives want nothing to do with change... their pocket books won't adapt well.

300

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: September 16, 2018, 02:38:59 PM »

I would feel fine with such a flight, since all training, instruments, and vehicles were built under the assumption that they operated on a Flat Earth.

The assumption that the ground underneath them is relatively flat, not the entire earth. Planes do not have to take into account the curve of the earth because gravity makes their relative position always perpendicular with the ground, so as far as the plane is concerned, it is flat. Navigation systems on the other hand would have to be designed around coordinates. To get from point a to point b you need to account for the direction vector that points you in the direction of b. With such a large earth even the direction you are heading can appear to be based on flat ground.