*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2016, 07:06:32 PM »
*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. But you are doubling down on your strawman efforts. Good luck with that.

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2016, 07:21:45 PM »
What was the point of this post?

1. To address your "non-sequitur" accusation.
2. To try to understand the facts surrounding this "experiment" as clearly as possible, so as to avoid committing a "straw man" fallacy.

Quote
You are listing things in a way to make it look like I claimed something that I didn't.

I listed things as best I could, as clearly as I could. If some of them are wrong, feel free to correct them. I specifically asked for your input.

Quote
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.

You mean like this?
Sorry, allow me to correct that...

Quote
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".

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2016, 07:59:20 PM »
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.

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2016, 08:49:42 PM »
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.

I have no idea how many details you have. The conspicuous lack of details is exactly why I am calling "bullcrap".

Quote
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.

The size of the post was a reason I originally didn't care to respond to it. It's more of an information repository than a debate prompt. If you are curious, I happen to agree with most of his points that I read (I only read a third of them).

However, you specifically addressed one of his points, and claimed there was an experiment that backed up the aforementioned statement. To this I am calling "bullcrap". If you don't want to defend your statement, that is your prerogative. But until you do, I will maintain my conclusion: buuuuuuuuuuullcrap.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2016, 08:55:44 PM »
...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.

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2016, 09:28:46 PM »
...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.

Quote
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.

Regardless of your own personal connection to said experiment, you are indirectly appealing to the results of said experiment, via "those who have completed the experiment", to support your statement.

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.

My conclusion stands: buuuuuuuuuuuullcrap.

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2016, 09:43:28 PM »
I have to agree with totes.  It is pretty obvious Junker that you either are not aware of any "people who have performed this experiment" or are deliberately avoiding being specific about your knowledge either in an attempt to troll or to cover up a mistake or deficiency.

Please feel free to give more specific information, but at this time, you look shifty and shady.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2016, 10:04:58 PM »
you are indirectly appealing to the results of said experiment
I am literally not doing that. You are inferring what you want to based on something that did not happen.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 10:09:57 PM by junker »

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2016, 10:22:42 PM »
Sorry, not how this works. You support your claims. I support mine.

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. Either way is fine for me.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2016, 10:41:00 PM »
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.

Quote
Feel 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.

Quote
Or 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.

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2016, 11:07:42 PM »
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... :(

Quote
What do you want? Names, addresses, phone numbers of every single person I have seen make the claim of trying the experiment?

Not really. A link to a video/photo would be a nice start though.

Quote
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.

I have done my due diligence. All I can find are a bunch of videos like this that zoom out until the resolution is too small to see the object, and then claim that these objects are conveniently behind the horizon. In all my searches, no videos have surfaced (ha) that show a clearly half-sunken object restored to full height by a telescope.

I seriously doubt any such experiment exists. Which is why I am calling bullcrap on the experiment mentioned by you, and on your statement that the phenomenon is "legit".
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 11:16:38 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2016, 11:23:36 PM »
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

Please note this is only an example.

Quote
Quote
Feel 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.

Do you remember anything about them?  Anything at all?  Help me, help you.

Quote
Quote
Or 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.

Sorry, am I being unfair?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2016, 11:35:31 PM »
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... :(

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).

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2016, 01:23:28 AM »
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... :(

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).

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.


Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2016, 01:51:50 AM »
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... :(

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.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2016, 02:09:04 AM »

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.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2016, 02:17:41 AM »
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... :(

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.

Ah, now you're interested in a "serious discussion." No thanks, you've already proved that you're incapable of that, and resort to the tactics of a 10 year old. As far as I'm concerned, the accusations are all true as the evidence is available right here for anyone who can read your nonsense.

I see that you struggle with reading comprehension, so I'll help you once more. I said the argument was legit, referring to the OP's link, as opposed to the other strawmen the link started out with. It was the first legitimate point, as it is a point of contention that people on both sides argue about. I was in no way claiming in my statement that a telescope can or cannot restore a sunken ship, only that it's a legit argument. I did say that people claimed it does, I suppose I should've added that people also say it doesn't.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 02:19:12 AM by junker »

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2016, 02:46:36 AM »

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.

Thank you arbiter of reality.

Quote
You didn't ask for a general statement, I gave a general statement.

I asked you to make a "somewhat general statement specific" (bolded above), which you avoided doing with an adroitness usually reserved for politicians.

Quote
You literally gave a "non-exclusive" list of questions, the absolute opposite of a general statement.

You are actually mis-reading my comments.

Quote
I'm pointing out actual things you said, while you're simply making up things. Huge difference.

Oh irony.

Quote
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.

That was done, on multiple occasions.  Not in the exact form you just provided, but this was exactly what the gist of the questions asked of you was.

To recap:
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.

Twice there you were asked for specific details and twice you avoided it.  Lets keep going:

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

Please note this is only an example.


And:


Do you remember anything about them?  Anything at all? 


This is just the requests I made, Totes made some as well.  Yet, you act as if we haven't, and then accuse of us of being in turns dishonest, making stuff up and lying.  All of this unpleasantness can be avoided, right now, if you would simply provide some specifics about what you know.  I am ready to move on.  Are you?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2016, 04:47:09 AM »
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.

Rama Set

Re: Debunking FET arguments
« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2016, 04:52:28 AM »
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.

It never would have if you hadn't tap-danced like Gregory Hines.  Good night and good luck.