Is the World Flat? The Flatlander's theory..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
The shape of our planet is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact regardless if one chooses to acknowledge it. One side is completely correct, and the other completely incorrect...



What is his intention? Did he state it, or is this another presumption on your part?



The only book I've read on the subject is amazing. 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' by Dr. Julian Jaynes of Princeton University. He demonstrates the evolution of consciousness on a timeline through human history, it's fucking fascinating. It's a huge read, but so worth it. I've read it several times...

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
The shape of our planet is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact regardless if one chooses to acknowledge it. One side is completely correct, and the other completely incorrect...

Right, the reality is the reality even if you refuse to believe it. You have seen the math and lack of curvature and based on Pythagorian's equation we see no curve. Kauai being seen from Oahu, Chicago seen from across the lake, etc etc there are hundreds of these observations and the math shows there is no curve. Accept the reality. Thank you.
 

srh88

Well-Known Member
The shape of our planet is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact regardless if one chooses to acknowledge it. One side is completely correct, and the other completely incorrect...

Right, the reality is the reality even if you refuse to believe it. You have seen the math and lack of curvature and based on Pythagorian's equation we see no curve. Kauai being seen from Oahu, Chicago seen from across the lake, etc etc there are hundreds of these observations and the math shows there is no curve. Accept the reality. Thank you.
why cant you see chicago from across the lake every day
 

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
Good morning how are the laws of physics today, another day off for them I see. I am wondering what flat earthers consider ridiculous, I mean do we have any common ground at all. And no comeback from Chief retard re the recent scientific rebuttals of his hypothesis.
Are you referring to me? Saying the word refraction is not a scientific rebuttal, lol. By the way, on page 343 I rebutted with video evidence night footage of Chicago being seen from across the lake. So refraction plays no part in the night sighting. You have been owned. Thank you.
 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
Are you referring to me? Saying the word refraction is not a scientific rebuttal, lol. By the way, on page 343 I rebutted with video evidence night footage of Chicago being seen from across the lake. So refraction plays no part in the night sighting. You have been owned. Thank you.
Lol oh lol why doesn't refraction work at night? It does, it is a phenomonen created by the atmosphere not the sun, lmfao @ "owned"
 
Last edited:

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
This $#$#%^ was boasting how his family took several trips at around 24000 dollars per seat at taxpayer expense, bilked from his impoverished country of Algeria. SICKENING!!
This $#$#%^ wasn't 'boasting' about anything. I simply stated that I have seen the curvature of the Earth from the cockpit of Concorde at 60,000 ft. You haven't, so you make the argument about fleecing Algerian tax payers for the airfare.

Nothing sickening about being a diplomat for a North African country. He fought in the Algerian Revolution, earned his stripes, and worked his was up through the military until he joined the diplomatic core.

Then we have you, a fool who is such an underachiever and ashamed of his educational background, he feels compelled to lie about completing a university program. You're a joke. No one respects you. Everyone thinks you're a prized idiot.

Jesus hears and sees everything. He hears your lies, and he watches you felate your Jewish boyfriend. No place for you in his heavenly kingdom. Unlucky.
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
The shape of our planet is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact regardless if one chooses to acknowledge it. One side is completely correct, and the other completely incorrect...

Right, the reality is the reality even if you refuse to believe it. You have seen the math and lack of curvature and based on Pythagorian's equation we see no curve. Kauai being seen from Oahu, Chicago seen from across the lake, etc etc there are hundreds of these observations and the math shows there is no curve. Accept the reality. Thank you.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Tautology.
I have stated many times throughout this thread that my position here is that of devil's advocate. You have cherry-picked quotes and misrepresented them. You are dishonest and you are replying out of ego.
I have reiterated experiments that prove no curvature, please enlighten me to experimentation that proves the contrary or you have nothing to add but sophistry.
Cry foul and steer the conversation back to your rhetoric. That sounds familiar.

The purpose of playing devil's advocate is to explore a position by taking the opposite view with the aim of evaluating it, exposing weakness, and strengthening arguments. Ultimately, the devil's advocate seeks to improve the position they are arguing against. It doesn't mean doubling-down on bad arguments, being antagonistic, and refusing to ever concede any point made by the opposing side. It certainly doesn't excuse name-calling and personal abuse. If you are indeed playing devils advocate, then you are just as bad at it as you are at denialism.

You don't seem to realize how transparent you are. I know, to you, when you say "please enlighten me to experimentation that proves the contrary or you have nothing to add but sophistry" it sounds to you like you are putting me in my place, but to the rest of us it's clear that you are desperate to stick to the rhetoric you are comfortable with and will simply label anything else as sophistry, sight unseen, in an attempt to poison the well. Your intent is to control the scope of the conversation. It's like when you ask a magician to do a trick from a different angle and they refuse. It's because their trickery will only work when framed in a very careful and particular way.

You want us to play on your field using your rules because that's the only way you can feel like you're out-playing the big boys, but when people don't play like you want them to, you do the only thing you have left, which is call them names and shit on them. You aren't playing devil's advocate, you're playing devil's assailant.
 

cat of curiosity

Well-Known Member
Cry foul and steer the conversation back to your rhetoric. That sounds familiar.

The purpose of playing devil's advocate is to explore a position by taking the opposite view with the aim of evaluating it, exposing weakness, and strengthening arguments. Ultimately, the devil's advocate seeks to improve the position they are arguing against. It doesn't mean doubling-down on bad arguments, being antagonistic, and refusing to ever concede any point made by the opposing side. It certainly doesn't excuse name-calling and personal abuse. If you are indeed playing devils advocate, then you are just as bad at it as you are at denialism.

You don't seem to realize how transparent you are. I know, to you, when you say "please enlighten me to experimentation that proves the contrary or you have nothing to add but sophistry" it sounds to you like you are putting me in my place, but to the rest of us it's clear that you are desperate to stick to the rhetoric you are comfortable with and will simply label anything else as sophistry, sight unseen, in an attempt to poison the well. Your intent is to control the scope of the conversation. It's like when you ask a magician to do a trick from a different angle and they refuse. It's because their trickery will only work when framed in a very careful and particular way.

You want us to play on your field using your rules because that's the only way you can feel like you're out-playing the big boys, but when people don't play like you want them to, you do the only thing you have left, which is call them names and shit on them. You aren't playing devil's advocate, you're playing devil's assailant.
i'd say he's playing mentally retarded, but i don't think he's playing...
 

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
Cry foul and steer the conversation back to your rhetoric. That sounds familiar.

The purpose of playing devil's advocate is to explore a position by taking the opposite view with the aim of evaluating it, exposing weakness, and strengthening arguments. Ultimately, the devil's advocate seeks to improve the position they are arguing against. It doesn't mean doubling-down on bad arguments, being antagonistic, and refusing to ever concede any point made by the opposing side. It certainly doesn't excuse name-calling and personal abuse. If you are indeed playing devils advocate, then you are just as bad at it as you are at denialism.

You don't seem to realize how transparent you are. I know, to you, when you say "please enlighten me to experimentation that proves the contrary or you have nothing to add but sophistry" it sounds to you like you are putting me in my place, but to the rest of us it's clear that you are desperate to stick to the rhetoric you are comfortable with and will simply label anything else as sophistry, sight unseen, in an attempt to poison the well. Your intent is to control the scope of the conversation. It's like when you ask a magician to do a trick from a different angle and they refuse. It's because their trickery will only work when framed in a very careful and particular way.

You want us to play on your field using your rules because that's the only way you can feel like you're out-playing the big boys, but when people don't play like you want them to, you do the only thing you have left, which is call them names and shit on them. You aren't playing devil's advocate, you're playing devil's assailant.
Again you have filled the page with nonsense. If I am attempting to steer us anywhere, it is away from psychoanalytic profiling and an attempt at closing us down, without the scientific evidence.

You are arguing with hearsay.
hearsay
ˈhɪəseɪ/
noun
  1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

You can not provide experimental evidence to support a supposed curve.

Stop pointing to the middle man, show me my error in this emboldened statement.
 

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
This $#$#%^ wasn't 'boasting' about anything. I simply stated that I have seen the curvature of the Earth from the cockpit of Concorde at 60,000 ft. You haven't, so you make the argument about fleecing Algerian tax payers for the airfare.

Nothing sickening about being a diplomat for a North African country. He fought in the Algerian Revolution, earned his stripes, and worked his was up through the military until he joined the diplomatic core.

Then we have you, a fool who is such an underachiever and ashamed of his educational background, he feels compelled to lie about completing a university program. You're a joke. No one respects you. Everyone thinks you're a prized idiot.

Jesus hears and sees everything. He hears your lies, and he watches you felate your Jewish boyfriend. No place for you in his heavenly kingdom. Unlucky.
Sorry man it is sickening someone taking his family on three or four Concorde rides at 24ooo per ticket and send the bill to the impoverished taxpayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top