21 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadGiven that you don't accept reality (flat earther) and reject most of history (conspiracy theorist) it seems you have drunk yourself under the bar ages ago.
The bar of whether or not he is superior to you, is set by you, and its such low bar that its practically impossible to not be above it.
[b]The bar is set by reality, by history.
Given that you don't accept reality (flat earther) and reject most of history (conspiracy theorist) it seems you have drunk yourself under the bar ages ago.[/b]
You call a globe earth reality, and yet you cannot support your belief--- at least, nothing concrete or fact based.
Meanwhile, my presentation for a rejection of the globe model is based solely on verifiable scientific facts.
I hardly reject most of history, but it certainly makes for a great incendiary sentence, doesn't it?
What I do reject on the basis of--- again--- facts are the various reports issued by the government which are disseminated by a government-controlled media, reports which are intended to advance whatever the current agenda requires... or, in the words of one currently employing the tactics, "brainwashing."
Only a fool would suggest that those in power have not ever and are not now conspiring to remain in power, are not conspiring to gain more power.
You may wish to dismiss ALL notions of conspiracy on the basis of the plethora of outlandish scenarios currently being spewed far and wide, but that is simply throwing out the baby with the bath water.
It does not require simple naïveté to accept the official story in these outrageous events this past decade or so; people such as yourself are willfully ignorant.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm impressed, she gets a pass for setting people up to die whose lives were hers to
Well, that is the way politics normally works.
protect. I wonder how many others will be given such treatment?
Just wondering, do you think she lied afterwards or was she always truthful?
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are a fantasist. Even without our access to space it is a simple matter to demonstrate that the world is a sphere, because of the geometrical properties of spheres. Just for fun, how do you think they fake GPS measurements?
[b]Given that you don't accept reality (flat earther) and reject most of history (conspiracy theorist) it seems you have drunk yourself under the bar ages ago.
You call a globe earth reality, and yet you cannot support your belief--- at least, nothing concrete or fact based.
Meanwhile, my presentation for a rejection of the globe model is based solel ...[text shortened]... these outrageous events this past decade or so; people such as yourself are willfully ignorant.[/b]
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJust for fun, I've preempted your demonstration of the spherical property of the earth with multiple iron-clad demonstrations which not only contradict a spherical shape, they make a plane earth nearly the only explanation.
You are a fantasist. Even without our access to space it is a simple matter to demonstrate that the world is a sphere, because of the geometrical properties of spheres. Just for fun, how do you think they fake GPS measurements?
So--- just for fun--- pay attention to the evidence which has been put before you.
Do not pass go, do not attempt to collect $200, do not add another wrinkle to the conversation... especially one about which you are not versed enough to hold an intelligent conversation discussing.
Explain how distant objects which ought to be below the horizon are otherwise visible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I say, you don't accept reality.
You call a globe earth reality, and yet you cannot support your belief--- at least, nothing concrete or fact based. Meanwhile, my presentation for a rejection of the globe model is based solely on verifiable scientific facts.
I hardly reject most of history, but it certainly makes for a great incendiary sentence, doesn't it?
What I do reject on the basis of--- again--- facts are the various reports issued by the government which are disseminated by a government-controlled media, reports which are intended to advance whatever the current agenda requires... or, in the words of one currently employing the tactics, "brainwashing."
Surely almost all history consists of reports issued by the government-controlled media?
Which historical events don't you think are conspiracy theories?
Only a fool would suggest that those in power have not ever and are not now conspiring to remain in power, are not conspiring to gain more power.
Only a fool would think this justifies your ridiculous conspiracy theories.
You may wish to dismiss ALL notions of conspiracy on the basis of the plethora of outlandish scenarios currently being spewed far and wide, but that is simply throwing out the baby with the bath water.
It is also a strawman.
It does not require simple naïveté to accept the official story in these outrageous events this past decade or so; people such as yourself are willfully ignorant.
It does require a penchant for self delusion to dream up the explanations you have.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, I offer facts and logic, to which you respond with attacks against the person.
As I say, you don't accept reality.
[b]I hardly reject most of history, but it certainly makes for a great incendiary sentence, doesn't it?
What I do reject on the basis of--- again--- facts are the various reports issued by the government which are disseminated by a government-controlled media, reports which are intended to advance whatever the curre ...[text shortened]... norant.
It does require a penchant for self delusion to dream up the explanations you have.[/b]
How quaint.
If someone suggested a perspective which claims "2+2 does not equal 4" the first reaction should be: show your work, explain your claim, defend your position.
The thoughtful and curious mind would entertain the support with an open mind.
In that consideration, a disciplined mind would then consider all pertinent information as available to its recollection and conduct more research for any other pieces otherwise overlooked or unimagined.
Flowing from this gathering of information from as many angles as possible, that same disciplined mind would sort and weigh all of the evidence from all angles and finally decide on a perspective which does not betray its own convictions.
The conclusion would be presented with the reason why the suggestion was accepted, accepted with modification or outright rejected wholesale.
None of this have you done.
You rely instead on ad hominem in order to make your case that isn't a case.
Your inability to separate the man from the claim is part and parcel the most telling demonstration of your willful ignorance.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour idea of what 'facts and logic' are is the problem here.
Again, I offer facts and logic,
If someone suggested a perspective which claims "2+2 does not equal 4" the first reaction should be: show your work, explain your claim, defend your position.
No, it shouldn't The correct first reaction is to ask whether you are off your meds.
The thoughtful and curious mind would entertain the support with an open mind.
No, only the mind that is so open it has fallen out would entertain such a thing.
In that consideration, a disciplined mind would then consider all pertinent information as available to its recollection and conduct more research for any other pieces otherwise overlooked or unimagined.
An educated mind would already have enough information to know that you are talking pants.
The conclusion would be presented with the reason why the suggestion was accepted, accepted with modification or outright rejected wholesale.
It is ridiculous to present you with the reasons why 2+2=4 as you either know the reasons already or you are too stupid to understand them. Either way, trying to explain it to you would be as futile as trying to explain that the earth is an oblate spheroid. You will simply repeat over and over that you have presented ironclad proof that 2+2 is not equal to 4 and other nonsense such as the horizon always being at eye level in photos or things being visible that should be over the horizon.
I attack the person not the argument because there is no argument. Claiming the events in Nice were staged is not an argument, its insanity.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, you use terms without knowing what they truly mean.
Your idea of what 'facts and logic' are is the problem here.
[b]If someone suggested a perspective which claims "2+2 does not equal 4" the first reaction should be: show your work, explain your claim, defend your position.
No, it shouldn't The correct first reaction is to ask whether you are off your meds.
The thoughtful and curious mind wo ...[text shortened]... there is no argument. Claiming the events in Nice were staged is not an argument, its insanity.
You say "educated" when, in fact, you mean "indoctrinated," as education requires instruction.
Your understanding of the scientific process is, at minimum, deplorable.
Had you been instructed instead of indoctrinated, had you the moral fiber and courage to challenge precepts you otherwise accept prima facie.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am fairly sure I know what 'insane' means.
Again, you use terms without knowing what they truly mean.
You say "educated" when, in fact, you mean "indoctrinated," as education requires instruction.
No, I meant 'educated'. Trying to change my sentences because you don't like what they mean wont help you.
Your understanding of the scientific process is, at minimum, deplorable.
Your belief that I said anything about the scientific process is, at a minimum, delusional.
Had you been instructed instead of indoctrinated, had you the moral fiber and courage to challenge precepts you otherwise accept prima facie.
That sentence doesn't parse. Try again.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, of course you know the term insane: it's been a hallmark of your maturation years, in nearly every report.
I am fairly sure I know what 'insane' means.
[b]You say "educated" when, in fact, you mean "indoctrinated," as education requires instruction.
No, I meant 'educated'. Trying to change my sentences because you don't like what they mean wont help you.
Your understanding of the scientific process is, at minimum, deplorable.
Your belief t ...[text shortened]... hallenge precepts you otherwise accept prima facie.[/b]
That sentence doesn't parse. Try again.[/b]
It doesn't hold here, however, as an insane person cannot and will not offer evidence of their convictions--- similar to what you've done here: no evidence for your position, it's just the other person who is off their meds.
Nice work.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI offer facts and logic, to which you respond with attacks against the person.
Well, of course you know the term insane: it's been a hallmark of your maturation years, in nearly every report.
How quaint.
It doesn't hold here, however, as an insane person cannot and will not offer evidence of their convictions.
And I note that you have never provided any evidence that the earth is flat, or that any of the conspiracy theories you subscribe to are real. Instead you just keep claiming that you have when you haven't.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo when I post facts related to any claim, that's simply another claim, in your book?
I offer facts and logic, to which you respond with attacks against the person.
How quaint.
[b]It doesn't hold here, however, as an insane person cannot and will not offer evidence of their convictions.
And I note that you have never provided any evidence that the earth is flat, or that any of the conspiracy theories you subscribe to are real. Instead you just keep claiming that you have when you haven't.[/b]
When I offer mathematical formulas which anyone can verify, which anyone can apply... that's just another claim?
Perhaps you simply don't know the difference between a fact and a claim.
I've made claims, and I've backed them up with facts.
You, on the other hand, attack the person and yet remain unencumbered by any actual facts.
You make claims, but are unable to support those claims with facts... so you just make another claim in attempt to bolster the first one.
Essentially, you're just an asshat with nothing to add to a conversation, save hand waving and complete lapses in logic.
22 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe effect is known as refraction.
Just for fun, I've preempted your demonstration of the spherical property of the earth with multiple iron-clad demonstrations which not only contradict a spherical shape, they make a plane earth nearly the only explanation.
So--- just for fun--- pay attention to the evidence which has been put before you.
Do not pass go, do not attempt to collect $200, d ...[text shortened]... ssing.
Explain how distant objects which ought to be below the horizon are otherwise visible.