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

[SunnyJim]

What I am saying dingaling is that the education lasts a lifetime, the airplane ride lasts 5 hours.

London - NYC was shorter. 3 hours and change if memory serves.

 

[cat of curiosity]

London - NYC was shorter. 3 hours and change if memory serves.

he's never flown super sonic. that would have involved gravity, which doesn't exist for him...

 

[Unclebaldrick]

My father was an Algerian diplomat

mmm, good food.

 

[Mellowman2112]

I'll gladly show you photos of me on Concorde when I was a child in the 80s as soon as you show me even a single photo of your degree.

My father was an Algerian diplomat who spent more time travelling than he did at home. The perks meant he could take his kids whenever he felt like it at the consulate's expense.

True story, not like your 'i have a bachelor in law btw' tripe.

Uh, don't you mean the taxpayers expense?

 

[cat of curiosity]

Uh, don't you mean the taxpayers expense?

uh, don't you think diplomats and consulate are paid a salary?

or are they flat and do it for free?

don't worry, one day you'll be old enough to get a job too...

 

[reddan1981]

Although it isn't hard to guess my position on the shape of the Earth, I've not actually offered any arguments. Yet, although you haven't even heard them, you already seem to know that they are full of logical fallacies.

You are attempting to label someone, that has a different opinion to you.You assume that your opinion is the correct one. Desperate to win this exchange you are then dishonest about your intention. This also displays narcissistic tendencies.



I would love to hear more about evolution of consciousness from you.....

 

[zeddd]

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.

 

[primabudda]

^^ high

 

[tyler.durden]

You are attempting to label someone, that has a different opinion to you. You assume that your opinion is the correct one.

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...

Desperate to win this exchange you are then dishonest about your intention. This also displays narcissistic tendencies.

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

I would love to hear more about evolution of consciousness from you.....

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

 

[tyler.durden]

^^ high

Is your own identity so shitty that you feel the need to cycle through other members' avatars? You suck, shitliner. Get banned again, already...

 

[primabudda]

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

i'm going to read this, you don't mind ? nah thought not.

 

[reddan1981]

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

Still qualified to state what is actually true?
Heisenberg implied intention when he commented. He wouldn't of given his 'assessment' on what he believes is the inferior position, otherwise.
If, I am wrong.... Meh.
How does Dr. JulianJaynes of Princeton University, demonstrate evolution of consciousness?
Do you agree with the evolution of consciousness theory?
Do you agree with Dr. JulianJaynes, that men at one point had no original thought, that the voices in mans head was that of God's?

 

[tyler.durden]

Still qualified to state what is actually true?
Heisenberg implied intention when he commented. He wouldn't of given his 'assessment' on what he believes is the inferior position, otherwise.

He showed up to illustrate the tactics of a sea lion, then pointed out your presumptions of his position and the uselessness of debating you. How was he being dishonest?

If, I am wrong.... Meh.

Right. Gotta be used to that by now...

How does Dr. JulianJaynes of Princeton University, demonstrate evolution of consciousness?
Do you agree with the evolution of consciousness theory?

It's a LONG explanation that you can read about from the amazon reviews via the link I posted. Basically, he presents evidence and grand arguments regarding the absence of consciousness in humans early on, and shows that it is something that needs to be learned, it is not innate. He shows how language had to be developed that was sophisticated enough to generate metaphor and analog models in order for consciousness to arise. You can see consciousness develop through the writings and rituals of each culture through time. I've never perused the amazon reviews before posting that link to his book, but having read through them since, many are very good and go into great detail...

 

[Heisenberg]

You are attempting to label someone, that has a different opinion to you.

You seem quite fond of assigning labels yourself...

But obviously you are the biggest idiot. Tiny Tim.

You are some filthy piece of shit.

Post a picture of your puny spotty ugly face, so I can feel sorry for you.

just another little dick head with a big mouth, fuck you fraggle.

Let's not pretend you are here for some sort of civil discourse. You are here to validate your own views, and your mind is only equipped to insult and denigrate other's views rather than support your own. Fortunately for you, a mind that is willing to abuse others is also a mind that sees that abuse as some sort of victory, thus giving you the feeling of validation you seek.

Denialism is not debate. The proper way to engage a denialist is not to confront his/her arguments thereby giving them a platform to spout their rhetoric. If we are to engage at all, it's to call out the steps in their denialist song-and-dance routine. Denialists have no actual arguments to offer, and so they are left with a handful of tactics and persuasion techniques which makes all denialism look essentially the same no matter the topic. The hope is that those participating in the discussion will eventually learn to distinguish denialism from actual discourse. And, invariably, when this is done, the denialist will cry foul and try their best to steer the conversation back to their rhetoric, just as you have done.

The denialist doesn't need cogent arguments. They are not bothered by flaws in their logic or holes in their education. They place no value on peer review. To them, their denialism feels like debate. What they need is someone to oppose them so that they can shoot them down and feel superior, and it doesn't matter if what you say is scientifically valid or just sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher, they will find a way to jerk off to it. It's a form of mental masturbation that requires a partner, and climax can be reached without the need for any intelligent exchange. As is demonstrated here, abusive name calling and foul language will get them off just fine, as will psychobabble gibberish about velocity and mass. To them it feels the same as if they've actually proved you wrong.

 

[claypipe69]

Rule noice I wonder how fick dis flat fing is? is it like a pancake nice an fin or fick as a brick ? spose will never no cus narone can say. I fink we should roll another an chill an rollon to the

Ahhh it makes on sense ? That makes it clear as MUD amother is required as the smoke clears a profound comes to mind we are all aliens an just beg to differ on this pointless subject.
I wait in anticipation for it all become clear an the mushrooms were where wear off

 

[claypipe69]

"A Sealion is a person who, when confronted with a fact that they don't care to acknowledge, will ask endlessly for "proof" and insist that it is the other person's job to stop everything they are doing and address the issue to their satisfaction.

Sealioning is not predicated upon any implicit understanding of public/private space, but upon the premise that the asker is "sincere" and therefore all resources possible *must* be immediately diverted to teaching them, immediately. The resources that they could, with minimal effort find, are not the issue. They demand attention - your attention. All of it. RIGHT NOW. And they have no intention of listening, because it's your job to make them understand. It is a specific form of harassment. You may not look away, or point them to a link. You must spend all your time and energy. This isn't a sincere attempt at anythinging. It's a calculated technique to grind an opponent down."

View attachment 3765728

https://www.quora.com/What-is-sealioning

My pet Rat loves eating garlic

 

[reddan1981]

You seem quite fond of assigning labels yourself...









Let's not pretend you are here for some sort of civil discourse. You are here to validate your own views, and your mind is only equipped to insult and denigrate other's views rather than support your own. Fortunately for you, a mind that is willing to abuse others is also a mind that sees that abuse as some sort of victory, thus giving you the feeling of validation you seek.

Denialism is not debate. The proper way to engage a denialist is not to confront his/her arguments thereby giving them a platform to spout their rhetoric. If we are to engage at all, it's to call out the steps in their denialist song-and-dance routine. Denialists have no actual arguments to offer, and so they are left with a handful of tactics and persuasion techniques which makes all denialism look essentially the same no matter the topic. The hope is that those participating in the discussion will eventually learn to distinguish denialism from actual discourse. And, invariably, when this is done, the denialist will cry foul and try their best to steer the conversation back to their rhetoric, just as you have done.

The denialist doesn't need cogent arguments. They are not bothered by flaws in their logic or holes in their education. They place no value on peer review. To them, their denialism feels like debate. What they need is someone to oppose them so that they can shoot them down and feel superior, and it doesn't matter if what you say is scientifically valid or just sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher, they will find a way to jerk off to it. It's a form of mental masturbation that requires a partner, and climax can be reached without the need for any intelligent exchange. As is demonstrated here, abusive name calling and foul language will get them off just fine, as will psychobabble gibberish about velocity and mass. To them it feels the same as if they've actually proved you wrong.

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.

 

[tyler.durden]

 

[Mellowman2112]

uh, don't you think diplomats and consulate are paid a salary?

or are they flat and do it for free?

don't worry, one day you'll be old enough to get a job too...

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!!

 

[Mellowman2112]

He showed up to illustrate the tactics of a sea lion, then pointed out your presumptions of his position and the uselessness of debating you. How was he being dishonest?



Right. Gotta be used to that by now...



It's a LONG explanation that you can read about from the amazon reviews via the link I posted. Basically, he presents evidence and grand arguments regarding the absence of consciousness in humans early on, and shows that it is something that needs to be learned, it is not innate. He shows how language had to be developed that was sophisticated enough to generate metaphor and analog models in order for consciousness to arise. You can see consciousness develop through the writings and rituals of each culture through time. I've never perused the amazon reviews before posting that link to his book, but having read through them since, many are very good and go into great detail...

No innate consciousness? What a sad world you live in. You believe everything came from nothing, the billions of stars and planets came from nothing, a mysterious explosion that instead of destroying creates everything, that we somehow from green slime became cells, then fish with feet then monkeys. that we are an insignificant grain of sand from a beach of trillions of galaxies that of course came from nothing. So yolo right? Fuck everybody because there is no god.