Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Slovakian prime minister both refused to help Ukraine and expelled the WHO from the country.

A new crime for Gates and Geberesice.

I can swear but I can't prove that one of these shits is somehow behind this assassination attempt.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« Last post by wise on Today at 12:44:21 AM »
Russian troops have enter the Kharkov.

Blinken has enter the bars in Kiev.


3
So, what do you guys here think, is Albanian descended from Illyrian? I think that the Croatian names of places strongly suggest that the language spoken in Croatia in ancient times was some centum language, rather than a language closely related to modern-day Albanian (which is a satem language). I've recently published a YouTube video in Croatian about that, in which I present five arguments for Illyrian being a centum language.



The arguments I present in that video are:
1. The k-r pattern in the Croatian river names. In many river names in Croatia, the first consonant is 'k' and the second consonant is 'r': Krka, Korana, Krapina, Krbavica, Kravarščica, and two rivers named Karašica. Most linguists consider that pattern to be coincidental, but I think that the basics of Information Theory (Birthday Paradox and Collision Entropy) can be used to show that the probability of that pattern occurring by chance is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17 (you can read more about my calculations on my website). I think the simplest explanation is that *karr~kurr meant "to flow" in Illyrian. That, for example, Karašica comes from Illyrian name *Kurr-urr-issia (to flow-water-suffix), that it was borrowed into Proto-Slavic as *Kъrъrьsьja, which would regularly give *Karrasja > Karaš-ica (-ica being a common Croatian suffix) in modern Croatian. I think this *karr~kurr meaning "flow" comes from the Indo-European root *kjers (to run). So, *kj changed to *k in Illyrian, which is a sign that it was a centum language.
2. If we assume Illyrian was a centum language, Curicum, the ancient name for Krk, can be read as some kind of derivation from *(s)kjeh1weros (northern wind), and Krk is the northernmost large island in the Adriatic sea.
3. If we assume Illyrian was a centum language, Incerum, the ancient name for Požega, can be read as "the heart of the valley", from *h1eyn (valley) and *kjer(d) (heart).
4. If we assume Illyrian was a centum language, Cibelae, the ancient name for Vinkovci, can be read as "strong house" or "fortification", from *kjey (house) and *bel (strong).
5. Most linguists consider Messapic to be closely related to Illyrian. And one of the Messapic words we know what they meant was "klauhi" (to listen). That probably comes from Indo-European *kjlew (to hear). Therefore, *kj turned into *k.

Do those arguments sound compelling to you?

I've also discussed this on r/latin: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/1crr0jj/eratne_lingua_illyrica_centum_aut_satem_lingua/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
4
Quote
The flat earth map looks distorted, because it is.

Or maybe the flat Earth looks distorted to YOU.
5
Flat Earth General / Official Flat Earth Recruitment Video
« Last post by Smoke Machine on May 16, 2024, 05:27:05 PM »
It's great to see the flat earth society knows how powerful a recruitment drive video can be to boost "flattening" numbers!

I guess John Davis is a big fan of the Honest Trailers approach?  ;)


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Origin of All Religions
« Last post by bulmabriefs144 on May 16, 2024, 04:58:41 PM »
I used to think that the idea of an afterlife, divine judgement, heaven and hell, etc was driven mainly by fear of death.

Recently I’ve been wondering if it was more about giving hope to the peasantry that no matter how untouchable the arseholes in charge seem, they’ll get theirs in the end.

You'd be wrong, just as the OP is wrong about this "theory."

Despite Marx's view of religion as the opiate of the masses, it's more like atheists are jacked up on speed and spend all their time either protesting for social change, or being afraid of death or government. Then they spend the rest of their time telling us that they aren't afraid of death, but none of us theists are fooled. You're afraid of death, and hell by extension.

The truth is, the biggest actual threat to Big Government is a population completely unafraid of death. How would they keep order if you can't threaten them? Religion is not a tool of order. It's actually counter-cultural.

This is why government tries to muddle or dilute the religious idea of afterlife, so the average person thinks they need to earn it by being good. Then they manage to convince the public that goodness is obedience to laws. If the public knew that afterlife is irrelevant to goodness or evil, they would stop cooperating.
I think I can understand you. you're afraid of death. you can't- don't want to believe that after your death, you cease to exist. Your life gone, meaningless. You want an afterlife - hell or heaven, to justify your existence after death. And bible is the gateway for that stupidity. and since your bible cannot be wrong, the earth is flat and the stars are little holes in your firmament. Lovely, but yeah, like I said, you really should go pick up a few textbooks on physics and math.

See, these are the tools of state control.

Atheists working for the Deep State to keep people trapped in the secular no-afterlife (plus heliocentric globalist) paradigm. "You just believe there is an afterlife because you're afraid of death." No, I'm not. But I'll humor you for a second with a brief Pascal-style Wager.

1. If there is no afterlife, then death is the end, and there is no eternal punishment for disobeying the state. Neither can any sin that you commit
2. If there is an afterlife, Jesus Christ himself refused to pay taxes, refused to obey the temple leaders, and died a painful death on the cross. By all accounts this would make him a criminal and a sinner. Both in terms of disobedience and in terms of being against the priests who supposedly represented God, nothing at all good should happen to him in the afterlife, Again, neither disobedience to state nor supposed sin makes any difference to the afterlife.

In either case, the result is the same.

The Bible, in fact confirms this. All the stuff about hell? People who didn't read the Bible and people who tried to revise the Bible. The actual text says we have grace, that our sins have been forgiven, that we are redeemed.

Puppets of the state and the religious elite are working together to suppress the truth. This is also mentioned.
Quote
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

So, how much did they pay you? Was it worth it?

Quote
On Atheists he posits, “You're afraid of death, and hell by extension.” How in fuck does that makes sense, it is the threat of hell that gets all you godbotherers on their knees begging for forgiveness.

It's simple.

You are frightened to death of death because some minister like this one

has probably at some point told you that you are going to hell if you don't accept God.

This is a "if you people think the afterlife is like this, then I don't believe in the afterlife" idea. But denial of something doesn't make it any less real. Rather than following the atheists who go around thinking they can just wish away the afterlife, you ought to take a page from Martin Luther's book. No, I'm not saying be a Protestant Christian (though you can). Luther himself was convinced he was going to hell.

Did he go into denial mode? Nope, he worked through his thoughts for actual years until he had an answer. As long as you do not have an answer to the afterlife, you will not have peace in this life. Now maybe your answer is, "I don't accept the idea of joining religion. If God were loving, he wouldn't send us to hell." That's cool too. Denial, on the other hand, is a form of masked fear. Now you can do denial if you want, but it's not healthy. Ask any shrink, they'll tell you the same. Unresolved issues will not send you to hell. But they will make this life miserable.
7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« Last post by Themightykabool on May 16, 2024, 04:28:33 PM »
fighitng/ boxing bout runs for 15-45min.
example boxing may 18 there's going to be 8 bouts with a main event and a variety of rounds.
example ufc june 22 there's 5 main fights with +1 many prelims.

point? - there's more to watch in a given sit.

vs nba runs 2hrs average even though 4quartersx12min/quarter = 48min
vs nfl 3hrs average evne though it's clock is 60min
vs soccer 90min+halftime break but because it's a stupidass sport and no one scores it typically goes OT, then shootout - who watches football anyways? (HAAR)






"why" is because as already stated and is widely agreed upon for reasons as mentioned.
you not accepting it is your own issues, but it is the "why".
so we are once again at the impasse.
we must agree to disagree or devolve into insults.

















https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_boxing#:~:text=in%20the%202010s-,Length%20of%20bouts,men%2C%202%20minutes%20for%20women.
For decades, boxing matches went on for 15 rounds, but that was all changed on November 13, 1982, following the death of Korean boxer Kim Duk-koo in a fight against Ray Mancini. Studies following the fight have concluded that his brain had become more susceptible to damage after the 12th round.[9] Exactly three months after the fatal fight, the WBC reduced the number of their championship fights to 12 three-minute rounds with 1 minute in between, making the total bout 47 minutes long.[10]


https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/12508267/boxing-schedule
May 18: San Diego, California (ESPN/ESPN+)
Title fight: Emanuel Navarrete vs. Denys Berinchyk, 12 rounds, for the vacant WBO lightweight title

Giovani Santillan vs. Brian Norman Jr., 12 rounds, welterweights

Richard Torrez Jr. vs. Brandon Moore, 8 rounds, heavyweights

Jonathan Mansour vs. Anel Dudo, 4 rounds, lightweights

Emiliano Vargas vs. Angel Varela Urena, 6 rounds, junior welterweights

Charlie Sheehy vs. Manuel Jaimes, 8 rounds, lightweights

Alan Garcia vs. Wilfredo Flores, 8 rounds, lightweights

Jonathan Lopez vs. Edgar Ortega, 8 rounds, featherweights






https://www.espn.com/mma/schedule/_/league/ufc

Main Card
Middleweight - Main Event


Robert Whittaker
26-7-0
ABC/ESPN+
+170 / -200


Khamzat Chimaev
13-0-0
Full Profile
6' 0"
HEIGHT
6' 2"
185 lbs
WEIGHT
185 lbs
33
AGE
30
73.5"
REACH
75"
Orthodox
STANCE
Orthodox
4.57
SIG STR LPM
5.72
45.83%
SIG STR ACC
70.43%
0.81
TD AVG
3.99
38.10%
TD ACC
46.15%
0.00
SUB AVG
2.66
Full Profile


Kelvin Gastelum
18-9-0
ABC/ESPN+


Daniel Rodriguez
17-4-0


Shara Magomedov
12-0-0
ABC/ESPN+


Ihor Potieria
20-6-0


John Walker
21-8-0
ABC/ESPN+


Volkan Oezdemir
19-7-0


Sergei Pavlovich
18-2-0
ABC/ESPN+


Alexander Volkov
37-10-0
Prelims
headshot fallback image

TBA
ESPN/ESPN+
headshot fallback image

Opponent TBA
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Vacuum/air pressure without a container
« Last post by gnuarm on May 16, 2024, 04:16:04 PM »
it looks to me that flat earthers can't respond to my simple questions that debunk the vessel argument.

I don't ever want to hear this pressure/vessel argument again because it's completely wrong and meaningless.

Ok, time to get real, people.

Stevie, is you last name, "Curious", or "Crackpipe"?

Touché!  I love it when an argument is won on technical grounds.  j-)
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Vacuum/air pressure without a container
« Last post by stevec on May 16, 2024, 03:45:49 PM »
It looks like there can't be a calm, logical discussion here. I don't know if that's just this particular site or with FE's in general.
10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« Last post by JackBlack on May 16, 2024, 03:34:23 PM »
FYI, Thomas (hit-man) Hearns , 5 weights, 5 world titles.
In a sport with 19 different divisions.
If you instead use the current Olympic weight classifications, that would cut it down to 3 different classes (assuming they actually manage to win the top one, over a period of 8 years (including a large gap of 5 years), and 10 kg. And instead of just going up, they also went down.
And with very few of these people in existence.

Well more importantly i think unco said it months ago - there is no practical logistics to have nba divisions by height.

Its not solely about players.
Its also about the viewers.

Just like fuckface bulma idea to have wood burning/ steam/ diesel / petrol (but oddly NO electric) but lacking the awareness the logistics of supply chain and cost associated with too maby options.

Viewers simopy dont have time or money invest to watch everything and teams cant afford to partial fill stadiums or network tv slots.

Dilution of customers works against marketability.
Tell that to boxing.
Excluding special cases like people wanting to see Musk get the shit beat out of him, the most popular rounds are typically those where you have a champion or overall winner determined.

With multiple divisions, you can do that multiple times in the same short period.

So femalss must be protected from injury and females viewership must be protected from dilution and females protected to compete somehow fairly in obtaining fair stadium and network time (ie not priced unfairly).
WHY?
Why the need to invoke "female"?
Why isn't it athletes must be protected from injury?
Why should female viewership in particular be protected, rather than just viewership in general?
Why is it that female athletes in particular need to be protected to compete fairly? What about the males of comparable ability who are excluded? Why aren't they protected?

Rwasonable.
So show it is reasonable, specifically to discriminate on the basis of sex even thought  rather than just dismissing opposition as nutter.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10