Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - WISHTOLAUGH

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: May 27, 2022, 06:30:36 AM »
Right now, it appears that it was a terrific thing these school kids were cut down. The police were obviously allowing it to happen, and despite the protests from the parents about not being allowed to go in and rescue their own children, while the police rescued only their own, it is good they died now, rather than be subjected to more asshattedness by idiots roaming this particular city and forum.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: May 27, 2022, 04:18:38 AM »
I literally moved across the ocean so my son wouldn't have to risk dying in a shootout.
Similar to the representative that literally got on his hands and knees to beg?

Lying sack of crap.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 30, 2022, 09:00:59 AM »
Watch a little into the video, you can see there is still Nazi's in Ukrainian army. Why isn't this info available on the MSM?

https://battleplan.news/watch?id=62426ab15bea35339685680f

It is. It's not a secret.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/medea-benjamin-nicolas-js-davies-ukraine-war-russia-ukranian-neo-nazi-fascists-azov-battalion-89292/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/05/russia-invasion-ukraine-attention-extremist-regiment-nazi/9368016002/?gnt-cfr=1

There are 'neo nazis' in almost every country. Including Australia (just look to disputeone lol). Is the problem so rife in Ukraine that it needs Russia to pulverize it to the ground targeting and massacring thousands of civilians in the process? No. And it seems to escape a lot of people that the president of Ukraine is Jewish and was voted in on a huge landslide. It seems generally Ukrainians dont have a problem with Jews...

Try putting a Jewish candidate for America and see how well that goes.....
bu...bu...but...

You seem to think being Jewish precludes the tenets of NAZIism.

Jews had no problem with Hitler.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/ellen-feldman-nazi-germany

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: March 25, 2022, 07:25:52 AM »
I fill out the paperwork for the loan, listing my collateral and what I believe to be its current market value.

Where did you copy and paste this quote from I wonder?

You forgot the part about lying about how much your GI Joe collection is worth.

Trump lied about the value of his properties, just like he lies about nearly everything.

Luckily for him there are dumbasses who worship him and believe everything he says.
For everyone (except for you of course, as you are a most well-qualified ignoramus of the highest caliber and pedigree) , when you list a value of a piece of collateral, that is a statement of perceived worth and cannot be a lie.

For you, it would certainly be classified as lie, as you know no other method of peration.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: March 24, 2022, 03:25:50 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html

An investigation into how new Yorks criminal investigation fell apart.

The gist of it;
The charge is that Trump misrepresented the value of his assets to get loans.
Exactly how do you misrepresent the value of anything?

You speak out or write out what you think something is worth.
The problem is that the banks involved actually made a profit from these loans.
So the banks acted on the information, agreeing with the stated values.

No misrepresentation can be inferred at that point.
So trump lied here but it didn't actually harm the people he lied to which the new guy in charge thought would be a tough sell to a jury.
So no, Trump didn't lie.

Just some more spewed BS from the likes of you.

Do you understand how the process of applying for a loan works? Of course you don't.
Yeah, I do.

I fill out the paperwork for the loan, listing my collateral and what I believe to be its current market value.

The bank looks it over and decides to either lend the money or not based on my statements and creditworthiness.

Jesus, you just continually post nonsense after nonsense.

No fraud here.

Except for you.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 09, 2022, 05:24:52 AM »
I want the lesser of the evils.  If direct conflict with Russia is the least evil possible then that's what I want. I am the most savage fascist known to man and am for the mass killing of the Semitic peoples in the region, WWIII be damned.
FTFY

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: March 07, 2022, 03:19:19 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html

An investigation into how new Yorks criminal investigation fell apart.

The gist of it;
The charge is that Trump misrepresented the value of his assets to get loans.
Exactly how do you misrepresent the value of anything?

You speak out or write out what you think something is worth.
The problem is that the banks involved actually made a profit from these loans.
So the banks acted on the information, agreeing with the stated values.

No misrepresentation can be inferred at that point.
So trump lied here but it didn't actually harm the people he lied to which the new guy in charge thought would be a tough sell to a jury.
So no, Trump didn't lie.

Just some more spewed BS from the likes of you.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 04, 2022, 07:05:50 AM »
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-putin-wants-all-of-ukraine-and-worse-is-to-come-in-conflict-warns-macron-12556609

According to Russian state media, and according to Putin (per Macron), Putin wants to take all of Ukraine. So either Russian state media (which is controlled by Putin), Macron, and Putin himself are lying, or you are wrong.
news sky is a fucking lying piece of goddamn crap.


9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 04, 2022, 07:04:39 AM »
I'm not sure why you don't think he wants to annex Ukraine. Russian state media accidentally released an article I posted here just the other day prematurely claiming victory and stating Putin had reclaimed Ukraine for Russia. It's pretty weird to just assume they had that story ready to go when he doesn't intend to annex the entire country.
You are a liar.

Russian state media released no such article.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 04, 2022, 07:03:03 AM »
Putin probably thought Ukraine would fold like paper like Afghanistan did
Imagine, some m---------hairbrained fool believing Afghanistan "folded like paper," at some point in their history and imagine the same hairbrained fool thinks there could possibly be other people that would believe the assessment.

Your opinion is trash.

STFU and go to hell, you penguin.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 04, 2022, 06:53:08 AM »
Wow, Pez thinks this action by Russia against a neighbour was caused by the west being "arrogant".. 


Do you have evidence he is wrong? Because he has evidence he is right.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 04, 2022, 06:48:37 AM »
I would agree that America has violated international law and human rights on many different occasions.  It's when people use this as a whataboutism to justify Russia that I think they're a Putin apologist.

On this conflict the West absolutely does have the moral high round.
What a sad joke you are.

You support the NEO-NAZI state in Ukraine, because you are a NAZI.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: JJA is right or wrong?
« on: March 02, 2022, 05:53:51 AM »
JJ is simply a sick motherfucker.

Him, and the massive asswipe shitler.

They both support the Ukraine Fourth Reich.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War
« on: March 02, 2022, 05:51:56 AM »
Lemme guess, everyone here supports Ukraine in their building of the Fourth Reich...

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 16, 2022, 05:04:13 AM »
Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
Hi Pot.
I provided a quote of what you said.
Here it is again:
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.
This is what you said, and it is completely incorrect.
When I pointed out that that would only work for the equator, you then responded back with this:
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.

So no, I am directly responding to what you have said.

Now, because it shown to be BS, you are pretending you never said it.
This shows just how pathetic and desperate your position really is.

Likewise, you position is so pathetic you need to outright reject parts of reality to pretend your fantasy works.
That sure sound like wilful ignorance to me.
Correct. I did write x.

Meant to write z.

More to the point, you probably know exactly what was meant to communicated and this is just another example of you feigning awareness of the point in effort to score points in your fucked up game.
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
Relevant as it shows your claim doesn't work, it shows your attempt to save the FE doesn't work.

Again, you just dismissing everything as irrelevant because it shows your fantasy is wrong just further shows how desperate and pathetic your position is.
LOL!

Doubling down.
Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.

It is here.

I wrote what I wrote.
That is not backing up your claim that every mathematician would agree with you.
Just more assertions will not help you.
I do not need to "back up" my claim.

I claimed it, you have a choice to accept it or not.

I DNGAF what you do, quite honestly.

You are a pathetic DARPA AI bot.
Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.
This wasn't the statement you claimed every mathematician would agree with.

Even with that, I highly doubt any mathematician would describe it as "moving in a cylindrical fashion".
Instead I think they would be more likely to describe the points as moving in a circular fashion.
Again, you are wrong.

What I wrote is axiomatic.
For a cylinder, you would expect all those circles to be the same size.

But if you are only taking points that lie directly along the z axis, what you are describing is a line. Then depending on how they move they could describe a few different shapes. Keeping it to your previous claim of rotation about the x axis they would form a disc, not a cylinder.

And again, that only works for the equator.
It works for all points in the z-axis moving above an x-y plane.
Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu.
You were provided with rebuttals.
When you couldn't deal with them, you just through out insults and dismissed them as irrelevant.

Here is a brief argument which goes over those key points:
On Earth, the real Earth that people live on, stars appear to trace a circle around 2 points in the sky, one due north, one due south.
As they appear to trace circles, that means you are looking at them from a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation, such a small distance away that it would not significantly affect the apparent direction of the central point about which the stars appear to rotate.
This means the axis of rotation is aligned with a line going directly from your eyes to that point the stars appear to rotate around.
But the point the stars appear to rotate around appears at a different angle of elevation, with this variance relating quite well to latitude.
This means the angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies with latitude.
This means the angle of Earth surface at one latitude is different to the angle of Earth's surface at another latitude.
This means Earth can't be flat.
The earth is fla.

Deal with it.

Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.
And more pathetic projection.
And a weak repetition of a worthless trop from a truly weak mind

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space
But we aren't dealing with points that are m units from the x axis.

And as pointed out, it isn't simply rotating about the x axis.
Instead the sky appears to rotate about the N-S axis of Earth. Which doesn't work for a FE with N in the centre.
You offer nothing, as all observers on the flat earth see exactly what I wrote is occurring.

You lose.

Go play tiddly winks with JJ.

He needs entertainment.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 16, 2022, 04:53:21 AM »
That doesn't even describe what you are proposing.  This is why you can't draw a diagram or do any of your own work. You have no understanding and it shows.
It actually exactly describes what is proposed, and it also exactly describes how stars are viewed in the sky above us.

You have no argument, period.

Weak and pathetic gaslighting.

I appreciate your ability to discover like written sentences.

Demonstrates clearly how far DARPA AI bot technology has progressed.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 15, 2022, 07:48:13 AM »
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.

Oh hey Pete.  Oh, it's WISHTOCOUGH.  That was a good impression.

Are you still incapable of drawing a disk and a tube? [
You do not need a drawing to demonstrate the point.
Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

No, this is a statement of complete ignorance.  It's another word salad.  "located in the z-axis"?  That is meaningless, any point anywhere in x-y-z space will be located somewhere on the z-axis.  You have no idea how dumb that sounds.
Actually, math dictates there are two dimensions at play sometimes, and for full consideration of the situation, z must be added.

Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu. Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points m units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 15, 2022, 04:06:37 AM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.
Wrong, as the skies do appear to be rotating above our heads in a cylindrical fashion. Happens every single clear night.
Are you even bothering to read what I say?
Just repeating the same childish BS wont help you.

You didn't simply assert it is moving in a cylindrical fashion. Instead you asserted an orientation of the cylinder, specifically that the axis of rotation was the x axis of this x-y plane.
That is NOT what is observed.
Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.
Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.
It is here.

I wrote what I wrote.

Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support Joe Biden?
« on: February 11, 2022, 10:40:56 AM »
#CrackPipeBiden is trending. lol

Okay, I don't think his safe smoking kit had actual crack pipes in them, but this is all hilarious.
I think they actually might have, despite what some of the "fact checking" sites are saying.
It seems like there's a definite chance that some of the safe smoking kits that programs like this one will typically use can include some things that certainly might be considered crack pipes when used together.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/politics/biden-crack-pipes-claim.html
Quote
The grant guidelines do not specify what the smoking kits should include. According to Harm Reduction International, a London-based nongovernmental organization, such kits can contain rubber mouthpieces, brass screens, lip balm, disinfectant wipes and glass stems — the “crack pipes” in question. The contents can vary based on the organization distributing the kit as well as state and local laws on the distribution of drug paraphernalia.

It can be true that the Biden administration isn't advising or instructing anyone to go out of their way to find kits with that kind of stuff in it, and it can also be simultaneously true that some of the kits that are being distributed have the raw materials to build yourself a nice little crack pipe.
It is really, really hard for you to come to grips with the fact that Biden is actually handing out crack pipes in the name of equity, isn't it.

Your lack of acknowledging it is real is truly much, much worse than Biden doing it.

Despicable.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 11, 2022, 10:38:06 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.

Please say that to an actual mathematician.  Or someone who got through high school geometry.  That would be hilarious.
Actually, they confirm exactly what I am writing to be an absolute fact.

Period, end of sentence.

Good attempt to deflect, but you still didn't answer my question.  Why can't you show us a map of the flat earth that also shows where this cylinder of yours is located and how it's orientated?  If the center isn't on the earth, where is it?

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.
When you look at the sky you will see the stars above you rotating like a cylinder,

Well known fact.

It is painted in the skies above us every single clear night.

Take your weak and feebly repeated unnecessary requests and move along.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 11, 2022, 06:25:56 AM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.
Wrong, as the skies do appear to be rotating above our heads in a cylindrical fashion. Happens every single clear night.
The angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies, with it matching quite well to your latitude, just like you would expect for a RE.
Matching entries and solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters.
First, you have only accepted what you saw to be that which you were told it was to have been when you saw it.
No, I have observed it myself. I didn't simply accept what I was told.
^Now claiming to have written the original lie.

Actually a manifestation Satan taking over the keyboard.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 11, 2022, 06:20:08 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.


23
Flat Earth General / Re: Weather Balloon Footage
« on: February 11, 2022, 05:18:03 AM »
This is what I get:

The horizon appears to be a gentle curve.
To overlay some things to help:

The red lines mark the  centre, and the purple line shows a line drawn straight between the 2 edges of the image where the horizon crosses. The green line shows a nice curved horizon.
I note that the horizon crosses a little below the centre.

So contrary to showing a FE, these show Earth is round.

Edit:Sorry, messed up the image and had to remake it
Your red lines simply demonstrate the earth extending out past the line in the center of the photograph.

I know you have an urgent need to interpret the picture showing curvature from left to right, but in reality it is the land extending beyond the redline, which is actually not indicative of a true horizon. You want to put starting points for the horizon somewhere where they cannot actually be truly discerned, off to the left and right sides of the photo. Just as with an actual human eye, as things drift out of the centered focal point of a camera lens, they begin to blur.

24
I think anti-vaxers should have less priority than cancer patients.
And this is why you are the biggest piece of sh$t human to have ever existed.
Says the guy that thinks anyone over 65 or has medical complications making them more susceptible to illness is not valuable and can just die LOL
I never wrote that. You are a lying piece of subhuman garbage.
Says the guy that if he were in charge would ban the vaccine and ensure there are no efforts to mitigate the spread.
Never wrote that either. You are a dipshit.
You are objectively the most repugnant, worst kind of human. You said you were coming to Australia soon? International arrivals can come in a few weeks. Come at us 8) Let's see what you're really made of. In reality I'm guessing you have no balls and no spine. Prove me wrong
Begging for your dying wish to come true, I see.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 10, 2022, 04:02:09 AM »
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z
That would roughly describe what is observed for those on the equator.
But fails everywhere else.
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.
Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.
No, it appears to rotate about an axis at an angle to Earth.
Points lying above the flat x-y plane appear to move in a cylindrical fashion to the observer.
Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.
Spoken like a conspiracy nut that will just dismiss everything that shows they are wrong.
I know both are present. I have seen both.
I also know they are 180 degrees apart, and the angle to them varies with latitude.
First, you have only accepted what you saw to be that which you were told it was to have been when you saw it.

Angles to any object over head vary with distance to the object.
The FE can't explain that.
I just did.

26
I think anti-vaxers should have less priority than cancer patients.
And this is why you are the biggest piece of sh$t human to have ever existed.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 10, 2022, 03:25:25 AM »
Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.
How?
That gives you a single point above you about which the entire sky would appear to rotate.

Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.

You don't get the second point due south.

That second point is the problem.
The sky contains 2 celestial poles.
Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 10, 2022, 03:20:32 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

29
We are all quite aware of your affinity toward cheering on death.

We are all quite aware of your affinity toward selfishly spreading death to others.
Only those that really need to die.

Keep that in mind.

30
Someone at 65 could still very well have a life expectancy to witness the birth of a grandchild and be a part of their life until they reach adulthood.
Odds are though, that isn't going to happen, and for the people having a strong enough constitution in order to achieve the proposed scenario, Covid is indeed a "nothing burger."
There is no reason why humans could not make it to 83 years old. Many, many of them do.
If you do not have a grandchild by age of 65, odds are you will not have one. WTF is the matter with you?
For everyone else, we clearly think the minimisation of the value of someone 65 or older is abhorrent.
Strawman bullshit.
We can live plenty beyond that with quality. Maybe you think once people retire that they are worthless to society and should be culled? You clearly dont mind the thought of millions of people perishing on account of merely being 65+ years old. Millions more if they are overweight, diabetic, have a transplanted organ or suffer from any number of cardiac problems. Fuck 'em! That's the American way!
Strawman bullshit.

Hang on, why couldn't you start having grandchildren when you are 65? What's wrong with you?
I never stated you couldn't have grandkids at 65. I stated if you were 65 and have no grandchildren as of yet, odds are you will not.

Nothing is wrong with me.

Every fucking thing known to man is wrong with you, hoiwever.
If you have a son/daughter at 30 years old, they will be 35 when you are 65. Why cant they start a family then? WTF?
Not a typical scenario in todays society, that is WTF.
In any event, my point was that you could live through an entire stage of birth to adulthood in the time you think 'death is just around the corner'

American brained moron ::). (I guess I didn't need to add the 'moron' bit. American brained is sufficient to describe your idiocy)


When you have nothing to add. Just say 'strawman'. Good debating tactic. Only Americans will think you're on point though
Shitfer is typical, makes up shit in place of what was actually written.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12