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 - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
SkepticMike is back, and his avatar is now displayed again in recent posts. Is there any update regarding the OP?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 23, 2019, 09:27:24 AM »
And you haven't understood the situation correctly ignoring this. However as others pointed out, its rude and frankly unreasonable to have us address this huge list.

You don't have to address the huge list. Since the primary question is "Have I understood the situation correctly? " you can just find one point you disagree with and say "no."

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 23, 2019, 09:06:57 AM »
And so entrenched and stubborn in your own opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumptions.

Hahahaha. Oh wow, that's hilarious, to think a flat earther said that.  Worthy of framing, I will have to bookmark that comment.


Yes. It is hilarious to think that a flat earther said that.

And that is exactly my point. You are so entrenched and stubborn in your opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumption that I am a flat earther.

I am not.

I have never made a case that the earth is flat rather than round. I have never written that I believe those who make that case are correct. I have never written that any of the subsidiary theories (universal gravitation, spotlight sun, fake spaceflight, domes, ice walls, conspiracy theories, Rowbotham's experiments, etc.) are correct. With the possible exception of an obvious sarcastic jab here or there I have never written anything that states that I am a supporter of flat earth, or that flat earth theories are correct.

I have been employed in the space science field for over 20 years. I have been personally involved in the construction of over 20 spacecraft. I have personally built and installed optical equipment in a satellite, and after its launch directed high power lasers at the satellite and received both the reflected laser beam and the sensor data from the satellite. I have built satellites that take imagery used by Google maps. I have designed and built hardware for multiple interplanetary missions. I have enough inside knowledge of the infrastructure of spaceflight hardware and the aerospace industry to know the extent to which an entity would have to go to fake aspects of it. I use ultra-precise long range measuring and metrology instruments, and I have measured the curvature of the earth. I hold multiple gradute degrees, including in Atmospheric Science. I have built scientific instrument that measure the profile of the atmosphere from space, and as such have to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

There's very little chance anything written on a site like this will change people's beliefs about the round vs flat debate. It's mostly entertainment. But I do call people out when they assume they can swoop in with a single smug one-topic "gotcha" proof and that's sufficient to convince someone. Or when, like you, they use rhetorical and logical fallacies in an argument. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you intended it or not, you used the strawman fallacy in your argument. Period. And when I pointed it out, you assumed that because I disagreed with you I must be a flat earther.

People in the "I'm going to prove you wrong, you stupid flat-earther" camp almost always take any objection to their arguments defensively as "you disagree with me, you're obviously a stupid flat-earther" instead of reading what is actually written when the criticism is against the logic or validity of the argument technique.

Even when I pointed out multiple times that my interest in the conversation was not the physics of an ice wall, but that you presented a bad argument, your entrenched opinion of me as a stupid flat earther prevented you from actually reading what was written, and your eagerness to prove that I was wrong clouded your ability to see that you had made incorrect assumptions.

Perhaps with that perspective in mind, you should reread the enitre thread and ask yourself how many people involved in the conversations actually present any positions in favor of flat earth, rather than you just assuming so. It's probably fewer than you think.

4
There's a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation in this thread, but some items that bear pointing out are:

1) Yes, a camera exists that can take more than a trillion images per second (~ 10 trillion per second). Using it, one can observe changes in the speed of light.
2) Given sufficient number of frames and sufficient accuracy, one could measure the speed of light in different configurations and the supposed effect of "aether."
3) There are other ways to measure the speed of light. Suggesting that doing it with a very complex imaging system, and then performing the final step with "just an image and a ruler" shows extreme naivete.
4) The "Virtual Femto Photography" YouTube video is a computer simulation, not a video of a light pulse.
5) An actual video of a light pulse is shown here:

6) While the majority of streak cameras work as described in Reply #19, the camera above can capture a single shot event at a frame rate of 10 trillion/sec. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7 and https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/12/at-10-trillion-frames-per-second-this-camera-captures-light-in-slow-motion/

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 21, 2019, 01:58:44 PM »

The actual discussion? What the one in the title of the thread?

I know, lets just label the whole discussion an attempt at Cunningham's Law.

Still engaging in the TURD fallacy, I see. And so entrenched and stubborn in your own opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumptions.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 21, 2019, 07:52:03 AM »

Even with an infinite plane I can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent ...


That seems about right. You do appear to have a limited imagination.

And I will remind you that my interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

Well I know you think that. I'm not surprised FETs supporters try anything they can to try and steer the conversation away from the actual discussion.

I like how you presume to dictate what the "actual discussion" is, while attempting both a placation and an insult.

Another one of your rhetorical fallacies, although unlike the "Straw Man Fallacy" (which you still fail to comprehend and understand that you committed), I don't know if it has a name. I will name it the "Turtles' Usurpation of Real Discussion" fallacy.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 20, 2019, 11:37:38 PM »

Turtles is well aware of the infinite plane and has never ignored it.


You completely ignored it when you suggested that the counterargument to a non-existent 1000s of km ice wall was:


Gravity has a component acting downwards perpendicular to the surface and another component towards the pole. To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole. Although the terrain is flat the effect is like the North pole being at the bottom of a huge bowl, every direction slopes up from there. All water drains to the north. The air thins to the south. Have we observed this? Is that what you meant?

You seem to have not given it the slightest consideration, since you came up with a counter-example scenario meant to deal with the issue of "keeping air in" by showing a contradiction. (I.e., we don't see a force pulling towards the pole, therefore there must be huge ice walls.)

Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from spreading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

Turtles and, apparently, no one else can imagine any scenario which stops the air spreading out horizontally over an infinite plane. What does keep the air inside the 150 foot ice wall?


Even after the hint? Given that you are considering the ramifications of the existence of an infinite plane, you can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent? When an infinite plane (that you are "well aware of") was brought up, and an infinite atmosphere was hinted at, all you could imagine was a bubble of air sitting on it? Seems like you have a limited ability to extrapolate.

Now, please understand that this is not a scenario that I support. But given the though experiment of an infinite plane earth, I certainly have no trouble imagining an infinite atmosphere covering it. I certainly wouldn't immediately jump to "the air must be a bubble on the surface and that bubble must then spread out, so the only way to keep it in is high walls."


And I will remind you that my interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map
« on: May 20, 2019, 12:34:23 PM »
Please point out where the information presented by Souleon in the YouTube video and his two statements proves that the Sun changes shape. Remember, the question is "Did this convince you and if not, why not?" where I specifically stated my assumption about what was meant by "this."

First post:
There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

and a bit later:
But to get something like in video minute 1:00, you would need something like a halo sun, which we don't see every day for several months. That's why I wrote "single spherical light source".

The problem is really that you cannot light an area from a single spherical light source while having a dark center without shadowing. It's like having a light bulb in front of a wall and seeing a separated shadow on the wall without something in between OR seeing shadows on the wall without seeing an object in front of the light bulb --> both won't happen.

"Please point out where the information presented by Souleon in the YouTube video and his two statements proves that the Sun changes shape."

I guess you're having a spot of bother with the distinction between "assert" and "prove."

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round
« on: May 20, 2019, 12:42:05 AM »
I have asked my two questions. Do you have answers?

You stated "I can prove the Earth is round. I just need to ask two questions."

You asked your two questions.

Did you perhaps instead intend "I can prove the Earth is round. I just need to you to provide answers to two questions."?

You do see the difference, right?

(That's a rhetorical question. I don't need you to provide the answer.)

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map
« on: May 20, 2019, 12:34:51 AM »

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

I need do no such thing. The question was posed by Souleon if the evidence presented convinced me, and if not why not. That is what I answered. Nor did I suggest the spotlight sun changes shape.

It would help you to read the subject at hand prior to telling me what I am required to do.
Well, this is a debate thread to convince you that a spotlight on a flat earth would be impossible.

Souleon's information, as presented, does not do a good job convincing me.

The Sun would have to change shape to adjust to the different areas of the focused lighting we would expect on a flat earth.

Please point out where the information presented by Souleon in the YouTube video and his two statements proves that the Sun changes shape. Remember, the question is "Did this convince you and if not, why not?" where I specifically stated my assumption about what was meant by "this."

Also, you haven't provided any evidence for HOW this could be possible.

Also, I don't have to.

Presenting evidence for a possible explanation of a phenomenon is not a prerequisite for not being convinced by a different explanation.


11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round
« on: May 19, 2019, 02:35:31 PM »
OK. You've asked your two questions. Now continue and prove the earth is round. (This is going to be fun!)

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map
« on: May 19, 2019, 11:21:26 AM »

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

I need do no such thing. The question was posed by Souleon if the evidence presented convinced me, and if not why not. That is what I answered. Nor did I suggest the spotlight sun changes shape.

It would help you to read the subject at hand prior to telling me what I am required to do.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map
« on: May 18, 2019, 07:10:09 PM »
If you want to debate something start a debate.

Ok.
Did this convince you and if not, why not?

By "this" I take it you mean both the YouTube video and your two previous statements.

No. This did not convince me.

The video does not provide any evidence in opposition to sunlight over a flat earth. It only asks the question of how it is possible.
The video assumes a particular configuration of a flat earth.
Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

14
How many followers do you need before a cult becomes a religion?
I don't think that there is a specific number that the IRS requires, but I imagine as in many things there are a number of criteria relevant to the ruling.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« on: May 15, 2019, 11:13:25 AM »
The question of whether it's fake or not is of secondary importance.

Let's assume the photos are undoctored. The question is whether it's the only explanation possible.

You've shown two photos, along with a diagram. Is this the situation that happens in all cases or is it a rare anomaly?









These are images and explanations. The question is not whether they're fake, but under what circumstances they occur.

Does your mountain shadow happen all the time, every day, at all places? Probably not, or you would say "like you see every day." What is the assurance that your mountain shadow is not a rare event that only happens under certain circumstances, and that the straight lines in the diagrams are accurate, and not curved as with mirages?

16

No, that's an American phenomena, I base it on the followers of the old gods whose names have been added to Satans' as a means of oppression, those who stand on the high tor's, sky clad and moon tanned, who feel the earths pain and hear her wrath rising.

What I meant was that The Satanic Temple does not regard Satan as a deity in any way whatsoever.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 11, 2019, 05:34:57 PM »
I agree to that, but you find it easier to believe in an infinite plane earth than in a globe?

It's irrelevant what I find easier to believe when the matter at hand is turtles' faulty argument, summarized:

   If a flat earth exists, then ice walls thousands of km high are required to keep the air in (despite this idea not being an argument that is common, if ever, raised by Flat Earth believers).
   Turtles asserts this must be the explanation as there are no other explanations he can think of.
   Turtles has ignored a common proposal among Flat Earth believers that the Earth is an infinite plane when that proposal negates his argument that the only possible way gravity works is by pulling everything towards the North Pole to keep the air in.
   Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from speading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

   It is difficult to assert "there is no other way; this is the sole logical conclusion" without addressing other hypotheticals. Which he has not done. His "logical conclusion" as a logical conclusion is faulty.


And how does infinite plane earth work together with the dome, which seems to be the most accepted FET?

Are you kidding? Have you been paying attention in the slightest?

Regardless of the validity of your assertion that a domed FE seems to be the most accepted FE (and ignoring that whole tangent about argument popularity relates to argument validity), the premise of turtles' argument specifically mentioned multiple times that this was for a Flat Earth model sans dome.

I didn't exactly make it up, it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE).

18
... one that meets in high open places, stands with arms out to talk to their deity and delights and venerates the naked form ...

I hope that's not your impression of The Satanic Temple!

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 10, 2019, 10:40:44 AM »

Inability to think of an explanation does not mean that the explanations you have thought of encompass the entirety of possibilities.

Absolutely, but I'm doing my best.

That I believe.


Infinite plane Earth is a subject which is in the FAQ, the Wiki, and topics here. An infinite plane can be shown to have a finite gravitational force that is perpendicular to the plane with no tangential component, and does not require an answer to your continuous tiring pestering question of "what keeps the air in?" For one.

Then it's ignoring basic physics. You can't have a bubble of air sitting in one place under those conditions any more than you can have a pile of water sitting on a table. It will collapse and spread out sideways.

A bubble of air. That's an interesting assumption to make and then to argue against.

I see a pattern.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 09, 2019, 05:48:33 PM »
Quote
So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

It would be useful if you could learn how to quote using the author, link, and date tags rather than just an undifferentiated "quote" command.
Yes, but it's not easy when I'm using a phone, especially if trying to quote two different people

Thank you for making the effort.

If it's absolutely wrong and doesn't match observations, why are you admittedly making it up, and presenting it giving the impression that it is an FE argument, then knocking it down? (Again, see definition of straw man argument.)
Because
  • although they are crazy explanations I can't think of any less crazy ways of solving a problem which is itself intrinsically crazy.

Inability to think of an explanation does not mean that the explanations you have thought of encompass the entirety of possibilities.

  • in the absence of any other explanations I have to assume no one else has a better idea

Infinite plane Earth is a subject which is in the FAQ, the Wiki, and topics here. An infinite plane can be shown to have a finite gravitational force that is perpendicular to the plane with no tangential component, and does not require an answer to your continuous tiring pestering question of "what keeps the air in?" For one.

  • I've not claimed it's a FE believers idea.

If you want to be pedantic, I never said that you claimed that either. But you gave the impression that it was by the way you argued.

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

The word "gravity" is not an explanation, as I've explained in my reply to boydster.

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

Yes, well it seems every believer believes in different, often conflicting, FET. No one can be expected to remember the nuances of each believer.


"I can't be bothered to actually read my opponent's writing, so since I've already decided that I hold a different opinion from a general group of people, I'll just scattershot an argument, regardless of whether it applies in this case or not." Nice.

You may be having trouble distinguishing between me arguing in favor of something, and me pointing out that your arguing against it is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions.

My interest in this conversation is the latter, not the former.

My interest is in the title of this thread.

You can keep asking "what's keeping the air in?" over and over ... that's not what I'm talking about, or interested in talking about in the topic I started. See:

Maybe a different title would have helped.

And once again we have been deflected away from talking about what is keeping the air in. No further forward with the problem. I can only assume it's because it's yet one more nail in FETs coffin.

You assume a lot of things.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM »

Quote
So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

It would be useful if you could learn how to quote using the author, link, and date tags rather than just an undifferentiated "quote" command.

If it's absolutely wrong and doesn't match observations, why are you admittedly making it up, and presenting it giving the impression that it is an FE argument, then knocking it down? (Again, see definition of straw man argument.)

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

You may be having trouble distinguishing between me arguing in favor of something, and me pointing out that your arguing against it is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions.

My interest in this conversation is the latter, not the former.

You can keep asking "what's keeping the air in?" over and over ... that's not what I'm talking about, or interested in talking about in the topic I started. See:

My interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man."

I suppose that depends on what you think the subject is.

You think it's about determining what keeps the air contained on some version of the idea of a Flat Earth.

I think it's about a jackass who misinterpreted a position commonly held by Flat Earthers because he didn't learn enough about their positions before wanting to start an argument, made up a position about an ice wall thousands of km high with an invented rationale, gave the impression that this was a position that was held by the people he wanted to argue with, was called out for employing a straw man argument, and has been furiously trying to defend himself with arguments not on the subject because he not only doesn't understand the beliefs of the people he's arguing with but he doesn't understand what a straw man argument is and that he is guilty of it, intentionally or unintentionally.

22
Satan is just Christianity's version of the "trickster" god, the giver of knowledge entity(like Prometheus).

In The Satanic Temple, Satan is not a god. Christianity can believe as it pleases.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 08, 2019, 06:19:16 PM »
Gravity

Oh, someone gives a (partial) answer. It's like pulling teeth.

So...gravity (is that compatible with the UA?) is the answer. Gravity has a component acting downwards perpendicular to the surface and another component towards the pole. To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole. Although the terrain is flat the effect is like the North pole being at the bottom of a huge bowl, every direction slopes up from there. All water drains to the north. The air thins to the south. Have we observed this? Is that what you meant?

"To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."

"Must"

I see. This is one of your "logical conclusions" similar to your previously stated

I didn't exactly make it up, it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE).

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."? Maybe work it out in propositional calculus?

I said before I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is. I now know you don't understand what a logical conclusion is.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Short T-Rex.
« on: May 08, 2019, 02:08:57 PM »
By the way, the thread Topic: Here be dragons is the only reference to dragons I've see recently.

In a thread in which you participated nine times in the last three days; six before and three after the reference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81354.0
I repeat "the thread Topic: Here be dragons is the only reference to dragons I've see recently." I ignored everything after that post got onto "the Wall" rubbish.

Why are you repeating and italicizing and bolding yourself? I read your comment and provided you with information you did not have, and where to find it.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 08, 2019, 12:19:43 PM »

Ah yes, the classic conspiracy theorist technique of moving a discussion away from the subject and concentrating on an irrelevant issue. It's how most threads here end up.


I suppose that depends on what you think the subject is.

You think it's about determining what keeps the air contained on some version of the idea of a Flat Earth.

I think it's about a jackass who misinterpreted a position commonly held by Flat Earthers because he didn't learn enough about their positions before wanting to start an argument, made up a position about an ice wall thousands of km high with an invented rationale, gave the impression that this was a position that was held by the people he wanted to argue with, was called out for employing a straw man argument, and has been furiously trying to defend himself with arguments not on the subject because he not only doesn't understand the beliefs of the people he's arguing with but he doesn't understand what a straw man argument is and that he is guilty of it, intentionally or unintentionally.

I wonder who's right?

26
The Satanic Temple has been granted 501(c)(3) non-profit status as a recognized religion by the IRS. If you're near a city that's showing it, consider going to see "Hail Satan?", a documentary by filmmaker Penny Lane now making the rounds in limited release.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 08, 2019, 10:19:56 AM »
Lots of wriggling but no solutions for what is actually keeping the air in.

Just one more nail in the FE coffin.

Come on Curiouser and Curiouser, you bought up gravity wells, run with it!

You seem to have far greater interest in the subject than I do; please go ahead.

My interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man."

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Clouds are Solid Objects
« on: May 08, 2019, 07:07:26 AM »
Good one. Danang has graduated from troll to chum, and all the hungry fishies are chowing down.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Short T-Rex.
« on: May 08, 2019, 07:00:03 AM »

By the way, the thread Topic: Here be dragons is the only reference to dragons I've see recently.


In a thread in which you participated nine times in the last three days; six before and three after the reference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81354.0


I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions). But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)


30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 07, 2019, 07:21:09 PM »

Quote
Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions).

But you said earlier "No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high." so you're saying on one hand that as no one else believes in a tall wall so it's a bad idea (ie, numbers matter) and on the other hand "Belief isn't based on numbers".
Do you really not know what a straw man argument is? No one else believes in a tall wall, so it's not that it's a bad idea (nothing to do with numbers), it's an idea you're not allowed to present as an idea your opposition holds, (which you did).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37