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 - Scroto Gaggins

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Horizon an asymptote?
« on: March 02, 2016, 05:13:46 AM »
I was more referring to the oft-repeated invitation to 'look out' one's window and see the flatness, but fair point.

2
Does Jroa really think that any calculations done with an instrument mean that that instrument can calculate by itself?
The OP never says that the telescope is the one doing the calculations, just that the calculations are done by using a telescope.
There is a difference between something being used to do a task and that thing doing that task independently.
The fact that a lot of this three page debate is jroa misreading a post and then complaining that no-one else misread it like him, does not exactly indicate a sound intellect on his part.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Horizon an asymptote?
« on: March 02, 2016, 05:03:56 AM »
Just wondering.
For those who don't understand teh terminology, an asymptote is a curve that approaches another curve or line arbitrarily closely;
i.e. the horizon isn't flat, but approaches flat level arbitrarily closely.

Probs should be in Q+A, but discussion is good.

I would answer yes, that any sufficiently small section of a circle approximates a straight line,  and then generalise that to a sphere and a plane,  any sufficiently small section of a sphere can be flat to whatever accuracy desired.
So would that mean that the tried and tested flat-earth 'proof' of the horizon being flat is fallacious, no?

4
Flat Earth General / Is the Horizon an asymptote?
« on: March 01, 2016, 04:20:47 AM »
Just wondering.
For those who don't understand teh terminology, an asymptote is a curve that approaches another curve or line arbitrarily closely;
i.e. the horizon isn't flat, but approaches flat level arbitrarily closely.

Probs should be in Q+A, but discussion is good.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 07, 2016, 05:35:04 AM »
viri (is that really the plural?)
No, it's viruses. In Latin it'd be viri or vira, but more conventionally people use viruses.

Latin is a dead language, but it has no brain.  How can this be?

Really?
I see why people say all you do is troll and derail...

Latin is not a dead language?  ???
Nah, It's just that what you said kinda was derailment.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 06, 2016, 05:43:56 AM »
1. The indigenous peoples native to Australia are more related to Melanesians than native Americans.

Yeah, so the geneticists have told you. Like that's proof of anything. The Holy bible says God made man, not some silly "DNA".

2. 334 species of marsupial live in the Australasian area, while only one lives in the US.

Those are all faked. Some taxidermists just sewed skin onto their bellies. Some are probably real but the US government wiped them out everywhere else in the US so their hoax wouldn't be revealed.

3. One of the reasons for convict settlement in Australia was that the American colonies revolted. Why would the UK send the convicts to an area that would by 1850 or so be under American control?

Have you been there personally? No? Then how can you know any of this is genuine?

4. Different plant species.

Different plant species can occur on the same continent.

5. Presence of a monarch.

So? Some old lady dresses up in fancy clothes every now and then and appears on television. Everyone could do that.

6. Different seasons to the US. Christmas is 40+ degrees C or 104 degrees F in Perth, for example.

Giant Mirrors. In the sky. They reflect light so it's warmer.

7. Different Accents.

Actors.

8. Declaring war at different times.

The history of the war is all wrong. It was a war against the Lizard people, and we lost. That's why we now live in this huge conspiracy and people are kept in the dark. WW2 was later invented to cover this up and make everyone feel good by telling them the good guys had won.

9. American bases in WW2 being in Australia.

See above.

10. Different sports.

There are no sports apart from american football. Also: Actors. Also: CGI.

11. Discovery of the West coast by the Dutch in the 1600's.

Lol, yeah, like that tiny country would be able to send people that far away.

12. The presence of rainforest in Australia, and lack thereof in the Mojave.

I'll have you know that the government has people who can plant trees.

So you see, there is no proof at all. All you have to do is ignore silly things like rationality and logic and you can expose the lies for what they really are!
As an Australian who is sleep deprived and up past his bedtime, I cannot determine whether this is sarcasm or not.
Plz help.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 06, 2016, 04:25:31 AM »
Prove Australia isn't faked.
Paid shills to claim to live there, a few faked photos, a set-up somewhere in the Mojave Desert to fake it...
1. The indigenous peoples native to Australia are more related to Melanesians than native Americans.
2. 334 species of marsupial live in the Australasian area, while only one lives in the US.
3. One of the reasons for convict settlement in Australia was that the American colonies revolted. Why would the UK send the convicts to an area that would by 1850 or so be under American control?
4. Different plant species.
5. Presence of a monarch.
6. Different seasons to the US. Christmas is 40+ degrees C or 104 degrees F in Perth, for example.
7. Different Accents.
8. Declaring war at different times.
9. American bases in WW2 being in Australia.
10. Different sports.
11. Discovery of the West coast by the Dutch in the 1600's.
12. The presence of rainforest in Australia, and lack thereof in the Mojave.

There. A dozen proofs pulled right out of my arse.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 06, 2016, 12:01:01 AM »
The philosophers will tell you there is no such thing as either 100% nor 0% certainty.....just extremely likely or unlikely.
So for all of you that seem certain that Australia exists then you are simply wrong...more correctly you believe it is highly likely that Australia exists.

However, despite whatever the philosophers say, VB tastes like the proverbial cat's, that I am certain of.
Coopers Ale any day
Carlton Mid though.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 05, 2016, 04:56:04 PM »
Foster's. Its Australian for Beer.
No. No it's not.
Victoria Bitter, mate. XXXX. Carlton Mid.
True Australian beer.

I know Australia exists, I live here, but I am wondering if I exist, since no one saw my post :
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65756.msg1755255#msg1755255.

But, I do know the recipe for boiled Cockatoo!  Ingredients needed are only one smooth flat rock and a freshly plucked White Cockatoo.

Besides, anyone reckonin' Oz ain't fair dinkum's a few roos short in the top paddock.

That's disgusting!!! Now I'm convince Australia exist. Who else eats like that?
Cockatoos taste bad.
Kangaroos taste quite nice though.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 05, 2016, 04:53:54 PM »
Do you believe in leprechauns too?
No, because the existence of leprechauns is illogical.
They haven't been biologically described, or sighted with any degree of certainty by anyone with repute.
If one is found, categorised, and displays properties pertaining to leprechauns, i.e. granting three wishes and having a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, then sure, I will then believe in leprechauns.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does Australia exist?
« on: February 05, 2016, 04:58:25 AM »
Your world kinda sucks if you only believe in what you have personally seen.
For example, I could doubt the existence of Copenhagen, the Confederacy, Confucius and Corundum, as I have never personally verified their existence.
However, the existence of these four is not in any doubt, at least in my mind, as I do believe other people, if what they claim is plausible.
I fail to see how the existence of a country that can be visited could ever be called into question.

12
The thing about theism is that while there is a very limited logical basis for claiming that a god may exist, and a very tenuous and circumstantial basis for claiming that a god does exist, there is absolutely no logical basis for believing in the existence of a specific god.
Good point there.

13
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?

Yaakov thinks a syllogism is sufficient to show the existence of God.  If he can think that, you can expect a bunch of faulty reasoning to follow.
To which syllogism are you particularly referring?
Or are you referring to his use of them as a whole?

14
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?

15
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.
Some might, it doesn't happen too much in my experience. Plenty of people get called out on issues: more often that not it seems Dawkins is the one being defended on the basis of his belief whenever he goes too far. At best he's a hypocrite.
Passion's great, but it can go a bit too far.

Hypocritical in what way?

EDIT- Whoops, replied before reading more of thread. Silly me.

16
Well...
It's a figure of speech.
I'm not proposing actually using fire to put out a fire.
I'm just saying that obnoxiousness can sometimes only be answered in kind.
A sentiment which I first expressed in 19 letters as opposed to 61.

Sure, in some situations. Public broadcast is rarely one of those cases.
He's a good biologist, I'll give him that, but anything past that...
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.

17
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
Find me one firefighter that uses a flamethrower.

To be fair, you can use fire to fight a fire by doing a controlled burn around a large fire to stop it from spreading.
Well...
It's a figure of speech.
I'm not proposing actually using fire to put out a fire.
I'm just saying that obnoxiousness can sometimes only be answered in kind.
A sentiment which I first expressed in 19 letters as opposed to 61.

18
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?

19
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.

Japan also has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Doesn't that imply that not owning enough guns causes people to commit suicide?
Maybe, but that is irrelevant to the discussion right now.
But there are also (most probably) other factors involved.

Luke said that lack of guns would increase crime.
He didn't mention other factors, he just said that lack of guns would increase crime.
I showed a case to the opposite, and I can show more if need be.

My point is the same as it was on my gun control thread.
If you say that guns cause any particular societal benefit, then the US should be leading in that societal benefit, due to their having the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

So, Luke, keeping that in mind, if guns cause there to be less crime (as you claim) then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
It is relevant to your strawman tactic.  You fail every time..
How is refuting an argument he posited a straw man?
Strictly speaking, he only alluded to that being his point, which was why I asked him to clarify whether or not it was indeed his point.
The point being that "More guns decrease crime and lack of guns increase crime"
That was his specific point.
Nothing to do with suicide.
By all means start another thread about suicide in Japan, but that is not relevant to this discussion right now.

You are the one going on and on about statistics.  I only posted to show how foolish you are.  Do you want to go another round, Mr. Argumentum ad Populum?
I'm going on about statistics that are relevant to the matter at hand.
Suicide and the causes thereof is not relevant to the current discussion.
Have you got that, Mr. Ignorando Punctum?

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution
« on: December 18, 2015, 08:25:27 PM »
First place maybe we have similar gene sequences because we have a common designer. If didnt had that then we could only eat each other. But because we do the brown cow can eat the green grass, turn it into milk and we churn it to make butter and I use the butter on my toast.
Interesting.
What are you trying to say, though?
Do you not concede, though, that genetic similarity exists and is indicative of a common ancestor?

Quote
Second, by that logic, because Chevy and Ford create cars that are similar that proves that both of them came from a skateboard.
Or maybe, they are cars and that is a false equivalency

Quote
So we know evolution is true because we can reconstruct DNA sequences? Just because we can reconstruct them doesn't prove that they evolved by themselves. That'll be like me saying since I can reconstruct a Lego building that fell over that proves that the building came about by chance.
No, the fact that protein (which can biochemically arise out of inanimate processes) can construct itself into different DNA sequences means that evolution is true.

Quote
So because there are left overs basically that proves it came about by chance? First off maybe the animal or human needed it for some reason that we don't know about. Maybe the leftovers served as a decoy for viruses and deseases. But to say that left overs prove that it evolve is like me saying that once I've rebuilt the Lego building and there's left overs that proves that it came about by chance.
Evolution is not chance.
Mutations are chance, the selection of certain traits by the environment isn't.

Quote
Basically, because the way DNA/RNA is built the same throughout living things therfore they evolved. That's like me saying since Chevy and Ford uses the same machines to create cars therefore both came from a skateboard. Maybe the reason most if not all living things have the same "machines" is because they came from a common designer and it works. What evidence I have for a common designer? I'll provide a link in the next post.
No, the way that DNA is constructed proves that life is all related.
And if they are all related, it follows that they have a common ancestor.
And why do keep comparing evolution to cars coming from skateboards?
If anything could be comparative, it would be from a stagecoach or other carriage.  :D

Quote
Baboons, gorillas, and chimps are all primates so of course they would have similar gene sequences.
And also humans.
Don't forget humans.

Quote
However that's not the only thing that links them together. For example humans have eyes similar to octopuses but no evolutionists are claiming that we came from octopuses. Somewhere in are makeup we are similar to sunflowers.
Exactly, we share a common ancestor.

Quote
That's only one thing they are comparing. That'll be like me saying anything with wheels are related.
No.
No it's not the same thing.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution
« on: December 18, 2015, 07:02:27 PM »
First place, evolution is not science. You have to believe we all came from a common ancestor we never OBSERVE that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
This article is huge, so I can only really give headings to all the different reasons.

Comparative physiology
Biochemistry
Genetics
Comparative anatomy
Palaeontology
Geographic distribution
Natural selection
Speciation
Computation and mathematical iteration
I suggest you read, as then we can discuss the minutiae.

Quote
We never seen a canine coming from a non-canine.
Firstly. Just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Other pieces of evidence can be used to justify that hypothesis.
Secondly, the evolution of Canis Familiaris was a historical occurrence happening worldwide.
A similar example would be agriculture. We didn't see it be invented, does that mean that it has always been so?
Or were you referring to the tooth?

Quote
So we are equal as I can't directly prove scientifically that the Biblical God created everything in six days roughly six thousand years ago and you can't prove that we came from non-living (read spontaneously generated) material.
Except that your wolrldview brokers no argument, while mine is predicated on argument and discussion.
Also, the only evidence for the existence of your god is a book.
The evidence for the big bang can be found here:
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
http://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

Quote
Second, my articles are no more biased than the evolutionist side. I ask that you show me that a canine came from a non-canine or better still come from non-living material through the means you claim it did.
Are you under the impression that I, personally, am the brains behind 'evolutionism'?
I can provide you with the research if you really want, but the best way to find out is to ask questions of a scientist.
Find one who is willing to chat, maybe at a university or a museum, or online somewhere, and ask questions.

22
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.

Japan also has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Doesn't that imply that not owning enough guns causes people to commit suicide?
Maybe, but that is irrelevant to the discussion right now.
But there are also (most probably) other factors involved.

Luke said that lack of guns would increase crime.
He didn't mention other factors, he just said that lack of guns would increase crime.
I showed a case to the opposite, and I can show more if need be.

My point is the same as it was on my gun control thread.
If you say that guns cause any particular societal benefit, then the US should be leading in that societal benefit, due to their having the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

So, Luke, keeping that in mind, if guns cause there to be less crime (as you claim) then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
It is relevant to your strawman tactic.  You fail every time..
How is refuting an argument he posited a straw man?
Strictly speaking, he only alluded to that being his point, which was why I asked him to clarify whether or not it was indeed his point.
The point being that "More guns decrease crime and lack of guns increase crime"
That was his specific point.
Nothing to do with suicide.
By all means start another thread about suicide in Japan, but that is not relevant to this discussion right now.

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution
« on: December 18, 2015, 05:12:39 PM »
Luke, I'm noticing a flaw in your logic.
You compare two different worldviews, evolutionary (read: scientific) and biblical.
You posit various articles (from a rather partial and biased source, might I add), that claim that the evolutionary/scientific worldview is wrong in some way.
Your next (il)logical assumption is that therefore, the biblical worldview is true.
If A is wrong in some way, B must be correct.

Would this logic not also work the other way, though?
If the biblical worldview is wrong in some way, then the evolutionary worldview must be correct, right?

My point is that a flaw in one model doesn't prove another model, one must actually have proof for that second model.

24
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.

Japan also has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Doesn't that imply that not owning enough guns causes people to commit suicide?
Maybe, but that is irrelevant to the discussion right now.
But there are also (most probably) other factors involved.

Luke said that lack of guns would increase crime.
He didn't mention other factors, he just said that lack of guns would increase crime.
I showed a case to the opposite, and I can show more if need be.

My point is the same as it was on my gun control thread.
If you say that guns cause any particular societal benefit, then the US should be leading in that societal benefit, due to their having the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

So, Luke, keeping that in mind, if guns cause there to be less crime (as you claim) then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.

25
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.

26
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

28
Your response, then, is to ignore the points I gave, and ignore the clear, representative data to focus on an opinion poll and a couple of points that repeat what you've already said.

More crime, even more violent crime, is a misleading claim simply because analogous crimes in the US will involve guns. That's a fact. Look at the rates of gun crime given in my link, look at the rates of murder. Repeat the claims about crime rate as much as you want, the data won't alter.
And regardless, in many cases it is far, far better to look at raw data over, for example, a site literally called 'ammoland.' Statistics can be interpreted for all kinds of means, if you spend enough time scouring the web and spend enough time working on imaginative conditions to set up. For example, you're equating all crime, and all violent crime: rather than focusing on the levels of criminality. Murder shouldn't be confused with small-scale assault.
Taking ammoland as an example, it offers no clear source. Some digging points it to the Daily Mail (and anyone in the UK would laugh if you claimed that was a reliable source), and comparison to the rest of the EU: the EU itself having invoked gun control legislation, and all countries in it having some form of gun control, some more and some less. (And there is of course the issue of alternative causes). Violent crime is too vague a term to be worth any kind of comparison.

Would you rather be assaulted or shot? You've seen the statistics that compare crime by crime, rather than generalizations.

I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?
The United States' crime rate is higher than, for instance, Germany's, or Australia's.
The US has the highest gun ownership in the world.
Ergo, high gun ownership doesn't reduce crime rates.

Sorry if that was off topic, I kinda just jumped into the conversation.

29
Do 50 caliber machine guns count as small arms?
Rocket-propelled grenades?

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War and self defense
« on: December 14, 2015, 07:58:34 PM »
I think that war is an inevitability.
War is just the innate violence within humans being released on a larger scale.
In that sense, I think that striking first can and should always be an option, as war is inevitable.
Condemnation of war stems from what is done during wars, not the idea and concept of war itself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20