« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

my 2nd question

  • 36 Replies
  • 6230 Views
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
my 2nd question
« on: February 04, 2009, 10:16:44 PM »
An FE'rs point of reference for a flat earth comes from one argument.  I look out my window, and the earth looks flat, therefore it must be flat. 

Here's the problem, the point of reference has expanded, and all together exploded to magnification far beyond everything that has ever been even imagined.

So my question is this:  When we go out on our flat front porch on earth, and use our telescope to view every other heavenly body in the world, why are they not flat?  Why is earth the only creation that is flat.

Jupiter, mars, mercury the sun, et all... not flat.

Go nuts FErs.    Bendy light might work here... but I doubt it.
Logged
?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2009, 10:24:45 PM »
Look as much as I think the FET is stupid your argument is weak.

P1)Observable celestial bodies are spherical
P2)The Earth is the same type of thing as an observable celestial body
C1)The Earth is spherical


Flat Earthers will (correctly) attack this argument at P2. They'll simply argue that the Earth is a different sort of thing than planets, moons and stars, and that in effect your argument is like concluding that

P1) Geese have feathers
P2)Humans are the same type of thing as geese
C1) Humans have feathers.

For it to work you'll have to show them that all "planets" are spherical and that the Earth is a "planet"

I doubt you'll be able to do this so try a different tack

A despairing
Cinlef
Logged
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 03:54:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2009, 10:29:52 PM »
Dear Cinlef: 

a top level debate  requires a real attack that can be countered, and typically has already guessed the answers they intend to give me, with a consice postulated answer already mostly written out with minor nuance of said attack.  I simply choose to look weak to bring in an argument that can't handle my 2nd constructive.

Good luck Arguing FET when you don't even understand basic baiting principles of argumentation.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 10:32:30 PM by Ragnar4 »
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2009, 10:32:17 PM »
Well, Cinlef's counter to your argument was perfectly valid.  Put up or shut up.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2009, 10:33:56 PM »
Should reading what people say be a big part of debating tactics so you can understand their stance?


Quote from: Cinlef on February 04, 2009, 10:24:45 PM
Look as much as I think the FET is stupid your argument is weak.
Logged
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2009, 10:41:47 PM »
Quote from: Cinlef on February 04, 2009, 10:24:45 PM
Look as much as I think the FET is stupid your argument is weak.

P1)Observable celestial bodies are spherical
P2)The Earth is the same type of thing as an observable celestial body
C1)The Earth is spherical


Flat Earthers will (correctly) attack this argument at P2. They'll simply argue that the Earth is a different sort of thing than planets, moons and stars, and that in effect your argument is like concluding that

P1) Geese have feathers
P2)Humans are the same type of thing as geese
C1) Humans have feathers.

For it to work you'll have to show them that all "planets" are spherical and that the Earth is a "planet"

I doubt you'll be able to do this so try a different tack

A despairing
Cinlef

The reason I choose not to attack this argument is because it fails it's prima facie burden of being provable.  The threshold from p2 to c1 is terribad, and pre-supposes that I'm about an inch north of mentally retarded. 

Although:  One could argue that there is topical data and phenomina that exist on these proveably spherical planets that also occur here on earth --observably.--  And there are in fact several that could NOT occur in both environments.  Creating a link between spherical heavenly body and earth.  Either FE science proves that it works here on flat earth, or RE science proves it works on the other heavenly body, and the two cannot coexist when you attempt to co-mingle the math behind the occurence.


Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2009, 10:49:42 PM »
Quote from: Ragnar4 on February 04, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
An FE'rs point of reference for a flat earth comes from one argument.  I look out my window, and the earth looks flat, therefore it must be flat. 

Here's the problem, the point of reference has expanded, and all together exploded to magnification far beyond everything that has ever been even imagined.

So my question is this:  When we go out on our flat front porch on earth, and use our telescope to view every other heavenly body in the world, why are they not flat?  Why is earth the only creation that is flat.

Jupiter, mars, mercury the sun, et all... not flat.

Go nuts FErs.    Bendy light might work here... but I doubt it.

I think FE is a wacky theory, but Cinef's analysis of your argument is quite sound.

Quite simply put:  According to FEers, Earth is not like the planets you see up in the sky.
Logged
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2009, 10:56:18 PM »
It's only sound because he presupposes the route of argumentation I intend to take, what part of "his presumption of  p2--->C1" is weak, and assumes I'm mentally retarded" didn't you get?

There's like:  P3 to P8 before we can start even broaching the subject of "observeable phenomina exist in both environments, explain why without losing the integrity of the math that causes both to be aptly explained.  But you have to get from here to there, before a FE argument falls flat on its face when they can't do the math.
Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2009, 11:08:19 PM »
Let me simplify your statements.  Honestly, you sound kind of haughty and intentionally nebulous.

Quote from: Ragnar4 on February 04, 2009, 10:56:18 PM
It's only sound because he presupposes the route of argumentation I intend to take, what part of "his presumption of  p2--->C1" is weak, and assumes I'm mentally retarded" didn't you get?

Translation:  He assumes I am going to make that argument!  Assuming is bad!  How do you not get that??

Quote
There's like:  P3 to P8 before we can start even broaching the subject of "observeable phenomina exist in both environments, explain why without losing the integrity of the math that causes both to be aptly explained.  But you have to get from here to there, before a FE argument falls flat on its face when they can't do the math.

Translation: My argument is much more complex than his assumption!  I haven't even begun to explain the relationship between Earth and other planets!  Explain how both can can be explained without fudging the math.  But you have to get from here to there before the FE argument is wrong, because they can't do math.


Try shortening your sentences, correcting some messed up punctuation, and getting rid of your dangling modifiers.  Because, tons of long-winded SAT words are no excuse to be lax on communication skills.

I mean, come on:  "presupposes the route of argumentation"  Are you serious?  Talk about fluff!  "He assumes too much!!!"  There, that's better.


Also, your whole post did nothing to actually explain your claimed steps "P3 to P8."  You just discussed how you wish to argue.  I don't really need to know how you wish to argue, but thanks for the info.  Get with the arguing already!
Logged
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2009, 11:19:41 PM »
Quote from: Ferruccio on February 04, 2009, 11:08:19 PM
Let me simplify your statements.  Honestly, you sound kind of haughty and intentionally nebulous.

On purpose actually..

I like attacking people in the same way I've seem them attack people.  It's fun.

FE'rs love haughty, and intentionally nebulous, just wait till we get to slimy redefinition, and fuzzy physics.

The argument is there:

There are observable phenomina that exist both on a flat planet and a round planet.  Please explain why water runs downhill here on earth, and why water runs downhill on Mars (or rather ran dowhill, it's all dried up riverbeds right now.)  Perhaps explaining why shadows cast from huge objects take into effect the curvature of the body they are in, both in sight, and in measureability.

Please reserve the integrity of both phenomina occuring naturally on round and flat shaped heavenly bodies. 
Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2009, 11:24:40 PM »
Quote
On purpose actually..

I like attacking people in the same way I've seem them attack people.  It's fun.

FE'rs love haughty, and intentionally nebulous, just wait till we get to slimy redefinition, and fuzzy physics.

You sure make REers look bad, then.  It's fun to do this?  You admit to it?  Doesn't this make you a troll?


Quote
There are observable phenomina that exist both on a flat planet and a round planet.  Please explain why water runs downhill here on earth, and why water runs downhill on Mars (or rather ran dowhill, it's all dried up riverbeds right now.)

Assuming the photos taken by NASA are accurate, the planets in the sky have gravity.  The earth here is accelerating.  Earth is not like the planets.



Quote
Perhaps explaining why shadows cast from huge objects take into effect the curvature of the body they are in, both in sight, and in measureability.

How so?

Quote
Please reserve the integrity of both phenomina occuring naturally on round and flat shaped heavenly bodies. 

No, you.


Mind you, I think Flat Earth theory is nuts.  I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems that the true FE believers on these forums don't want to deal with you.  Mind you, not because they think your arguments are so amazing.
Logged
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2009, 11:37:24 PM »
lol.

I don't expect anyone to think my arguments are amazing that's going to be arguing with me.  Problem is, everyone that makes a conscious choice to argue with another person becomes so invested in the argument, they are actually more likely to decide I'm a simpleton who likes to use big words.

Problem is, I have all these damn trophies in my bookshelf collecting dust proclaming me a really good debator.  Awarded by people who take pride in judging that sort of thing.

I don't need to prove to you that I'm a good debator. I already paid for my college by proving it to people who care  I'm just laughing at the simple argumentation produced by some of the FE'rs with my debate buddies.

Also While typically unorthodox it is ok for a "burden of proof shift" to occur when a debator is arguing from a "defend your dissertation" standpoint.  Which is where I'm coming from.
Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2009, 11:45:50 PM »
Quote from: Ragnar4 on February 04, 2009, 11:37:24 PM
lol.

I don't expect anyone to think my arguments are amazing that's going to be arguing with me.  Problem is, everyone that makes a conscious choice to argue with another person becomes so invested in the argument, they are actually more likely to decide I'm a simpleton who likes to use big words.

Problem is, I have all these damn trophies in my bookshelf collecting dust proclaming me a really good debator.  Awarded by people who take pride in judging that sort of thing.

I don't need to prove to you that I'm a good debator. I already paid for my college by proving it to people who care  I'm just laughing at the simple argumentation produced by some of the FE'rs with my debate buddies.

Also While typically unorthodox it is ok for a "burden of proof shift" to occur when a debator is arguing from a "defend your dissertation" standpoint.  Which is where I'm coming from.

So you have a Ph.D?
Logged
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2009, 11:49:22 PM »
Who said that only PHD's can ask someone to defend their dissertation?

Like I said, it's nothing more than a burden of proof paradigm shift.  Which is acceptable here, because FErs are challenging the worldwide accepted belief with the argument: the earth is a pieplate.

Also no.  I stopped before I got to a PHD because I enjoy not being crazy.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 11:52:00 PM by Ragnar4 »
Logged
?

Ragnar4

  • 15
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2009, 12:05:38 AM »

Quote
Please reserve the integrity of both phenomina occuring naturally on round and flat shaped heavenly bodies. 

No, you.


I can't.  When I do the math for one, it always renders the other unsolvable.

So I need them to show me where my math is failing.

Logged
?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2009, 01:33:41 AM »
How do you explain that earth is the only celestial body that we know to contain life? Obviously it is okay to be special in the universe. It is a complicated place.
Logged
Think hard. Think Flat.
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2009, 09:43:49 AM »
Quote from: Ragnar4 on February 04, 2009, 11:37:24 PM
Problem is, I have all these damn trophies in my bookshelf collecting dust proclaming me a really good debator.  Awarded by people who take pride in judging that sort of thing.

Congratulations!  It would be nice if you brought some of that skill here.  :(

Quote
I don't need to prove to you that I'm a good debator.

Of course not.  But just proclaiming that you're a good debator proves nothing.  So far in this thread you've done nothing but present a pathetically weak argument that was torn to pieces immediately, and you have yet to provide a cogent rebuttal; you seem more preoccupied with blasting FE proponents with ad hominems about how bad they are at debate.  How sadly ironic.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

fenterb

  • 135
  • Part of the conspiracy
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2009, 08:38:56 AM »
Quote from: grogberries on February 05, 2009, 01:33:41 AM
How do you explain that earth is the only celestial body that we know to contain life? Obviously it is okay to be special in the universe. It is a complicated place.

Because it is the only body in the solar system capable of containing life.  The planets are spread out and most are either too hot or too cold.  It seems 'special' to us because we're here, but if it was too hot or too cold we wouldnt be here to consider it special.

The presence of life here in no way implies this planet is different from the others.  Just in a different location. 
Logged
?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM »
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.
Logged
Think hard. Think Flat.
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM »
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2009, 01:32:43 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
There are no other planets in the sense Earth is a planet. Not in FE theory of course.
Logged
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2009, 01:36:08 AM »
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
There are no other planets in the sense Earth is a planet. Not in FE theory of course.

Of course. In the FE hypothesis the earth is a frizbee!
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2009, 07:51:55 AM »
One thing I wouldn't mind knowing is how you know the planets are radically different from the Earth. They all seem to be able to hold onto an atmosphere, much like Earth. They all seem to have day and night cycles, much like Earth. A number of them have a moon, much like Earth. You claim Earth is different as it has life, but how do you know the other planets don't have life?
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2009, 07:53:04 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:36:08 AM
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
There are no other planets in the sense Earth is a planet. Not in FE theory of course.

Of course. In the FE hypothesis the earth is a frizbee!

No, it is the Earth. Please don't make such silly statement. What would you think if I said, "In RE theory the Earth is a rabbit turd?"
Logged
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2009, 11:36:58 AM »
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 07:53:04 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:36:08 AM
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
There are no other planets in the sense Earth is a planet. Not in FE theory of course.

Of course. In the FE hypothesis the earth is a frizbee!

No, it is the Earth. Please don't make such silly statement. What would you think if I said, "In RE theory the Earth is a rabbit turd?"

Does the RE earth look like a rabbit turd?

Earth:


The RE earth is not that brownish and smelly! ;)

Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2009, 09:48:05 PM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 07:53:04 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:36:08 AM
Quote from: Raist on February 09, 2009, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)
There are no other planets in the sense Earth is a planet. Not in FE theory of course.

Of course. In the FE hypothesis the earth is a frizbee!

No, it is the Earth. Please don't make such silly statement. What would you think if I said, "In RE theory the Earth is a rabbit turd?"

Does the RE earth look like a rabbit turd?

Earth:


The RE earth is not that brownish and smelly! ;)



So you think the Earth is made of neon plastic? Interesting update.
Logged
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2009, 12:07:40 AM »
Quote from: Raist
So you think the Earth is made of neon plastic? Interesting update.

Now why would I believe that?
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2009, 12:09:02 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 10, 2009, 12:07:40 AM
Quote from: Raist
So you think the Earth is made of neon plastic? Interesting update.

Now why would I believe that?
You compared it to a frisbee.
Logged
?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2009, 10:38:32 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 09, 2009, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: grogberries on February 08, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
So it's okay to think that the earth is unique in the fact that it contains life, but no okay to think it is unique in shape.  ::) Sounds airtight.

There are reasons why our planet can contain life. You know this. None here have provided any reasonable explanation and striking evidence on why the earth would be flat. You can't compare those two. Sorry.
Also, the plant is not unique in being a planet. There are a lot of planets. It just happend to be on the right place at the right time. ;)

I don't understand how life came about. All I'm saying is this. With all of our looking so far, earth is the place. Earth is the only place with life. Should we then question whether we actually exist? It is not a good argument to say the earth is not flat because no other bodies we've observed look like earth. This is my point. Nothing to do with how life began.
Logged
Think hard. Think Flat.
?

niceguybut

  • 184
Re: my 2nd question
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2009, 12:19:44 PM »
Quote from: Raist on February 10, 2009, 12:09:02 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 10, 2009, 12:07:40 AM
Quote from: Raist
So you think the Earth is made of neon plastic? Interesting update.

Now why would I believe that?
You compared it to a frisbee.

All frisbees are made of neon plastic?  ???

(OT I know, but still!)
Logged
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »