A bit ridiculous?

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 07:40:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 07:18:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 07:09:28 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 06:38:55 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 06:33:16 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 06:16:41 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 06:01:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 04:17:12 AM

Quote from: APenNameAndThatA on May 02, 2013, 02:23:03 AM

There is no cruise line offering cruises around Antarctica.  That in itself should torpedo (geddit) your main argument.  It is no more difficult to circumnavigate Antarctica than it is difficult for an ant to crawl around the rim of a dinner plate. The only question is, "why?".  The weather is very treacherous towards the edge of the disk - that is not just a "coincidence".       

hello tinfoil person. What sailing around Antarctica would tell you is that it's a much shorter trip than the flat earth models would lead you to believe. Your comment about the weather is even more stupid than you not realizing what sailing around Antarctica would accomplish but flat earthers don't appear to understand much.

Be nice to the new guy, rottingroom.  You suggesting that the trip would be shorter is not exactly proof that it would be shorter, now is it?

It would be if I took the trip but I'm not inclined to because I'm not a paranoid schitzo who thinks there is a global conspiracy. If you think there is a conspiracy then YOU should take the trip and prove it to yourself. The Flat Earth Society's claim that the burden of proof is on round earther's is bogus as the burden of proof lies on you to prove to yourself! Especially since the proof has been supplied but you lot just reject all of it. That's your problem, now go figure it out for yourself definitively and personally if that's what it's going to take.

If I said that Bigfoot exists and you said it does not, which one of us would be capable of actually proving our side?  The burden of proof is on the positive side, not the negative one.

yeah but there isn't a pro side or a negative side here. You are making a pro assertion that the earth is flat as much as anyone else makes the assertion that it is round. The only difference is that round earthers have evidence.

Yes there is.  If I say Bigfoot exists, then that is a positive statement.  If you say he does not exist, then that is a negative statement.

JROA... FOLLOW THE WORDS.

In the bigfoot example, yes I agree the one claiming bigfoot exists is making a pro assertion and therefore has BOP.

In round earth vs. flat earth, both are making pro assertions, both have BOP.

But, this is how it goes in the round vs. flat debate:

Round Earthers supply evidence from a multitude of credible sources and supply photographic evidence as well. They also show videos and articles of experiments with proof that it is round. Flat earthers just deny all of this.

Flat Earthers provide no evidence and offer only wild speculation. They cite their own senses as evidence even though there is good empirical evidence that suggests the earth is round. In the cases where empirical evidence SEEMS to indicate the Earth is flat round earthers are able to provide ample explanation of where flat earthers have gone wrong but they continue to deny it like a kicking and screaming baby.

Thank you for trying to derail another thread.  We have a shortage of that around here.   

Anyway, back on topic, you made the positive claim about the size of the rim continent, or more specifically, the amount of time to go around it.  I said that this claim requires proof, and gave you examples.  Your repeatedly ignore what I say and say it is up to me to prove you wrong.

Another day at TFES, I suppose.   

Derail the thread? What by pointing out that the issue is not with whether or not earth is round. The issue is flat earthers. They are the subject of this forum, not the shape of the earth.

Your definition of a claim is is stating or asserting that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. However, there is evidence and it's provided to you flat earthers time and time again. When that happens the BOP shifts to you for an attempt at a defense. You state we have BOP, we meet it, the BOP shifts and you don't meet that.

My definition of a claim (if I'm making one) in this case is an assertion of the truth of something that is in doubt. However, I have no doubt. You do. There is no justifiable reason to think there is doubt.

I understand that you are a little frustrated to find out that everything you thought you knew was wrong.  We can all get along here, if you would just calm down a little bit.

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 08:05:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 07:40:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 07:18:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 07:09:28 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 06:38:55 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 06:33:16 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 06:16:41 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 06:01:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on May 02, 2013, 04:17:12 AM

Quote from: APenNameAndThatA on May 02, 2013, 02:23:03 AM

There is no cruise line offering cruises around Antarctica.  That in itself should torpedo (geddit) your main argument.  It is no more difficult to circumnavigate Antarctica than it is difficult for an ant to crawl around the rim of a dinner plate. The only question is, "why?".  The weather is very treacherous towards the edge of the disk - that is not just a "coincidence".       

hello tinfoil person. What sailing around Antarctica would tell you is that it's a much shorter trip than the flat earth models would lead you to believe. Your comment about the weather is even more stupid than you not realizing what sailing around Antarctica would accomplish but flat earthers don't appear to understand much.

Be nice to the new guy, rottingroom.  You suggesting that the trip would be shorter is not exactly proof that it would be shorter, now is it?

It would be if I took the trip but I'm not inclined to because I'm not a paranoid schitzo who thinks there is a global conspiracy. If you think there is a conspiracy then YOU should take the trip and prove it to yourself. The Flat Earth Society's claim that the burden of proof is on round earther's is bogus as the burden of proof lies on you to prove to yourself! Especially since the proof has been supplied but you lot just reject all of it. That's your problem, now go figure it out for yourself definitively and personally if that's what it's going to take.

If I said that Bigfoot exists and you said it does not, which one of us would be capable of actually proving our side?  The burden of proof is on the positive side, not the negative one.

yeah but there isn't a pro side or a negative side here. You are making a pro assertion that the earth is flat as much as anyone else makes the assertion that it is round. The only difference is that round earthers have evidence.

Yes there is.  If I say Bigfoot exists, then that is a positive statement.  If you say he does not exist, then that is a negative statement.

JROA... FOLLOW THE WORDS.

In the bigfoot example, yes I agree the one claiming bigfoot exists is making a pro assertion and therefore has BOP.

In round earth vs. flat earth, both are making pro assertions, both have BOP.

But, this is how it goes in the round vs. flat debate:

Round Earthers supply evidence from a multitude of credible sources and supply photographic evidence as well. They also show videos and articles of experiments with proof that it is round. Flat earthers just deny all of this.

Flat Earthers provide no evidence and offer only wild speculation. They cite their own senses as evidence even though there is good empirical evidence that suggests the earth is round. In the cases where empirical evidence SEEMS to indicate the Earth is flat round earthers are able to provide ample explanation of where flat earthers have gone wrong but they continue to deny it like a kicking and screaming baby.

Thank you for trying to derail another thread.  We have a shortage of that around here.   

Anyway, back on topic, you made the positive claim about the size of the rim continent, or more specifically, the amount of time to go around it.  I said that this claim requires proof, and gave you examples.  Your repeatedly ignore what I say and say it is up to me to prove you wrong.

Another day at TFES, I suppose.   

Derail the thread? What by pointing out that the issue is not with whether or not earth is round. The issue is flat earthers. They are the subject of this forum, not the shape of the earth.

Your definition of a claim is is stating or asserting that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. However, there is evidence and it's provided to you flat earthers time and time again. When that happens the BOP shifts to you for an attempt at a defense. You state we have BOP, we meet it, the BOP shifts and you don't meet that.

My definition of a claim (if I'm making one) in this case is an assertion of the truth of something that is in doubt. However, I have no doubt. You do. There is no justifiable reason to think there is doubt.

I understand that you are a little frustrated to find out that everything you thought you knew was wrong.  We can all get along here, if you would just calm down a little bit.

I'm not frustrated about myself. I'm happy knowing the earth is round. I'm perhaps frustrated that humanity still has to sift through people like you though.

Calm down rottingroom.  Drink some coffee and try to sober up a little. 

Calm down rottingroom.  Drink some coffee and try to sober up a little.

Sober up? Right, the person who needs to sober up is the one who thinks the earth is round... not the person who thinks it's flat. Seems legit.

Quote from: jroa on May 02, 2013, 08:25:47 AM

Calm down rottingroom.  Drink some coffee and try to sober up a little.

Sober up? Right, the person who needs to sober up is the one who thinks the earth is round... not the person who thinks it's flat. Seems legit.

Did you even drink coffee?  Maybe too much?  I am trying to help you out.

For every single bit of proof that someone throws at you guys you just add onto the conspiracy something even more ridiculous, I went to the very beginning and saw a post about this guy Sailing around Antarctica in 40 days and your explanation  is that they probably sailed around some island! If all companies that offered said cruise where in on the conspiracy (Why should they be?) and all other people who work in places that can unmask this conspiracy then i believe only a small  proportion of the earth wouldn't know the earth is flat, which is of course a lie, And it would mean this isn't a conspiracy at all.

This cant be disproven because this flat earth universe you made up doesn't allow any explanations! Everything that proves it's wrong has been removed like a tumor.

Ridiculous. Seriously you guys need to leave the house, Maybe go to the psychiatrist, or is he in on this conspiracy too?

Well, do you have a counter argument, or have you give up?  The earth is flat.  If you can do something other than tantrum, then we can hear it.  As far as I can see, you have just said that your arguments have been counters.