User Controls
I used to think Flat Earthers were just being satirical and/or trolling
-
2018-12-22 at 2:54 AM UTCYour comments on the difficulty of keeping reality hidden are nonsense. For thousands of years people believed in various silly things, why would they suddenly stop?
The existence of dragons has been independently confirmed in the history (myth and legends) of every civilisation we know of, yet you don't believe in them. Why? -
2018-12-22 at 3:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth We don't live on a "planet". What you see is what you get. Why is that hard to understand?
So then WTF do we live on/in?
If it's not a "planet", then what is it? And why the heck do we have such elaborately constructed cosmological/astronomical theories?
So physicists like Stephen Hawking and such were just all part of some elaborate scheme to perpetuate this particular narrative?
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Your comments on the difficulty of keeping reality hidden are nonsense. For thousands of years people believed in various silly things, why would they suddenly stop?
The existence of dragons has been independently confirmed in the history (myth and legends) of every civilisation we know of, yet you don't believe in them. Why?
Dafuq?
What exactly do you mean by "confirmed"?
Common mythological beliefs across cultures are only evidence of certain psychological patterns that have developed as a product of evolution. -
2018-12-22 at 5:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Lol.
Ok my ex-roommate, who happened to be an escort and frequent meth-user, and is currently in prison for gun-related charges, used to always "cite evidence" for her beliefs in a so-called "flat-earth."
It was always some stupid YouTube video or some reference to how a pilot's visual perspective when taking off somehow proves her case.
Like, when was the last time she flew a fucking plane?
I hate to resort to ad hominem arguments, but flat-earthers overwhelmingly tend to lie somewhere south of the bell curve of what constitutes a "normal person", let alone even remotely educated.
I always gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed she was IRL trolling me, but her facial expressions and body language revealed her actual beliefs.
I'm not saying every Flat Earther goes out there and tries to experimentally justify their position, I'm just saying I see it happening a lot more with them than I do with the globies. Taking pictures with a Nikon COOLPIX P900 is practically a meme in the FB groups I'm in, because it's got a crazy zoom and flerfers think they can zoom over the horizon and un-disappear ships and the like. Like I said, deeply flawed experimentation, but I respect that a lot more than some smug asshole who thinks he's right because "science is on his side". Even if they do tend to draw the wrong conclusions. Y'know? I rarely, if ever, see a globe gobbler do more than reference an experiment performed by someone else. The shape of the Earth is a foregone conclusion to them, not worth proving.
And yeah, there are a lot of flerfers who use youtube videos, but there are also a lot of globeheads who use youtube videos to try and explain how/show that the Earth is a globe. Youtube is full of valuable educational material. The fact that the information is on youtube surely doesn't make it false, neh?
*shrug*
Flerfers hearts tend to be in the right place, I think.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-22 at 5:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS I rarely, if ever, see a globe gobbler do more than reference an experiment performed by someone else. The shape of the Earth is a foregone conclusion to them, not worth proving.
That's because the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim that goes against conventional wisdom.
I suppose there's something admirable about at least attempting to find evidence, but it's not really necessary for the one taking the standard position.
A standard high school education provides sufficient reason to believe the standard position.
Educated people don't just "take the teacher's (or textbook's) word for it".
The conclusion that the Earth is round is constructed logically and empirically.
Originally posted by HTS And yeah, there are a lot of flerfers who use youtube videos, but there are also a lot of globeheads who use youtube videos to try and explain how/show that the Earth is a globe. Youtube is full of valuable educational material. The fact that the information is on youtube surely doesn't make it false, neh?
There's absolutely nothing inherent about YouTube that makes it any less valuable of an information source than any other public website.
Heck, like 90% of my programming / computer science education is from YouTube (and it was enough to land me a job).
But, there's a lot of misinformation too.
Anyone can post whatever they want on YouTube. -
2018-12-22 at 6:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks That's because the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim that goes against conventional wisdom.
I think you mean:
Originally posted by gadzooks That's because the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
There are no caveats there. Claims should not be given more weight based on the fact that they're widely accepted. How foolish would that be? Certainly most of the world is religious in some form or another, but does god receive the same lofty treatment? Must an atheist disprove god? Conventional wisdom is an ironic choice of words - believing it uncritically would be the furthest thing from wise. They have no desire to prove the shape of the Earth even to themselves, because to them it is a foregone conclusion. It is conventional ignorance that guides them through life, not wisdom. -
2018-12-22 at 6:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks A standard high school education provides sufficient reason to believe the standard position.
Internal consistency does not beget external existency. A standard high school education provides sufficient reason to believe that the model presented is feasible, not necessarily that it is applicable; barring labwork where you experimentally verify things for yourself. And even that isn't perfect, because we are taught the model and how it applies to our observations, rather than taught to derive the model from our observations.~
Originally posted by gadzooks Educated people don't just "take the teacher's (or textbook's) word for it".
I would argue that education does not always teach people to think critically about what they're taught.
Originally posted by gadzooks The conclusion that the Earth is round is constructed logically and empirically.
Empirically is another funny choice of words. What is empiricism, if not valuing what is materially sensed? Empirical evidence is only empirical to those who observe it. This is why empirical evidence must be able to be obtained repeatedly/repeatably for it to be considered valid in the scientific sense. And taking it on blind faith that you can repeat the experiment and obtain empirical support for your position, but never actually doing so, is not exactly laudable. Essentially, you have no empirical evidence that the evidence you believe to be empirically and scientifically valid actually is empirical itself, until you yourself observe it. Empirical evidence is an anecdote unless gathered yourself.
OwOThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-22 at 6:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks What exactly do you mean by "confirmed"?
Common mythological beliefs across cultures are only evidence of certain psychological patterns that have developed as a product of evolution.
the anecdotal evidences of dragons are decorated all over temples of both middle/east asia and central/south america.
humans and dragons had coexisted for millions of years and its just a matter of time before archeologists dig them up and loled at how wrong they were before this.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-22 at 7:21 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-12-22 at 8:03 AM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 9:10 AM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 11:32 AM UTC
This seems relevant - Harvard Graduates explain how the seasons occur.
We can clearly see that, with minor exceptions, increasing levels of education don't correlate with increasing intellect, but with increased levels of conditioning. In the past these Harvard cunts would be going off to become preachers and advocates for colonialism - nowadays they go off to become corporate executives and advocate for multi-culturalism and globohomo gayplex.
Uncle Ted wrote about this in his ISAIF - oversocialisation is how leftists, with their myriad of internal contraditions, are formed. You need to be highly conditioned to believe the sort of shit the average sheltered middle class white kid believes WRT race, islam, income inequality, - economics and demographics in general- yet we have achieved a state where almost all uni graduates do in fact accept those beliefs by default.
It's the new Christianisty, a totally stupid religion that takes the subversive jedi idea of Tikkun Olam - "fix the world" - takes it at face value, and tries to implement it in a naieve, stupid and self-destructive manner. For instance you don't see too many kikes advocating for affirmative action or open borders for Israel (though they exist, even Shlomo sometimes slips up and drinks his own kool-aid).
Highly educated, oversocialised whites are the modern mental equivalent of the highly educated Jesuits canoeing off up the Amazon to convert the uneducated, unsocialised, low-IQ cannibal assholes there to Christianity and getting themselves eaten. -
2018-12-22 at 11:35 AM UTCthe universe is flat
-
2018-12-22 at 11:56 AM UTCI believe we're living in a simulacra
-
2018-12-22 at 12:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth
This seems relevant - Harvard Graduates explain how the seasons occur.
We can clearly see that, with minor exceptions, increasing levels of education don't correlate with increasing intellect, but with increased levels of conditioning. In the past these Harvard cunts would be going off to become preachers and advocates for colonialism - nowadays they go off to become corporate executives and advocate for multi-culturalism and globohomo gayplex.
Uncle Ted wrote about this in his ISAIF - oversocialisation is how leftists, with their myriad of internal contraditions, are formed. You need to be highly conditioned to believe the sort of shit the average sheltered middle class white kid believes WRT race, islam, income inequality, - economics and demographics in general- yet we have achieved a state where almost all uni graduates do in fact accept those beliefs by default.
It's the new Christianisty, a totally stupid religion that takes the subversive jedi idea of Tikkun Olam - "fix the world" - takes it at face value, and tries to implement it in a naieve, stupid and self-destructive manner. For instance you don't see too many kikes advocating for affirmative action or open borders for Israel (though they exist, even Shlomo sometimes slips up and drinks his own kool-aid).
Highly educated, oversocialised whites are the modern mental equivalent of the highly educated Jesuits canoeing off up the Amazon to convert the uneducated, unsocialised, low-IQ cannibal assholes there to Christianity and getting themselves eaten.
dont forget scientifique inquisition. -
2018-12-22 at 10:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny the anecdotal evidences of dragons are decorated all over temples of both middle/east asia and central/south america.
humans and dragons had coexisted for millions of years and its just a matter of time before archeologists dig them up and loled at how wrong they were before this.
Ok, I'll await those archeological results before I start believing in dragons. -
2018-12-22 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS I would argue that education does not always teach people to think critically about what they're taught.
I agree that a grade 12 public education may not guarantee critical thinking skills, but they at least attempt to instill such capabilities in us with it.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, etc.
Originally posted by HTS Empirically is another funny choice of words. What is empiricism, if not valuing what is materially sensed? Empirical evidence is only empirical to those who observe it. This is why empirical evidence must be able to be obtained repeatedly/repeatably for it to be considered valid in the scientific sense. And taking it on blind faith that you can repeat the experiment and obtain empirical support for your position, but never actually doing so, is not exactly laudable. Essentially, you have no empirical evidence that the evidence you believe to be empirically and scientifically valid actually is empirical itself, until you yourself observe it. Empirical evidence is an anecdote unless gathered yourself.
There's a reason I mentioned logically directly alongside empirically.
They both build our knowledge together.
I do not really solely on reason nor solely on my own personal empirical observations or solely on those made by others, but a combination of all three. -
2018-12-23 at 12:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Ok, I'll await those archeological results before I start believing in dragons.
Dragons have already been proven by 10,000 years of western archeology.
Witchcraft has been affirmed repeatedly by 10,000 years of learned western jurisprudence.
Witchcraft is still affirmed as a real and very illegal act in black legal practice btw. So if you say it doesn't exist you're calling blacks stupid in a direct manner.
If you disbelieve in either phenomena the burden of proof is upon you, and solely upon you. Neither has been disproven in any meaningful manner whatsoever, ever. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all. -
2018-12-23 at 12:51 AM UTCHAJAJAJHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAAAHHAHA
. -
2018-12-23 at 9:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Probably they just rowed their canoes.
I know this sounds farfetched, but research these things for yourself. These things are well known. For instance Auckland and Vancouver are the same city. The city councils meet in the exact same building on alternating days.
is that Vancouver New Wales? -
2018-12-23 at 9:36 PM UTC
