Total posts: 232
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Re: evolution and time
We have seen evolution happen quickly.... in quickly reproducing species like bacteria, fruitflies, and apparently guppies. The factor is how fast and how often they breed. He also affected their environment by removing or introducing their natural predator. There was nothing natural about this, it was almost a controlled experiment. Certainly i am not arguing evolution is a complete theory, but neither is our germ theory or theory of gravity. Your argument in this segment still seems in support of evolution.
Re: climate has never changed like this.
Craters and meteors.... i will conceed, an external natural disaster like an apocalyptic meteor that causes mass extinctions have happened before, and i seem to agree with you that modern global warming is close to that scale. However, no natural, non apocalyptic historic climate change, from the warming of the middle ages to the iceball earth of prehistory, none of them moved as fast as modern warming due to human activity. We are causing another disaster that most macro life will fail to adjust to. I believe by using such disasters you indeed supported my argument that the modern change is not normal.
Re: the connection
I said that as a nice way of saying there is no connectiom between darwin and climate change and your argument makes no sense. Please elaborate or rescind it.
Re: sudden change
Absolutes are not always wrong. If either of your homeostatic mechanisms goes out of whack in either direction you will die. The heart transplant was done to correct an already existing imbalance. Its a calculated procedure to fix something that was already broken. To restore the balance, not to change it. Your analogy is very wrong.
If we take some technological action to fix the loss or gain of ocean x inches (as per your original question), that action will not be a sudden change, but a sudden FIX. the change is the rising waters, not our calculated action to mitigrate the change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Re labels=power
If its not widespread enough within the party that supposedly champions this label, then what are you talking about? Lets look at the 2 senators from liberal new york. White man, white female. Its actually suspicious that our leadership has so little diversity imo. Also, the right is strong on the white, christian, nationalist identity. I would say the party focusing on a few select identities is playing more identity politics than the party of many identities.
Re identities
You are oversimplifying things. Lbgt is often white so your "white oppressors" claim falls flat. As for women and blacks, they have been oppressed by systems that have been exclusively white and Male. Speaking of cries of oppression, the right frequently cries about how christianity is under attack, white men are under attack. Rather i would argue that the party which focuses on very specific identities is the one playing identity politics. Not the party that is composed of all identities.
Besides an ancient policy of affirmative action, name a single new left wing proposal that focuses on a specific group? Rather the left wing has policies that prevent discrimination of any group, rather then benefits to a specific group.
Re: the right
Im guessing your implying that victim culture is spreading... but perhaps what you call "victim culture" is simply citizens voicing their greivances. Much like the American Colonists claimed victim from the "oppressive" british policies. Maybe some of them have legitamete complaints? Dismissing people for simply complaining sounds alot like you are dodging the substance of the complaint itself. Attacking the integrity of the person, ad hominem, instead of the actual issues that are being brought up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Re: power = more negative labels
Hard to say when the top presidential contenders Biden, Bernie, Pete, Warren. 3 white men, and a single label white woman in last place.
Perhaps rather then a tally = power, it is simply an acknowledge that those labels exist at all.
Re: restrictive categories
They can hardly be restrictive when your free to have any number of categories. As you said, they can add up. So you can have a black, women, nerd, accountant, mother, hiker, baseball fan ... but when nerds come under attack, she probably won't be focusing much on her hiking label. Throughout most of history, black people, women, and many others have been very clearly reminded of their labels. Are you not proud of your nationality? Culture? History? Why should others forget theirs? Accepting our distinct collections of labels is far better then denying them.
Besides, the right is quite capable of its own twisted victim culture. Crying about imagined slights. Its broadcast from the capital daily. Proof that you dont need labels to play victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
when in history were women not boxed into the women category? How about blacks? How about wealthy/poor?
And although i will not deny the legitamete existence of these divisions, based on history, these divisions were far more heiarchal in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Darwinian adaptation, aka evolution, takes a ton of time. The climate has never before changed this much in only 100 years. Any darwinian mechanism will fail to keep up, at least as far as most large animals go. I dont understand the connection.
As to your previous question regarding why x change is always seen as bad...
Our systems were built with a three current situation in mind. Any system change will disrupt the system, up or down. Much like the body requiring a delicate homeostasis. All sudden changes are bad.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you saying the lube for wind turbines uses more oil then oil energy? Thats just silly.
All of these issues can be solved with some technological advancements, but you cant remove oil or coal from coal energy.
Right wing america has picked up some super defeatist tendencies lately. Very unamerican imo.
Created:
Posted in:
Radiation isnt spread thru contact or breathing. This is just a silly comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Rent controls did not fully fail in ny and cali. They werent fully successful at keeping rents affordable, but they kept them from being completely unaffordable either. Its not a yes or no scenario.
The reason ny and cali rent is so high is because a) people want to live there. And b) there are lots of jobs here. Unfortunately if low wage workers are not able to make it to those jobs, those jobs wont get done. Even if you increase the pay, you dont increase hours in a dat, and people dont want to spend all their day commuting/working/sleeping and never seeing their family as if they are a gerbil on an endless wheel. A city requires low wage workers within a reasonable distance, and that is what rent control provides.
Supply/demand is economics 101.... aka introductory. There are many levels of economics above intro, and even advanced economic models tend to fail due to expectations that people are "homo economicus" which we are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Perhaps, geopolitics can be complicated, it can also be theater. No actual legitamete reasons tho? Just possibilities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Getting the context that you believe you know why, care to share?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The only episode that pissed me off was i think episode 2 when they had the "chaos sequence" with ridiculousness happening. Everything else was stellar.
The whole premise is unique, a twisted vision of the afterlife that expands into some pretty cool developments. The spoilers would be massive for each twist
Id give the first episode of season 2 a serious chance, one of my favorites. If not, taste is a personal thing. It has great reviews and ratings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What do you mean by some of the episodes? How far did you get? I dont expect every episode of a show to be stellar. I didnt much like a few episodes of firefly, but it was still an amazong show.
The good place was a wierd and quirky show at first. I treated it as a light hearted show that was fun during a really busy time in my lige. I definitely didnt think the concept had any longevity to it... but then the twist at the end of season 1 just boomed the show to greatness. The first few episodes of season 2 are amazing, and it keeps a difficult concept fresh somehow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
True, however i never saw that. 99% mobile and i used it through the tapatalk app.
Pro of dart is that the 1v1 debate structure is new and intriguing to me.
My personal favorite is a much smaller community on discuss.fm, it seems like a terrible website but again im mostly mobile. The app is flawed but simple and functional.
Con of dart. No app. Not sure how difficult a basic app is so no biggie. The browser is functional. But apps are much better if possible for mobile, if built properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I dont think that website was born in the 70s.
If you ask me, it looks like a debate politics website.
Kinda like this site, except with politics instead of art.
Created:
Posted in:
Debatepolitics.com
It is usually politics, but unlike general politics topics it focus on the micro moves of the day. Im sure most of trump impeachment threads will migrate towards the current event section, same with random bills that are proposed/passed. may also become populated with crazy and wierd local news stories, etc.
Its gonna me 90% trump for at least another year tho, but lets focus on the longer term.
Created:
Posted in:
@madman
Did you just say that the sun is bigger at sunset (when its farthest away) then when its over head right above you? Wow.
The earths moon is not the only tidally locked object, mercury is too.
As for your "effort." You clearly put a ton of effort into that attempt of a joke with hillbilly accents... but thats not the debate. You simply trolled and ended up being treated as a troll. Own up, and maybe man up.
I have no reason to be friends with a troll, but i dont block people on a free speech forum. However clearly your fragile ego and weak brain have resorted to silencing people again. Pathetic, yet hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also the fact of a sphere earth, space, and gravity all predate nixon and the trip to the moon. Just another dodge. You said you were gonna debunk my claims after i answered the flat earth question you sent me. Suns size not changing as it travels. Lunar eclipse. Nothing but dodging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wow, that was disappointing. As i said before, i dont mind discussing any subject as long as i have a quality opponent, and that showed that you do not fit the bill. As much as flat earth is an absolutely retarded idea, i tried to take you seriously, but that was not returned.
Btw, if you think tidal locking, which nasa does explain in detail without relying on their authority, is bonkers, how do you interpret the "shadow object" flat earthers use to explain a lunar eclipse? A mystery object with no explanation that is completely invisible at all times except when it is in front of the moon... lmao. Wtf?
I did say you were the *most* competent flat earth defender here, it was clearly well short of actually competent, or even not being a troll. Thats the end if this convo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Have you ever read the explanation for tidal locking before dismissing it?
I countered ethang's argument playing devils advocate using my research on flat earth. Would you dare to try making an educated devils advocate argument for tidal locking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Completely disagree. Your doing the same mistake most round earthers do, you don't understand flat earth arguments. They dont believe in gravity, and droplets do not form spheres due to gravity. The analogy falls flat, so does your argument. Im afraid your the one making a weak point in the context of your opponent.
I do agree that a common point is necessary, and we all agree lunar eclipses happen. I think my argument against flat earth is much stronger then yours, no offense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How convenient what? You said you were going to debunk my claims, now you seem to just be dodging them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Which arguments that i made against RM have been weak in your opinion?
Also the earth can be tidal locked to something that doesnt go around the earth if the earth goes around it, like the sun. However you are right that not everything can be tidal locked if they are not in some form of orbit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The mechanism of tidal locking (sorry i used the wrong term) is well known and something that ends up in that position due to gravity, not random chance. Before we get into that, i was hoping you would address the issues i repeatedly brought up regarding flat earth, or do you admit an inability to explain my questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is not impossible, just very unlikely. I demonstrated that things can face us in a fixed position, not the rest of those concepts. I am not a flat earther.
I agree it is a silly concept overall, but whether i take the debate seriously depends more on my opponent then the subject. Besides, i believe i have a iron clad argument against it, i want to try it on a non agitated opponent please :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Seasons are explained perfectly fine in a space globe model. I thought you were going to debunk my concerns with the flat earth model, like lunar eclipse and a lack of perceived change in size of the sun as it speeds away or as we approach the sun?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The moon is geolocked and always faces us the same exact same way. Im not sure how that would work with disks, but it is very unlikely everything happens to face us dead on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Something can be round and flat like a disk. There is a difference between a circle and a sphere, even tho both are round
Assuming people who disagree with you are just trolling is a silly thing. Maybe the organizations that push the idea are trolling, but the people who believe it are often honest. Its not the craziest idea out there, just the easiest to debunk.
Created:
Posted in:
Their attempt to explain it involves a mysterious shadow object that is opaque enough to block the moon but completely invisible at all other time, despite being relatively close. With no attempt at an explanation of what it is, where it came from, or why its there.
Just like ptolemy's geocentric model forcing circles upon circles to explain planetary retrograde motion, bad models make illogical and unnecessary adjustments to force data that doesnt agree with them. This is clearly wrong.
Speaking of ptolemy's model, his retrograde planet problem seem like it will be a problem for flat earthers too. I wonder if they have an explanation for them too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I can understand your denial, people like to believe thungs they want to believe, but if you look at the other carvings around it:
Each one has something around the animal, flames/clouds, rocks, why is this one image the only one without stylistics around it? Thats because those are the stylistics.
And if we ignore the stylistic blocks around the animal, no other part of the animal looks like a stegosaurus, you are clearly in denial of this. What does it being old have to do with the head looking nothing like its supposed to?!? Not only the head, but the tail looks nothing like it! Where are the spikes on the tail? Why are there spikes on the head instead? Wow. Very bad.
As for the guy who claimed he made them to not go to jail for selling ancient artifacts.... lol... im sure every pedlar of ancient artifacts will say he made them when caught.... except they can test the artifacts for authenticity. Since he didnt go to jail, those artifacts are fake cause authorities dont just believe the words of criminals blindly. Should i mock you again? :p
You WANT to believe these people lived with dinosaurs, so you WANT to see dinosaurs in their art. If you want to find something, you will. Just like the people looking for stock market tips in various holy books.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Its not rage, im just dont think that flat earth can explain reality. I am not trying to hide that, it is my honest belief, but i am stating why. I am not trying to be convinced, i am trying to convince. I am open to being convinced, but that is up to you.
Personally im dissapointed by most round earther arguments. They say things obvious to them, but can be easily questioned if you dont agree to begin with. I feel i have more persuasive arguments on this issue so i am presenting them. I was hoping you would address them instead of attacking me. I have made no personal attacks.
Based on your images, the sun and moon spin in circles over the earth. Ill assume they go at different speeds and are at different altitudes in order to make a solar eclipse possible... but lunar eclipse, the moon doesnt dissapear behind the sun. the moon doesnt come near the sun during the lunar eclipse, they happen at night.
Furthermore... even if the sun does seem to dip eventually, wouldn't it again get gradually smaller in the sky as it speeds away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You can mock me if you want, cause i might just mock you. Those rocks were made in the 1960s by a guy named Basilio Uschuya. They are fake.
As for that "stegosaurus," its amazing how 90% of the images i found show it facing forward, not at an angle.
Clear as day image. Look at that head. Look at a stegosaurus head. Nothing alike!
Furthermore i addressed all the images in that article from the stega, to the wierd painting, to the tapestry. That is a false accusation about me being selective. Its not that hard to debunk these examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I think a current events section is good as well. Rather then discussing broad political issues, they discuss micro events of the day. This section was very popular on a previous platform i was on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Its interesting that both versions of the image that you linked are taken at an angle with the head away from the camera. Are all of the photos of this carving from your fake science sources angled the same way? Because that could be proof that they intentionally cherry pick their data and provide fake or misleading evidence for their anti-science claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Those 2 points are positive evidence against a flat earth, im quite sure they will not be refuted.
But to refute a popular flat earth claim regarding seeing curvature along the horizon...
I guess many imagine us like ants on a beachball where you are big enough and the ball is small enough where it looks round.
You can see an ant on a beach ball, you cant see people, or even sky scrapers from above the earth. You can barely make out mountains. We are not ants on a beach ball, we are bacteria on a beach ball, and bacteria on a beach ball see and feel it as a flat plane.... despite it being clearly a ball.
The difference in size is never calculated in a flat earth argument. That is why our bridges and other structures dont need to account for the curvature. They are too tiny. A cross atlantic bridge would absolutely need to account for that.... but thats a long ways away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Look at that head. Look at a picture of an actual stegosaurus. It is nothing alike.
Find a picture of that carving that is not at an angle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Like the face on mars, or pictures in the clouds, the hyman imagination is quick to make fake connections.
A stegosaurus has a small head and no horns or ears. This is more likely a rhino with leaves around it.
The next picture is definitely not a dragon, and i dont know what that textile is, but it could literally be anything.
Monster attributes like teeth, scales, fire, and large size are common fears of children with no connection to history. They are what we have nightmares about, and what we make our.myths about. The connection to real life dinosaurs is pure imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
The earliest attested dragons resemble giant snakes. Dragon-like creatures are first described in the mythologies of the ancient Near East and appear in ancient Mesopotamian art and literature. Stories about storm-gods slaying giant serpents occur throughout nearly all Indo-Europeanand Near Eastern mythologies. Famous prototypical dragons include the mušḫuššu of ancient Mesopotamia; Apepin Egyptian mythology; Vṛtra in the Rigveda; the Leviathan in the Hebrew Bible; Python, Ladon, Wyvern, and the Lernaean Hydra in Greek mythology; Jörmungandr, Níðhöggr, and Fafnir in Norse mythology; and the dragon from Beowulf.The popular western image of a dragon as winged, four-legged, and capable of breathing fire is an invention of the High Middle Ages, based on a conflation of earlier dragons from different traditions. In western cultures, dragons are portrayed as monsters to be tamed or overcome, usually by saints or culture heroes, as in the popular legend of Saint George and the Dragon. They are often said to have ravenous appetites and to live in caves, where they hoard treasure.
The last part about ravenous monsters to be tamed or overcome is in stark contrast to chinese accounts of:
Dragons in eastern cultures are usually depicted as wingless, four-legged, serpentine creatures with above-average intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You believe hearsay too easily.
Dragons originally didnt even look like dragons. All over the world, and including very very early europe, they were more serpents then dinosaurs. Its not until middle ages europe that dragons started to look like a t-rex with wings.
Thus, the original and international stories of dragons do not match the descriptions of dinosaurs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When you see a building far away, it looks tiny. As you get closer to it, it appears to grow. The sun and moon do not. They appear the same size from the ground, from an airplane, or from the tallest mountain. Obviously they do not actually grow and shrink, it is perception, but it is the way perception works. If they do not grow as you approach them, that must mean youve made no signficant distance towards the object. Meaning the object is very very far.
If the sun was close, it would appear to grow rapidly as you approach it, doubling, tripling, or growing exponentially... just like that skyscraper that a few miles away looked like it could fit between your fingers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I cant explain what i meant by "in a plane it's just as high" because i never said that. I have no idea.
What i did say was that "Flights on airplanes trying to debunk curvature show a sun of the same size as from the ground. If it was closer and smaller, it would seem bigger as you got closer to it. Its clearly very far." Which has to do with the relative size and distance to the sun (or moon), not vision. They are clearly much farther and larger then flat earth theories describe, and the only way to have both eclipses is for one to pass underneath the earth, which they don't in flat models.
Created:
Posted in:
I was told these specific points of mine will be debunked. I am keeping an open mind, but my expectations are not high. I dont see how a solar and lunar eclipse can both exist in a flat model.
Created:
Posted in:
Their own proofs contradict them. Flights on airplanes trying to debunk curvature show a sun of the same size as from the ground. If it was closer and smaller, it would seem bigger as you got closer to it. Its clearly very far. Same with how the moon follows you as you drive.
The sun and the moon are said to cycle overhead, which makes it impossible for both solar and lunar eclipses to be true. Even if one is closer, one 1 type of eclipse is possible without some forced mechanisms. Yet we see both in reality.
The space model fits all observations and perfectly predicts future events with zero contradictions. In my view, its not even close. It may seem fantastical due to the perceived truism of the concept of down, but logic can go down many paths, and only evidence free of preconceptions can point one to the only truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your right, it isnt significant in a space model as perfect alignment isnt expected, does occasionally happen, and partial vs total eclipses are seen, expected, and sufficiently explained.
However, i dont understand your flat earth explanation. Yes it is a significant issue, which is why i brought it up... but i dont see an explanation anywhere in your post. Especially if their rotations are out of range of each other as you say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your definition of lunar is not wrong, but very vague. Lunar eclipse is when the earth blocks the light of the sun from the moon. Likewise solar eclipse is when part of the earth not being lit up by the sun.
You explained how solar eclipses work by putting the moon slightly closer, but that completely negates the possibility of lunar eclipses. You said it "shouldn't be a thing," yet it is. Can you elaborate? Are all lunar eclipses optical illusions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You seem to be the primary flat earth defender here. Im assuming you follow the common flat earth paradigm with antarctica around the edges, and a smaller closer sun and moon making circles over the earth.
Using this model, or some other flat earth model, can you explain how we can get both solar and lunar eclipses? They make perfect sense in a sphere/space/gravity model, can you explain them together in a single flat model?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Whether they agree to get paid less or if they return some of the money, the end result is the same so i will treat them as identical for the time being.
My only question is, who exactly is getting priced out? The generally maligned "burger flippers" are plenty employed. Who is being priced out, and how many people relative to the economy are we talking about?
Also, what protections will there be for people who do not want to work for sub par wages to ensure they dont get undercut, because regardless of value or profitability, if an entity can pay someone less they try to do that.
Created: