Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

dont need to i have already written sincerely on the matter of false accusations of that nature. also im not your personal teacher am i so go an do your own research mojo, im not here to convince you of anything x

Piss poor troll, thank you and goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, paul's got wright said:
1 hour ago, dilligaf said:

But they are all laughing at you. Does that not bother you ?

whos laughin at me? is that part of the scientific method?

I guess that we are all laughing at you to be honest. You are also part of the experiment too. Be careful out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

Piss poor troll, thank you and goodnight.

so if someone tells you to look into something for yourself, in your eyes they are a troll? very strange in my opinion. you cant handle what you might find probably dont want your beliefs challenged. 

are there any mods looking at this thread? please may i be equally protected from false accusations now tantamount to bullying, given the ignorance of the attacks and the fact that i have stated my reasons for posting in this subject and this forum,  repeatedly. i like discussing the subject but i am not obliged to provide anything other than my views here.  thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

i'm aware of them. nor did you devise the system of measurement or come to your own conclusions that you live on a spinning sphere. you were taught it from a child, given no opportunity to come to your own thoughts about the world. like the rest of us. so i know why you believe it and thats fine by me. dont try an push ye beliefs on me though. 

That's a classic ad hominem attack, attempting to undermine China's arguments purely by attacking his background.

China has given you a set of measurements that you can easily verify - you can go out there and measure them yourself, and he's interested to hear what your explanation is for the difference in shadow lengths that's readily apparent. The measurements don't vary according to your level of indoctrination, or by your personal set of beliefs, they're replicable by anyone - you yourself can go out and measure them. Rather than attacking Chinahand's background to try to undermine a straight-forward observation, what's your explanation for the difference in shadow lengths ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

That's a classic ad hominem attack, attempting to undermine China's arguments purely by attacking his background.

China has given you a set of measurements that you can easily verify - you can go out there and measure them yourself, and he's interested to hear what your explanation is for the difference in shadow lengths that's readily apparent. The measurements don't vary according to your level of indoctrination, or by your personal set of beliefs, they're replicable by anyone - you yourself can go out and measure them. Rather than attacking Chinahand's background to try to undermine a straight-forward observation, what's your explanation for the difference in shadow lengths ?

not an attack on china just the facts of our upbringing. told what to think not so much how to think. china is clearly an intelligent person so certainly not an attack from me. i stand by my post. i understand the experiment and what can be garnered from it. that's how i know it doesn't constitute what is known as irrefutable proof. nor do i need, or did i ask for, any advice or help with my research. so it stands that i am not obliged to follow any orders from you china or anybody else on the matter. if that satisfies your criteria for proof and you think measuring shadows and sticks proves you live on a spinning ball then good for you tb. my research continues x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

like i said, ridicule, attempted or otherwise, isn't part of the scientific method. nor is it scientific to jump to conclusions, or berate those immersed in research on a subject you may have biased beliefs about x 

Or you could be taking the piss or thick as fuck. Who knows ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

. my research continues x

 

What you're doing is not "research", since the definition of research usually includes an element of systematic investigation.

If you were truly researching the subject, you would not reject evidence that might suggest that your conclusions are wrong, merely on the grounds that it might suggest that your conclusions are wrong. Instead, you are leading yourself down the very avenue that you accuse China of taking, that of confirmation bias. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

 

 

What you're doing is not "research", since the definition of research usually includes an element of systematic investigation.

If you were truly researching the subject, you would not reject evidence that might suggest that your conclusions are wrong, merely on the grounds that it might suggest that your conclusions are wrong. Instead, you are leading yourself down the very avenue that you accuse China of taking, that of confirmation bias. 

what conclusions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...