Flat Earth Theory
- Thread starter Rudometkin
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Chihuahua
Member
Repeating something three times doesn't add any weight to your red herring. I did not say you believe they did it for no purpose. You falsely quoted me.
Do you comprehend what they are actually spending to produce the lunar go-kart, if they weren't planning to put it on a moon they knew they couldn't reach?
You believe it was fully functional, just as they would have you believe. This is why you are happy to provide them the funds. Isn't it?
Chihuahua
Member
You quoted how much they were allocated. You can look at what is being allocated within that amount. I am not sure what your point is in them publishing the purchase and their use of it. Can you please elucidate that?
I have no idea who this pastor is,
He sounds just like every Baptist preacher I ever heard growing up.
Kinda nostalgic for me.
I'm only about twenty minutes in but I'm gonna drop this vid here in the comments and finish listening as I fall asleep. Its a long message, hopefully he ends as well as he began, I know I already love this brother regardless. To come out before his entire congregation as a flat earther took some real faith, and some big stones.
www.bitchute.com
He sounds just like every Baptist preacher I ever heard growing up.
Kinda nostalgic for me.
I'm only about twenty minutes in but I'm gonna drop this vid here in the comments and finish listening as I fall asleep. Its a long message, hopefully he ends as well as he began, I know I already love this brother regardless. To come out before his entire congregation as a flat earther took some real faith, and some big stones.
Biblical Cosmology Part 5 of 8 A Lot to Like About the Biblical Model
NOTE: Ridiculers, insulters & trolls, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED
www.bitchute.com
Last edited:
Okay. Define "function" where you said, "...serves no function". What did you mean by it? Because I can reasonably interpret it as the same heart of message (a proper paraphrasing) using an established dictionary.
Does perhaps this definition fit the bill?
Function: The action or purpose for which a person or thing is suited or employed, especially.
Chihuahua
Member
They knew they could reach it, they did reach it and there is insurmountable evidence for this. Your evidence to the contrary is non-existent. If it was faked, the Soviets would have embarrassed the west or did it themselves. Maybe outdo them with a mission to Mars. The Chinese have rovers on the moon and take video of the surface. No one is disputing it.
Please do not use quotations for something I did not write. That is a strawman. I did not say "bullion".
Do you want me to explain all 25 billion of them?
Chihuahua
Member
I don't respond to videos. People who cannot put together a constructive argument will bombard a discussion until the person gets sick of parsing out all the errors. I will put up funny photos or videos.
Chihuahua
Member
Please do not use quotations for something I did not write. That is a strawman. I did not say "bullion".
Do you want me to explain all 25 billion of them?
That is called a typo. That is not the same as constructing a sentence not written using quotation marks. Yes, please explain some of the reasons and how they pull it off. I'd like to know why airlines, tv companies, satellite phones..
Chihuahua
Member
Yes it is. You constructed with quotation marks the sentence "25 bullion benefits for the conspirators", which was not written by me. I never typed "bullion" before you did.
You "used quotations for something I did not write".
----------
So you claim I strawmanned you. I think it is more likely I didn't, and you are just trying to backpedal on your strawman, but that is fine either way. I already provided an established dictionary definition that justifies my initial quotation.
But if I strawmanned you as you say, then explain what you meant by "function" when you said "serves no function". Define it without defining it as "purpose".
Can you?
You'd like to know why airlines, TV companies, satellite phones.. what? You'd like to know why they what?
Chihuahua
Member
I figured it would go without saying. Why are they in on it? Why do I need to point a satellite receiver at a specific location? Are there satellites floating around for years? Same with satellite phone. Same with air travel.
It is one thing to say NASA is taking money but corporations would be in on it. They spend money.
Then what is this?
Rudometkin:
You don't know this. You and I are people typing behind computer screens. For all we know, it was the Soviets' idea to have the U.S. lead the conspiracy for the benefit of all government leaders. You sound ignorant when you propose such a closed-minded dichotomy.
I think I have the reasonable take, where I respect relevant logical possibilities.
Except for the people disputing it.
Chihuahua
Member
Yes it is. You constructed with quotation marks the sentence "25 bullion benefits for the conspirators", which was not written by me. I never typed "bullion" before you did.
You "used quotations for something I did not write".
If you cannot understand the difference between creating a sentence/clause that a person did not write and a typo you might need help. It was an obvious typo and did not change the meaning. This is not my first time on the internet. You make claims you cannot back up and find some meaningless thing to focus on instead of refuting your claims or even presenting something, anything that is noteworthy. I will not respond to this further.
Yes, you claimed I said something I did not and then attacked that.
That is a perfect example of a strawman.
I didn't make a strawman and you used the word incorrectly. A "straw man" refers to a weak, easily defeated adversary or argument set up to be knocked down, often used in debates to misrepresent an opponent's actual position for an easier win -Google AI
Words have different meanings which are determined by the context they were used.
Why on Earth would you want me to define it in a way contrary to the way I intended?
You are grasping at straws and avoiding the topic by focusing on pointless and trivial things, a common red-herring tactic.
Chihuahua
Member
I already pointed out, I do not respond to videos, this isn't my first internet discussion. You are free to make the argument in your own words from the video and I will take the time to respond in my own words. It is common for people to spam a topic with videos with no written content of their own until they have just warn out a person.
The conspiracy would have gone on well before the Soviets existed. There would be no reason for them want the US to take the lead when their space program was used to prove their superiority. The US got involved to prove the same.
I sound ignorant how? In what way am I lacking knowledge in pointing out logic?
I would like for you to explain how I "propose[d] such a closed-minded dichotomy."
Yet, you don't put forward a logical argument for all governments and corporations all over the world, for centuries, engage in a conspiracy without even an explanation of why they would do that.
LOL. The difference between typos is irrelevant in whether a message was quoted properly.
Look at the history of what we said - I should have pinned you on this earlier.
Your initial message said:
"The sad reality of people that claim to believe in the flat Earth is that they are trolling or have some serious issues in believing the world has a massive conspiracy that serves no function."
I said:
"Who said the conspiracy serves no function? That's where you're strawmanning the position of many..."
Up to this point, I addressed your words verbatim. But you, being a silly goose, replied:
"That is not a strawman."
I replied:
"Your strawman is adding the "you believe they do it for no purpose" (because I hold that people here who suggest there is a conspiracy are not believing it is for 'no function', as you suggest).
Whereas it is apparent you jumped on the opportunity to obfuscate the issue by claiming 'strawman' on me for using the word purpose instead of function, even though I used it with the same meaning and even followed up with an established dictionary definition to justify it.
You are strawmanning people with your initial message, bottom line. When I paraphrased you as saying "purpose" instead of "function", I didn't change the meaning of your message. So by your own standards, I was not strawmanning you, because you admit strawmanning is changing the meaning, mischaracterizing an argument, which I did not do. Purpose meant function in that context, and an established dictionary backs it up.
You say I can't back up claims, well which ones? Can you back that claim up? I'll even back up my smallest claims. And when I do, you call it "focusing on meaningless things". I write noteworthy things, perhaps you just don't understand the noteworthiness of it.
I'm glad you won't respond to this further. This way I get the last word and we can move on.
Yet I attacked the actual thing you said. "Serves no function". You said that. That's your strawman, bud.
I want you to define it in the way you intended, genius. Are you saying you intended it to be defined as "purpose" after all? So you proved my point from the very beginning that I quoted you fairly, therefore no strawmanning on my end even on the account you were resting on? I'll take that as affirmative. Too bad you won't respond further to clarify.
No I'm not, I am directly addressing the topics of your messages, a common reasonable tactic.
You make a big issue about quotations, and when I get into the details of quotations, you call it "grasping at straws", "pointless", etc. Well if it's pointless, then why did you make it a notable deal to begin with? So you are gaslighting!
Moving on, what's "the topic"? We discussed multiple. Now you're pretending there's only one?
I can just as easily say you're avoiding the topic.
Last edited:
""You are grasping at straws and avoiding the topic """LOL.
Look at the history of what we said - I should have pinned you on this earlier.
Your initial message said:
"The sad reality of people that claim to believe in the flat Earth is that they are trolling or have some serious issues in believing the world has a massive conspiracy that serves no function."
I said:
"Who said the conspiracy serves no function? That's where you're strawmanning the position of many..."
Up to this point, I addressed your words verbatim. But you, being a silly goose, replied:
"That is not a strawman."
I replied:
"Your strawman is adding the "you believe they do it for no purpose" (because I hold that people here who suggest there is a conspiracy are not believing it is for 'no function', as you suggest).
Whereas it is apparent you jumped on the opportunity to obfuscate the issue by claiming 'strawman' on me for using the word purpose instead of function, even though I used it with the same meaning and even followed up with an established dictionary definition to justify it.
You are strawmanning people with your initial message, bottom line. When I paraphrased you as saying "purpose" instead of "function", I didn't change the meaning of your message. So by your own standards, I was not strawmanning you, because you admit strawmanning is changing the meaning, mischaracterizing an argument, which I did not do. Purpose meant function in that context, and an established dictionary backs it up.
You say I can't back up claims, well which ones? Can you back that claim up? I'll even back up my smallest claims. And when I do, you call it "focusing on meaningless things". I write noteworthy things, perhaps you just don't understand the noteworthiness of it.
I'm glad you won't respond to this further. This way I get the last word and we can move on.
Yet I attacked the actual thing you said. "Serves no function". You said that. That's your strawman, bud.
I want you to define it in the way you intended, genius. Are you saying you intended it to be defined as "purpose" after all? So you proved my point from the very beginning that I quoted you fairly, therefore no strawmanning on my end even on the account you were resting on? I'll take that as affirmative. Too bad you won't respond further to clarify.
No I'm not, I am directly addressing the topics of your messages, a common reasonable tactic.
You make a big issue about quotations, and when I get into the details of quotations, you call it "grasping at straws", "pointless", etc. Well if it's pointless, then why did you make it a notable deal to begin with? So you are gaslighting!
Moving on, what's "the topic"? We discussed multiple. Now you're pretending there's only one?
I can just as easily say you're avoiding the topic.
Which is exactly what you do
eg :-
How does a FLAT earth not allow Argentina to see the NORTH star yet allow Canada ?
No rush, do your research :)
So you comprehend the importance of taking time to do research in order to answer the question. You even tell me to "not rush" and "do my research".
Yet you call it "avoiding" when I don't answer right away.
You say, "Don't rush, do your research". Then you imply, "Look! He hasn't answered! He's avoiding the topic!" Does this seem to be gaslighting?
Perhaps I am working on addressing the topic by researching it, and therefore not avoiding it.
So what justification do you have to say I am avoiding the topic? At this point, would you not have to verify whether I am researching it?
