You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Who is @baah? Who cares? ...... information warfare - up close and personal..
baah is VERY good at making replies. and replies about replies on replies.
Lots of replies, even.
baah is VERY good at making replies. and replies about replies on replies.
Lots of replies, even.
yeah, he becomes a moron the longer he writes ..
he conflates oceans to having ethical behavior (wtf???) - menatilly ill --- oh , and states logic revoles aorund subjectivity --or something.. He needs help..
I wonder who it really is...
I'd put my money on one of four people...
(that's if it's not a legiimate basement dweller . One who gets an erectio, when he looks over at his antifa flag in the corner).
Sure I do, lol.
Hey, who's property rights are violated or who's consent is violated for it to be an ethical dilemma?
Missed that one again? If no property or consent is violated then what is the ethical dilemma? If no property CAN be violated, how is that encouraging unethical behavior?
Posted using Partiko Android
!dramatoken
It cant.
It's also impossible to be free market, at the same time.
Free markets a predicated on exchange of property.
Upvoting is allocating value or moving property that doesn't belong to you.
It only belongs to you after 7 days.
( the reward pool doesn't belong to anyone , right?)
#must-bake-in-codes-of-ethics
#muh-libretarian
Posted using Partiko Android
#we-agree-says-the-clown
Posted using Partiko Android
The clown troupe is gathering, welcome. How's that going for you, convinced that the earth being round is a psyop still?
Posted using Partiko Android
Since i see two big things:
These are two verifiable facts.
You can verify them both by yourself.
The conclusion from just these two pieces state that
"the earth being round is a psyop"
As if NASA is the singular authority in the world on the shape of the world.
Evidence? What evidence exactly?
You are so whack that you think that the sun does not raise over the horizon or fall behind it. That is whack ass shit. Ironically, you see though that NASA is, and I quote, SELLING the ball "theory".
None of your crap for shit theories explain the horizon, in fact, you resorted to theorizing something that cannot ever be proven or measured, or that what we see is an illusion, earth is flat but Space is warped to appear otherwise.
You believe that psychopaths control and manipulate numerous nations with thoroughly developed space programs that routinely send satellites into orbit to lie about something that to regular people is completely inconsequential, simply to fool people.
Water curves. Too bad it's only an illusion by your "theory" that literally cannot be proven as it invalidates any kind of observation based on light and posits that space is an illusion, folded to look like a sphere.
Posted using Partiko Android
Do you understand that this is why lucylin made this post?
You have made many assumptions that i do not attest to, and have projected at least two steps from what i said in a false direction.
i made two statements of fact.
You jumped to conclusions.
Now, if you would care to explain something, how does the horizon rise to the level of your eye no matter how high up you go? Whether you are in an airplane flying at altitude, atop Mt. Everest, or at the beach. The horizon is at your eye level.
Explain how that is possible in a ball earth model?
You think that "I see NASA selling" is a statement of fact?
I responded to this post, without leaving any stone unturned. What the heck are you talking about, asking me if I understand?
What assumptions I made, Mr. Spherical earth is a psyop?
It does not raise to the level of they eye however far up you go. If you want to know, the earth is huge, by it's scale, from 100 miles high, you can discern clearly the curvature but even at that height the horizon is not that far down. From everest or an airplane you barely can. It's possible, all you had to do is make a scale model and prove that by the same scale it's not possible.
Like I did here:
https://steemit.com/water/@naturowlmystic/re-ceattlestretch-re-naturowlmystic-re-ceattlestretch-re-naturowlmystic-thank-you-movingman-water-has-a-danged-memory-20180530t180758971z
Your theoretical model does not explain the horizon, or why the water curves, you said that the sun does not go behind the horizon, it only gets farther and farther away. Whack.
Posted using Partiko Android
Lol wow.
Posted using Partiko Android
Too bad that your theoretical model cannot ever even be depicted, or tested for, how convenient. If I point out that there is no horizon on your model, and in fact things need to move up the further away they are, especially depending on which direction you're facing, with the only horizon happening on the funnel part of the toroid, a concave horizon, you can simply conveniently claim that it's "painted" like that.
Idiots, idiots braying along idiots that don't even know what ethics means, or how meritocracy is based on equity, or that they are using equity not ethics in their argument. Can't win with idiots, you're here claiming I made assumptions. What a whack ass clown.
Posted using Partiko Android
Do you understand that you are just being an ass?
You are pulling in quotes from other "replies".
Replies are not a full story.
And i am sure you know that.
So, you are trying to poke holes in replies by cherry picking from replies.
That is annoying.
Of course my theory isn't fleshed out. Well DUH!
And then you use ad hominems.
Lastly, you avoid answering any tough questions yourself.
Which tough questions did I avoid you clown? You claimed I made assumptions when I was simply pointing out your own theory, your own whack ass "painted" theory. You try to avoid that by your own logic/theory NASA could not be deceiving anyone about the shape of the world since it's painted as you claimed. You asked me about the curvature / horizon and dismissed the link and obvious proof of what the scale is and what it would take for the horizon to go down. You make it seem that I Only called you a clown and had nothing else to say. Idiot.
Posted using Partiko Android
What did I seemingly not understand about this post as you sought to imply? What assumptions did I make? Zilch. Nada, you had nothing to submit for those claims. You began talking about me, you responded to a slanderous post about me, and you sit there in your hypocrisy and tell me I've used ad hominems. How convenient you whack ass idiot clown, you seemingly chimed in support of this utterly slanderous post that is as idiotic as it gets, as it's almost completely one slurry of attacks on me after another, but let me mock your baffonnes of "the space time is painted" and call you a clown, that's unacceptable. Whack ass fucking idiot.
Posted using Partiko Android
Calling you a name is an ad hominem.
Calling your theory idiotic is not.
So, you may say i disagree with your points here and here, for such and such.
But you may not say, because you believe such, you are a clown.
Now, as a proponent of ideas that are not main-stream, i expect ridicule of the ideas. I however, expect you to be civil and contain your comments to the theory.
This is how your comments usually go:
Me: i believe X
You: Because you believe X, therefore Y and Z, and Z is just stupid, so you are stupid.
However, i do not believe in Y or Z. They only exist in your head. And they exist because of your ASSUMPTIONS.
Of course, if you accept the current science narrative, X, therefore Y and Z. However, since i am speaking of things outside what mainstream science believes is pat-scienct, then wouldn't it be better for you to, you know, maybe assume that i do not believe in those conclusions either?
You calling me "Whack ass fucking idiot" for believing Z, is not very nice. Especially when Z is all in your head.
By your own theory, how could anyone, especially NASA fool anybody else about the shape of the world if they simply are fooled by the illusion that space and light acts as it does.
Muh logic.
Posted using Partiko Android
In NASA's own words, they hired somebody to piece together satellite photos and then plot that onto a sphere and make it look like people expect the world to look.
They said it, not me.
So what? As if that proves anything, as if stitching together satellite imagery (satellites wtf, is that a conspiracy also?) proves that the world is flat. Idiots.
Posted using Partiko Android
By your own theory, if space is not what it appears to be, if light, water and horizon are illusion, how could you claim that NASA is hiding the shape of the world (as if NASA is the authority on the shape of the world which people have been decapitated for arguing that it is round and not at the center of the universe) when your theory says that the shape is an illusion, it appears like that, without any shred of evidence to substantiate that hare brain cacophony.
Posted using Partiko Android
!dramatoken
The nonstop drama of "logical consistent" cacophony.
Posted using Partiko Android
!dramatoken
You have
DRAMA!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.