Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain
55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b
A concrescence of Mind fumbling with the controls of this meat chariot. Nostr onl

I'm thinking a new npub called "flerf smerf" could be fun, if its not already taken

Replying to Avatar Sovereign Being

Flat earth is a catch all term for the topic. Most honest flerfs will state we don't know what the exact shape is, but it appears flat based on long distance observations, or more specifically, it isn't curving. It can be many other things, but a curved ball it cannot be.

Similarly, the second claim is there is no measured movement. Objectively, movement has never been measured. The best evidence presented for it is foucaults pendulum, and the issues are too much to get into with text alone. Just one simple thing though, it needs to be manually started and the rate of procession would vary depending on latitude (not demonstrated).

The basic tenets of a debate are logical fallacies. Keep on top of those and you're 90% of the way there. I've watched dozens, maybe hundreds of debates on the topic. The dishonesty almost entirely comes from the mainstream side, ever shifting the goalposts as their points are knocked down one after the other. That was one of the things that opened my eyes, since anyone who ever first stumbles onto the topic will always do so with skepticism or trying to debunk it.

I do enjoy how people tend to push this to pilosophy as the ground is removed from their shaky positions. The key points to our position are primarily that the claim of the globe is repeatedly debunked and that motion has never been proven. Anything else further than that is speculation. The default position is we are standing still, and the onus is on the party making the claim of motion. Unfalsifiable claims don't count, and that's largely what that position is based off of.

flerf? That's cool, I like it. K, back to reading

I watched the video you linked about the earth being flat. It's not that no one can debate that guy - it's just too much work. If we have to return to the most basic premises, then that's a philosophical debate. If the strategy of a debater is to outlast his opponent by making extravagant demands and more assertions than can be handled by one person, then the result will be that no one wants to engage in debate. That doesn't make him the victor - it makes him dishonest.

And frankly, flat earth is just lazy. There are very good alternative ways to explain the earth, which would be philosophically consistent with observation while not being materialist. I can and do regularly offer alternative explanations. That's not because I believe the alternative explanation, but rather because being fully sovereign requires the ability to invent my own language of metaphysic.

There is an easy way you can spot falsehood - just see if you can develop the model further. Reality is continuous ; communication, and thus models, are discreet. A perfectly accurate model would allow infinite detail - that's not possible, but you can apply the concept in the other direction. If a model has a cut off point, where further building is impossible, then its wrong. Flat earth is rationally wrong (rationally flat, lol) in probably an infinite number of ways, and failure to find any of these ways is proof of laziness.

Nukes are real. Someone in my family worked on the Manhattan Project.

The real psyop is how they've memory holed the fact that they nuked the city that was nicknamed "the capital of Christianity in Asia" - Nagasaki. Its a lot less Christian now. They literally targeted the cathedral in their sights to drop the bomb. There were actual military targets nearby that would have made sense ; there were even other cities that would have made more sense. They nuked that city because it was Christian.

This one resonated with me because of the value of "no." A person's ability to be their own person begins with No. But the placing of the No matters - slave morality says No to the self, drawing a circle around self and dividing self from other, but choosing to deny self in favor of other. Master morality says Yes to self, and Yes to other, but it begins with the ability to say No.

Or in vastly simpler terms : those who go along to get along are slaves.

One of the interesting things is how "blue" states voted for Trump. Hawaii is a perfect example. Democrats control every institution in Hawaii, without exception. Its a one party state, like China. But the people tell a different story. Its a very strong indication that their state level institutions are being rigged.

Red is the counties that voted mostly for Trump ; blue voted for Harris

This map is fascinating, and I keep referring back to it. Places that I thought were woke deadzones now appear to be travel options again. I don't identify as red, but blue is a legit safety concern.

That's the life... I need to get to that style of living

Heard "Poyais" mentioned, and found an awesome bit of economic history. Poyais is a fictional country and part of the grandest scam in history. It is blamed for the crash of 1825, which is supposedly the first crash in the repeating boom-bust cycle that we're still in.

After reading the wikipedia entry for it, I am even more convinced that the business of lending should be illegal. Not that lending should be illegal - but doing so as a business, meaning banks. They had hard money, but bank issued credit and paper, despite being built atop equity, allowed them to expand and contract the money supply.

Hard money isn't enough. Its a piece, but not the whole solution. Banks can't be allowed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1825