Registered bored user

DrCribbens wrote:
squrlz4ever You're right, of course. And no, I'm not offended. 

Some time ago I posted a message saying I'm done with IAB. I came to the realisation that I was spending time on here that I could be more profitably spending doing almost anything else; reading a good book, pursuing my hobbies, learning something useful etc etc. IAB and sites like it are chewing gum for the brain. They're what we do while we're just waiting for time to pass. When I think about it, I find that a bit depressing.

Now this is all well and good if I find myself with two minutes to kill before I can turn my attention to something more worthwhile, but the problem with IAB is that it sucks you in. And so I decide I'm not going to come here any more because it's a waste of time and then, a couple of weeks or months later, I just look in to see what's going on and lo and behold, there's a post from MonkWarrior that I find offensive and can't help replying to. (Because, while I don't find your comment offensive, I do find it offensive when flat earthers and moon hoaxists try to contaminate everyone else with their idiocy, and who flout their ridiculous beliefs and then refuse to defend them. Monkwarrior is, without any doubt, a troll, and I fall for it every time). 

And then, suddenly, before I realise it, here I am. I'm complaining about wasting my time at the same time as trying to logically debate with a flat-earther who is so aware of the short-comings of his own argument that he is unwilling (or unable) to address a single point I raise. Surely that's the very definition of a waste of time.

So thanks, Squrlz. You've brought me to my senses. I can't find a way to delete my account, so I've just changed the username and password to something I don't know. If you could do me a favour and permanently ban my IP address that would be a big help in stopping me give in to temptation. 
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior I give up. What would be the point of proving anything to you? You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand a sentence that consists of words of no more than 2 syllables. So, just for the record, you said:

"Testimony does help a great deal in relation to God.  But when the testimony and 'evidence' smells fishy such as in the example of the moon landing, there's reason to question."

I replied: 

"Irrelevant. While I'm quite happy to prove to you that the moon landing did happen, we're talking about the flat earth. There is absolutely nothing 'fishy' about the proof that the earth is a globe, only ignorant flat-earthers who don't understand the basic science."

In other words, you (not me) tried to change the subject of the discussion to the moon landing and I said that wasn't relevant to the thread and said that we're not talking about the moon landing here, but the flat earth "theory".

You've shown that you're unable to follow the most simple argument or answer the most simple question. (By the way, if you're wondering, the answer is 'yes, it does get dark at night'.)

Having realised that the simple question utterly proves your ridiculous flat-earth idea false you desperately try to change the subject and distort my words in the most transparent and childish way.

Don't you think that your tactics are utterly obvious?

I tried reducing the argument to the simplest terms. It really doesn't get more straightforward than 'does it get dark at night', but you're still just not capable of understanding it. I'm sorry. I can't make it any easier for you to understand. I'm done. Enjoy your ignorance.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior You see, that's why I'm convinced you're a troll.

Is that what you think that sentence means? (NB I said 'sentence', not 'sentence fragment'.) If I said to you "I have absolutely no doubt that there is no possible way the earth is flat", would it be reasonable for you to then quote me as saying "the earth is flat"? Because that's what you've just done. You've just quoted part of a sentence I wrote to show that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. I know what I meant. You know what I meant. Are you so scared of giving me a straight answer to a simple question that you're so desperately trying to wriggle out of it?

So please stop avoiding the subject and give me the one and only straight answer I've ever seen you give on this forum. It's not a difficult question. It's not a trick question. Everybody on earth ould give me a one word answer to this question. Can you?

Does it get dark at night?
DrCribbens wrote:
fancylad Sorry.

How in the hell would I know what school children do in other countries? 

I wasn't being deliberately provocative. I just thought it was common knowledge. I'm not American or, say, Swedish, but I know that American schoolchildren are expected to swear allegiance every morning and Swedish ones aren't.

Is this information something that everyone else has at the tip of their tongues? 

I thought so, yes. But as I say, one of the stereotypes of Americans is that they generally know very little of the world outside of America.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior Wrong again, I'm afraid. We're discussing (although I use the word advisedly) the flat earth, not the moon landing. Like all flat-earthers and moon hoaxists, you're misquoting something to make a false point. What I actually said was "While I'm quite happy to prove to you that the moon landing did happen, we're talking about the flat earth."

So. Because of your misunderstanding of facts and assumptions, we're going to start from basic principles and then work up to proving that the earth isn't flat.

Does it go dark at night? Are you willing to concede that as a fact rather than an assumption?
DrCribbens wrote:
fancylad Pretty much.

It's pretty well established in the rest of the world that Americans suffer from what Bill Bryson calls 'The London, England Syndrome', meaning that American newspapers have to refer to London as 'London, England' so that their readers won't think 'London... I've heard of that. Is it in Oregon?"
DrCribbens wrote:
squrlz4ever Thanks. I don't spend much time here at all any more. I just popped my head round the door as I was passing and got sucked into a discussion with MonkWarrior, but I've pretty much given up on that because so far it's consisted almost entirely of

Me: It goes dark at night.
Him: You're just making assumptions.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior I'm pretty sure I've proved that it goes dark at night.
DrCribbens wrote:
holygod I think the UK has a special membership of the Fahrenheit club. Brits tend to use Celcius for low temperatures and Fahrenheit for high temperatures. I think we're the only people who can use both measurements in the same sentence and everyone knows what we mean. 

"It's freezing out there! It must be 5 below! Not like last week when it was 75 in the shade."
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. Whatever you do, don't address the issue. I've just given you two examples of clear contradictions in the Bible. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALLAA isn't a discussion.

2. Yes. Proof means "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement". Assume means "suppose to be the case". Are you telling me that I'm only supposing that the sun sets and that there's no proof that it does so? You're so keen on needing to see something with your own eyes before you'll believe it (except God, obvs). You can see the sunset with your own eyes. You can watch it go below the horizon. What about that isn't proven?

3. All the people that have been to so-called Russia are in on the conspiracy. Otherwise why is it that nobody in history ever mentioned the Soviet Union before 1917? Did it just appear? No, I don't think so. That was when America invented it in order to justify military spending.
DrCribbens wrote:
"Hey IABers from other countries, how do your schools handle the pledge of allegiance?"

I'm still trying to work out whether that's irony or whether Americans actually think that any other countries make their kids say a pledge of allegiance.

As far as I know it's just you people and North Korea.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. Nevertheless, they're there. Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Or Mark 16:8, Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:4 and John 20:4-14. Etc etc etc

2. And I'm still waiting for you to learn what the word 'assumption' means. You seem to actually be saying that sunrise and sunset are assumptions. Interesting.

3. Yes you did. When I said Russia didn't exist, you said "And you can think whatever you like, but i work with some people from Russia, so it's not a question for me."
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. Are you saying there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?

2. So explain it to me. Let's start with the basics. Does the sun rise and set? Is this consistent with a flat earth?

3. How is it a fallacy? You say it's impossible to say the earth is a globe because you haven't seen it. I say it's impossible to say Russia exists because I've never seen it. It's the exact same argument. Why is one of them a fallacy?
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. The bible is so full of mistranslations, mistakes and contradictions that it's the reason i don't believe in god.

2. Ah, I remember now. You don't know what 'assume' means. Tell me one thing I said that was an assumption and show me how it was wrong.

3.Only a flat-earther would dismiss knowledge as irrelevant. And your colleagues say they're from Russia, but then they would, wouldn't they? They're in on the hoax. Russia was invented by Americans to justify their arms budget.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. Oh cool. Sorry. I didn't realise. Have you met him? Can you describe what happened? Can you let me know his address? I just want a quick word with him about famine, cot death and tooth decay.

2. Night and day. Time zones. And don't tell me the sun just goes round in a circle above the earth, because, aside from being impossible, it doesn't match with observation. First of all, the sunlight would have to travel straight down rather than radiating to the sides, or everyone would be able to see the sun all the time. Also, the sun's apparent size would constantly change as it moved across the sky, because from the viewpoint of a person on the earth for part of the circle the sun would be travelling directly away from or towards them. Also, for the same reason, the sun's speed would increase or decrease, from the point of an earthbound observer, depending on which part of the circle it was on. Also, we wouldn't actually see the sun rise and set every day. We'd just see it get further away. Eclipses. We can see the earth's shadow on the moon. Is the shadow flat? Nope. So how can the earth be flat? I could go on for pages and pages, if I thought there was any point or any chance of you objectively considering these facts.

3. Who said experience is everything? What about logic and science and thousands of years of accumulated knowledge? I don't know anyone who has ever been to Russia. I'm beginning to think Russia is a hoax.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. I can meet him? Physically meet him? Or I can get a vague sense of there perhaps being something out there if I think about it and maybe be a bit depressed and have undefined worries about life and stuff and maybe just hope that there's something more to life? Or, like, meet him?

2. No, you can prove the moon landing without resorting to what you're calling 'authority' (although I don't know what you mean by that). Just as you can prove the shape of the earth with logic and science without having to take anyone's word for it.

3. So the only evidence you'll accept is seeing the entire globe for yourself? Not half the globe? Not a section of the globe that would logically infer the rest of it exists? The whole globe and nothing less. And yet you accept the existence of Jesus and the fact that he's god because some Greeks said so 2000 years ago. Curious.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. But you can't see him. You can see that the earth is round. Yet you believe in one but not the other.

2. Irrelevant. While I'm quite happy to prove to you that the moon landing did happen, we're talking about the flat earth. There is absolutely nothing 'fishy' about the proof that the earth is a globe, only ignorant flat-earthers who don't understand the basic science.

3. Er... what? As I've told you before, Concorde flew high enough to see the curvature of the earth. Are all Concorde passengers in on the conspiracy?
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior 1. And I keep saying, how ironic it is for such a committed Christian to refuse to believe something until he's seen it with his own eyes.

2. Relying on witness testimony is a much less reliable way to establish the facts than through scientific proof (note I didn't use the word 'theory'). The idea that you would disbelieve these proofs but be happy to believe what a friend told you is, frankly, bizarre.

3. You don't have to go into space to see the curvature of the earth. Thousands upon thousands of people have seen it from high altitude planes. You don't believe them. Why would you believe people who had been into space?
DrCribbens wrote:
Fojos I think you'll find that it's pretty generally accepted that the US is the most hated imperialist state in the world.
DrCribbens wrote:
Now Trump has started separating 4-year-old children from their parents and locking them in cages, America has lost the right to number itself among the civilised nations of the world, and any American who is not doing everything they can to get Trump out of office is complicit in evil.

Hang your head in shame, America.
DrCribbens wrote:
I've been away from this site for weeks and weeks. Today in a moment of boredom I thought i'd nip by and see what was going on. The first link I click on turns out to be a monkwarrior diatribe about complete nonsense, most of which is demonstrably false or, at best, entirely misconceived and showing an utter misunderstanding of the matter at hand.

I see some things never change. 

I guess I'll be away again then. I'll try again in a few months.
DrCribbens wrote:
Squrlz - genuinely sorry to see you go. You were one of the folks on here I could depend on to make insightful, intelligent and funny comments. It's a shame that you've been driven out by someone like 5Cats, who will undoubtedly see this as some sort of victory. 

I used to think it important that there was someone on here to counter his hatred: a wise man once said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to delete their profiles. But now I'm not so sure. People like 5Cats have neither the wit nor intelligence to enter into a grown-up debate and, like a child, just crave attention, and any attention is relished whether its positive or negative. I've asked before now for him to be banned and it's a shame that it's gone this far before something was done.

And so while I'm sorry to see you go, I don't blame you. 

In fact, I'll go further and join you, but not because of 5Cats. This site used to be different. It used to be a silly little place (I mean that as a compliment) where I could go and waste some time and usually laugh. Now it's just something else that Trump has ruined.

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that there is very little chance I'll be lying on my death bed and thinking "I wish I'd spent more time reading pointless bollocks on the internet." I need to spend more time doing something worthwhile. I'm a writer. I need to finish my second novel and while I'm looking at this site I'm not doing that.

I've never created a post on here and only occasionally replied to an existing one, so I doubt that if I didn't announce my leaving anyone would notice that I'm gone, but if I was going to do so I thought this was as good a place as any.

Best wishes to everyone.

Well, nearly everyone.
DrCribbens wrote:
So the argument is "AR-15s are OK because they haven't killed as many people as some other things I'm thinking of"? That's really the best you've got? By that logic, ISIS are OK because they didn't kill as many people as Stalin.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Genuinely hilarious argument.

If I was going to write a sarcastic post to illustrate the idiocy of the gun strokers, this is what I'd write.
DrCribbens wrote:
The moment when he undermines his entire argument in one sentence: "Most crime isn't committed with AR15s, it's committed with handguns."

Right. So there isn't a problem with handguns then?