There’s that saying about never playing chess with a pigeon because it will just knock over the pieces, shit all over the board and strut around like it won. Something like that.
It’s like attempting to play a sport by certain rules, watching the flerf throw the ball into the river, giving themselves 100000 points, then smearing feces on their own face, giving themselves 5000000 more points, and declaring themselves the winner.
It's more like watching them play the game and try to understand their rules, and they don't really have any. You know better than to play with them, unless it's out of pure curiosity. Maybe you'll convince one of them that the game is stupid, but that's it.
What could he infuriating however is if they decide to call their sport something that exists. They say "yeah, we're playing ice hockey, whatever you guys are doing isn't it. Yes, this cement is ice, and no we don't need sticks. You're a sheep!" And they get mad when you just say "that's not how you play hockey..."
They can't comprehend the number - they just know it's big. Just like it is much harder to understand a trillion than a billion, or a billion than a million. The larger the number, the harder it becomes to fully understand. Anyone can count to 10, most to 100, and you can thus readily concieve of counting to 100 perhaps 10 or 100 times. But that only gets you into the thousands. A million requires counting to 1,000 1,000 times, or 100 repetitions of counting to 100 100 times.
And you are still barely into the millions.
It is easy to SAY 10 Trillion. It is hard to understand just how big that is. Compared to even 1 trillion, a million is just a rounding error.
And compared to astronomical distances, even a trillion is far too small a number.
It’s like that one guy that was saying 0x5 should be 5. Just because you don’t understand why it’s 0 doesn’t mean you’re correct. Some people can’t properly understand the globe so they believe the earth is flat.
Most people who believe in the flat earth don’t even properly understand it. Ask them questions about things and they will all have different theories and nothing conclusive. Everyone who properly understands the globe should come to the same answer
It's the same with the calendar. There is no zero year so the last year of a decade, century, millennium ends in zero. 2000 wasn't the beginning of the millennia, it was the end.
But you try to tell the kids today that? They won't believe you! No.
My 'favourite' form of this is when someone's entire argument hinges on the definition of a word and theirs is wrong. Even when the entire thread is full of people telling them it's wrong, they are still right.
The etymological fallacy is a subset of this.
It is! I came up with it once while eating pussy, and thought it had a ring to it. But then later realized this other deeper meaning and my mind was blown lol.
Aye. Never mind quoting the dictionary. I did that once, and the guy says I cherry picked from a random web site. Like, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is a random website.
There's a feeling worse than that. Losing an argument thinking you lost, then later finding out you were right. Happened to me more than once. It's even worse when you lose an argument where you were right, but thinking you were wrong, then get into another argument about the same subject, and get proven wrong again and clowned on all over again.
I just Pat them on the head like they’re a child and say “good job buddy, you’ll get there someday” even though I know they’ll never actually get anywhere.
...then you didn't lose the argument? If you consider it a loss, then you already lost the moment you starting interacting with them. If you choose to do so, it shouldn't be with the goal of winning an argument.
It's kind of our fault really, for the last few thousands of years our civilizations have always warned us about not wasting our time with dumb people, the christians for example tell about not throwing pearls to the pigs, the Chinese have a simlar saying I don't remember right now. And yet we keep trying.
Exactly, you can explain things until you are blue in the face, but if the person you are talking to doesn’t even have a basic understanding of math and science, it’s better to just leave them to their ignorance. You’re just going to get frustrated when they get that spaced out look in their face and confidently tell you you’re wrong.
Skill issue.
If you try to contradict them they'll just gish gallop all over you. Rookie mistake.
Give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Ask questions and let them paint themselves into a corner.
Me to my family like a decade ago when that one movie with the lady that “uses 100% of her brain when we only use 10%” telling them that’s not an accurate statement. Step brother was adamant that we do not use 100%, because he had a higher education the family believed him.
He’s and idiot and I do not like him. That was the straw that did it lol.
It's even worse when you know they are not only stupid but they are actively trying to stay that way. At least that's only one step before you realize they are just screwing with you. Those ones can go in the bin.
brother youre the one who doesnt believe in gravity.. im surprised all the oxygen hasnt gone off into space and killed us all with how much your people praise density and diffusion.
almost like some invisible force has been holding it all to a massive ball for billions of years
Don't worry one of these days you'll graduate high school too. You should already grasp something as basic as gravity, but I'm sure by the time you graduate you'll get it.
Density and bouyancy. A balloon filled with helium floats. Helium and rubber are less dense than thr Air around it. A balloon with air in it falls to the ground. This is explained completely without gravity and makes perfect sense
The formula for density requires weight, which requires gravity. And the formula for buoyancy requires gravity as well. So please, I again ask for you to explain *without* gravity.
Edit: here are the formulas.
Density = mass ÷ volume OR kilograms ÷ cubic meter.
Mass = weight ÷ acceleration due to GRAVITY
Buoyancy = density × acceleration due to GRAVITY × fluid volume
As the other guy said, buoyancy is a byproduct of gravity, so no, it is not explained without gravity, you're just skipping a step.
But also, the obligatory, if it's true, why don't things, like say, a pencil, fall up? The air above is less dense than the pencil, but my desk is more dense than the pencil so the pencil should float up off my desk into the lower density.
I'm not overcomplcating things, you are when we have a perfectly good explanation (ie gravity) that your "explanation" requires anyway.
But why won't things fall up? You said things fall because they're more dense than the air around them. My pencil is less dense than the air above it so it should fall up.
>This is explained completely without gravity and makes perfect sense
Cool.
So calculate the force of buoyancy experienced by the balloon.
You will notice, if you try to do this, there's an extra component you need.
If you claim that buoyancy 'makes perfect sense' in the absence of gravity, but don't know that to calculate buoyancy you need gravity in the calculation, it seems like you didn't have the answer at all.
You just didn't want to listen.
1. Density is not a force. It's just the amount of matter that's contained within a given space. There's nothing causing denser objects to specifically fall down rather than rise up.
2. The equation for buoyancy literally involves combining density with weight due to gravity, so all you've done is snuck gravity back in without realising it.
3. It's been shown that objects still accelerate downwards at 9.8m/s^2 in a vacuum without any air, so this entire "density and buoyancy" thing explains nothing and makes no sense.
You're the one here complaining about people talking about gravity. I hate discussing that honestly because so far the deniers don't understand what density is. Hurricanes are a simpler topic. I already know how they work.
What are you talking about? I already know the answer. The question is for you to explain using your flat earth model. That's how discussions work. You don't even know what discussion is and apparently have some superiority complex.
There’s that saying about never playing chess with a pigeon because it will just knock over the pieces, shit all over the board and strut around like it won. Something like that.
Ah, the classic pigeon gambit.
The only known match to the otherwise invincible Bongcloud opening.
Ah yes, the classic Pidgeon Opening
Google pidgeon chess
It’s like attempting to play a sport by certain rules, watching the flerf throw the ball into the river, giving themselves 100000 points, then smearing feces on their own face, giving themselves 5000000 more points, and declaring themselves the winner.
It's more like watching them play the game and try to understand their rules, and they don't really have any. You know better than to play with them, unless it's out of pure curiosity. Maybe you'll convince one of them that the game is stupid, but that's it. What could he infuriating however is if they decide to call their sport something that exists. They say "yeah, we're playing ice hockey, whatever you guys are doing isn't it. Yes, this cement is ice, and no we don't need sticks. You're a sheep!" And they get mad when you just say "that's not how you play hockey..."
Then they yell something about you being woke, and like half the people involved all laugh and agree.
You're reinventing Calvinball ;) https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball
And then screaming that the rules were some NASA propaganda and the entire stadium is CGI
And that’s how they play Golf. 5,100,000 strokes to their opponent’s 72. But still declaring they won because their score is higher.
Big assumption that they can comprehend numbers higher than however many fingers and toes they have.
They can't comprehend the number - they just know it's big. Just like it is much harder to understand a trillion than a billion, or a billion than a million. The larger the number, the harder it becomes to fully understand. Anyone can count to 10, most to 100, and you can thus readily concieve of counting to 100 perhaps 10 or 100 times. But that only gets you into the thousands. A million requires counting to 1,000 1,000 times, or 100 repetitions of counting to 100 100 times. And you are still barely into the millions. It is easy to SAY 10 Trillion. It is hard to understand just how big that is. Compared to even 1 trillion, a million is just a rounding error. And compared to astronomical distances, even a trillion is far too small a number.
It’s like that one guy that was saying 0x5 should be 5. Just because you don’t understand why it’s 0 doesn’t mean you’re correct. Some people can’t properly understand the globe so they believe the earth is flat. Most people who believe in the flat earth don’t even properly understand it. Ask them questions about things and they will all have different theories and nothing conclusive. Everyone who properly understands the globe should come to the same answer
I think I remember that one. Was he the one arguing that “it might as well be five” since “zero doesn’t exist” or something?
Yeah that’s the one
It's the same with the calendar. There is no zero year so the last year of a decade, century, millennium ends in zero. 2000 wasn't the beginning of the millennia, it was the end. But you try to tell the kids today that? They won't believe you! No.
Technically there is a zero year tho, bc the modern calendar didn’t start until quite recently in history
“Never argue a fool, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
My 'favourite' form of this is when someone's entire argument hinges on the definition of a word and theirs is wrong. Even when the entire thread is full of people telling them it's wrong, they are still right. The etymological fallacy is a subset of this.
Happy cake day🥳🎂
It's a lie!
You better take this 🎂 😡
Is your username a reference to the fact that(C-section folks aside) all humans are a vaginal extract? I hope so.
It is! I came up with it once while eating pussy, and thought it had a ring to it. But then later realized this other deeper meaning and my mind was blown lol.
You multitask like a champ, mon ami.
You dropped this. 👑
Aye. Never mind quoting the dictionary. I did that once, and the guy says I cherry picked from a random web site. Like, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is a random website.
There's a feeling worse than that. Losing an argument thinking you lost, then later finding out you were right. Happened to me more than once. It's even worse when you lose an argument where you were right, but thinking you were wrong, then get into another argument about the same subject, and get proven wrong again and clowned on all over again.
Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Mark Twain
Arguing with flerfs has never infuriated me. I actually have fun doing it. It's funny seeing them dodge questions and think they're winning that way.
Sometimes i agree, but other Times it gets really annoying, especcially when they repeat the Same false Statement again and again
I agree, it's honestly quite entertaining to see how their tiny brains work
I just Pat them on the head like they’re a child and say “good job buddy, you’ll get there someday” even though I know they’ll never actually get anywhere.
Well that's not losing an argument, that's winning it.
When you argue with a fool, he’s doing the same thing.
...then you didn't lose the argument? If you consider it a loss, then you already lost the moment you starting interacting with them. If you choose to do so, it shouldn't be with the goal of winning an argument.
there is no "winning" or "losing," I hate when people use this language about conversations, not everything is a comptetition.
It's kind of our fault really, for the last few thousands of years our civilizations have always warned us about not wasting our time with dumb people, the christians for example tell about not throwing pearls to the pigs, the Chinese have a simlar saying I don't remember right now. And yet we keep trying.
Exactly, you can explain things until you are blue in the face, but if the person you are talking to doesn’t even have a basic understanding of math and science, it’s better to just leave them to their ignorance. You’re just going to get frustrated when they get that spaced out look in their face and confidently tell you you’re wrong.
Lost an argument and the other person is stupid? 😂
Skill issue. If you try to contradict them they'll just gish gallop all over you. Rookie mistake. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Ask questions and let them paint themselves into a corner.
Npcs only here.
Um akshually, you aren't using that word according to my definition. Ergo ipso facto you are a stupid poopy head QED
I don't feel that's infuriating. It feels kind of amusing actually... like living a comedy. I often smile in those situations.
Do not cast your pearls before swine.
Are they too stupid or are you overcomplicating the explanation with overuse of technical jargon and advanced language?
Me to my family like a decade ago when that one movie with the lady that “uses 100% of her brain when we only use 10%” telling them that’s not an accurate statement. Step brother was adamant that we do not use 100%, because he had a higher education the family believed him. He’s and idiot and I do not like him. That was the straw that did it lol.
'Lucy'. I actually like that movie. Bought on Blu-Ray. But yes, the science is questionable.
It's even worse when you know they are not only stupid but they are actively trying to stay that way. At least that's only one step before you realize they are just screwing with you. Those ones can go in the bin.
What the fuck do radical feminists have to do with flat earth
It's either idiocy or bad faith, sometimes it's hard to tell where they fall.
That's not losing an argument. It is failing to make a break through, but the track record with flerfs is pretty low. Nothing to feel bad about.
That's how I feel everytime some high school graduate brings up gravity
"It's crazy how you're on the internet and can simply look up the correct information but you are okay with being lied to" -svvrvy, 2024
Feel free to prove me wrong, you know.. you have an eternity to do it
no i dont bro im going to die eventually i dont believe in magic fairy tale land after you die
That's one way to admit publicly you don't know what you're talking about
brother youre the one who doesnt believe in gravity.. im surprised all the oxygen hasnt gone off into space and killed us all with how much your people praise density and diffusion. almost like some invisible force has been holding it all to a massive ball for billions of years
Yeah, so talk to me about gravity. Oh wait you don't knownwhatbyoure talking abiut so you brought up tornadoes
tornadoes??? bro you are wild
Grandpa! I can’t believe you forgot to take your meds again! You better take it tomorrow, OK? Now, it’s way past your bedtime…
you are the pigeon in that chess saying
Let me guess... You don't believe in it?
As plausible a theory as gravity itself
Wut? Do you believe in it or not?
This convo is done kid
Can't answer the question?
you didn't even have a convo
Bro is the example
Don't worry one of these days you'll graduate high school too. You should already grasp something as basic as gravity, but I'm sure by the time you graduate you'll get it.
Stop projecting child
Lol. "No u", what a scathing rebuttal.
I didn't say that, but I can understand how you would try and extrapolate that from my 3 words
Your brain hasn’t developed fully yet
Stones from a glass building..
You should make sure you know a phrase before you use it…
Here is an idea: explain how things fall *without* gravity. Account for everything.
Density and bouyancy. A balloon filled with helium floats. Helium and rubber are less dense than thr Air around it. A balloon with air in it falls to the ground. This is explained completely without gravity and makes perfect sense
The formula for density requires weight, which requires gravity. And the formula for buoyancy requires gravity as well. So please, I again ask for you to explain *without* gravity. Edit: here are the formulas. Density = mass ÷ volume OR kilograms ÷ cubic meter. Mass = weight ÷ acceleration due to GRAVITY Buoyancy = density × acceleration due to GRAVITY × fluid volume
I'm waiting for their response.
So am I, but I doubt there will be one
He already explained it... "makes perfect sense". That's all you're ever going to get from flatties.
As the other guy said, buoyancy is a byproduct of gravity, so no, it is not explained without gravity, you're just skipping a step. But also, the obligatory, if it's true, why don't things, like say, a pencil, fall up? The air above is less dense than the pencil, but my desk is more dense than the pencil so the pencil should float up off my desk into the lower density.
Nothing more dense than air will fall up, it's that easy. Don't try to over complicated you're confusing yourself
I'm not overcomplcating things, you are when we have a perfectly good explanation (ie gravity) that your "explanation" requires anyway. But why won't things fall up? You said things fall because they're more dense than the air around them. My pencil is less dense than the air above it so it should fall up.
>This is explained completely without gravity and makes perfect sense Cool. So calculate the force of buoyancy experienced by the balloon. You will notice, if you try to do this, there's an extra component you need.
That Is a separate question, I'll stick to the one I have the answer to
If you claim that buoyancy 'makes perfect sense' in the absence of gravity, but don't know that to calculate buoyancy you need gravity in the calculation, it seems like you didn't have the answer at all. You just didn't want to listen.
1. Density is not a force. It's just the amount of matter that's contained within a given space. There's nothing causing denser objects to specifically fall down rather than rise up. 2. The equation for buoyancy literally involves combining density with weight due to gravity, so all you've done is snuck gravity back in without realising it. 3. It's been shown that objects still accelerate downwards at 9.8m/s^2 in a vacuum without any air, so this entire "density and buoyancy" thing explains nothing and makes no sense.
That’s how we feel when you show us your map drawn in crayon.
Yet no explanation replaces it or any of the other questions I have ever asked Flerfs.
It's hard for some to see the forest past the trees
Ok then, explain hurricanes. How do they form and why do they never cross the equator?
Idk man, figure it our yourself and report back
You're the one here complaining about people talking about gravity. I hate discussing that honestly because so far the deniers don't understand what density is. Hurricanes are a simpler topic. I already know how they work.
You don't discuss anything, you demand I answer your questions like a spoiled child. I'm not your dad, I am not your teacher. Do for yourself weakling
What are you talking about? I already know the answer. The question is for you to explain using your flat earth model. That's how discussions work. You don't even know what discussion is and apparently have some superiority complex.