Ok I'm back, From what I gathered in my scholarly 3-minute cyber research (lol)
The Earth is flat, but government/scientists/THE MAN wants you to believe that the Earth is spherical because:
They want to turn you away from the literal truth that was written in the bible, thus leading society away from god
They do not want you to know about the mass beyond the ice border, which contain resources that are hidden from us plebeians
They want to promote spherical Earth, along with other lies, so that we are bombarded with all these lies to the point where we cannot know the truth anymore, thus making us easy to manipulate.
There are others, like government tax, plain old Illuminati-level trolling, lizard people, science-is-not-real, but... WOW. Now having read all this, I wonder, WHAT IF, in the off chance that it is, Flat Earthers, and conspiracy theorists in general, were proven to be correct. And all of this is precisely why we find it funny in the first place, we have lost the capacity to see beyond the lies that THE MAN has been force feeding us since we were fetuses. Mygad! I think I don't know what to think anymore?!!
On September 28 2017 11:32 Jerubaal wrote: @TwinkleToes- Sounds like you wasted a lot of time reading shit.
Your tone aside, very true, but that was ages ago when I was young and naive and impressionable. Right now, I hesitate, cringe even, to introduce such words as "epistemology" into the discussion unless the general exchange has already reached that level. It just sounds childish to me.
I like how you're simultaneously trying to say you're smarter than me and to stop using "big words". I mean your entire response was an insult, but I'm using childish fallacies. OK.
If "hurr durr people iz so dumb" is the level you wish to remain at, please don't let me get in your way.
But for the sake of preserving my good faith, let me break it down into jive for the cool kids: When assholes who think they know more than they do go around saying that they have all the answers, other people start noticing they don't in fact have all the answers and start doubting everything. Did I break it down for you enough?
Maybe you missed the "endearingly", but it was an honest attempt to convey the light-hearted nature of my comment. Too bad you took offense as I was hoping it'd be a cordial discussion on our take on the phenomenon on flat Earthers at some critical level. You have to trust me, there is no other way to convey my guilty pleasure of reading your post and not seeing how I would have had written it, without conveying some antagonism on whose smarter or who has the better reading list. Like I said, I just wanted you to express it more clearly and directly so I know how to respond.
But maybe the glass is irreparably broken at this point due to miscommunication or whatever the reason is, but I'm sure you'd agree with me this is a silly matter to be straining ourselves in, especially that it is only an incidental topic on this thread.
On September 28 2017 02:07 JimmiC wrote: I Wonder how different Pitno's legacy and pops for that matter, would be if lottery balls bounced different and duncan was a celtic?
Not sure if it matters. Pitino's system, which revolves around pressing and zone defenses at the college level, just doesn't work in the NBA. + Show Spoiler +
As a pretty diehard college basketball fan (I've had Wichita State season tickets for 16 years) it's all pretty sickening. We lost to Louisville in the Final Four in 2013 and it really pisses you off to know they were cheating the entire time. Being caught and having their national title taken away doesn't mean much when they still robbed other teams of opportunities.
As far as the whole FBI deal, I expect to hear a lot more within the next few weeks as the people from Adidas and Nike are going to bring everyone down with them
Pitino's system also used a fast break offense that emphasized quick scoring. He had sex with that woman who was blackmailing him for less than 10 seconds.
On September 28 2017 14:34 Twinkle Toes wrote: Maybe you missed the "endearingly", but it was an honest attempt to convey the light-hearted nature of my comment. Too bad you took offense as I was hoping it'd be a cordial discussion on our take on the phenomenon on flat Earthers at some critical level. You have to trust me, there is no other way to convey my guilty pleasure of reading your post and not seeing how I would have had written it, without conveying some antagonism on whose smarter or who has the better reading list. Like I said, I just wanted you to express it more clearly and directly so I know how to respond.
But maybe the glass is irreparably broken at this point due to miscommunication or whatever the reason is, but I'm sure you'd agree with me this is a silly matter to be straining ourselves in, especially that it is only an incidental topic on this thread.
Cheers.
You can start by making a substantive criticism. I really don't think what I wrote was that complicated.
I don't think you're going to solve this issue by beating people over the head with facts. You're effectively saying the solution to anti-science propaganda is pro-science propaganda. It's a reaction to an unreasonable faith in technocracy; the solution is a reasonable role of technocracy.
On September 28 2017 14:34 Twinkle Toes wrote: Maybe you missed the "endearingly", but it was an honest attempt to convey the light-hearted nature of my comment. Too bad you took offense as I was hoping it'd be a cordial discussion on our take on the phenomenon on flat Earthers at some critical level. You have to trust me, there is no other way to convey my guilty pleasure of reading your post and not seeing how I would have had written it, without conveying some antagonism on whose smarter or who has the better reading list. Like I said, I just wanted you to express it more clearly and directly so I know how to respond.
But maybe the glass is irreparably broken at this point due to miscommunication or whatever the reason is, but I'm sure you'd agree with me this is a silly matter to be straining ourselves in, especially that it is only an incidental topic on this thread.
Cheers.
You can start by making a substantive criticism. I really don't think what I wrote was that complicated.
I don't think you're going to solve this issue by beating people over the head with facts. You're effectively saying the solution to anti-science propaganda is pro-science propaganda. It's a reaction to an unreasonable faith in technocracy; the solution is a reasonable role of technocracy.
There was nothing remotely complicated with what you wrote. It is the language that I find worth pointing out. I mean try reading this sentence in a couple of years and see if it won't make you chuckle a bit then" "The solution is to promote a reasonable epistemology and limits for natural science and technology."
I am not promoting any propaganda. I am only addressing the issue head on, in a manner I believe that it should and can be most effectively addressed. And if you understood what you are trying to express, you won't even need to go and summon some post-enlightenment rhetoric about distrust of technocracy. There is no singular organized movement that is a "reaction to an unreasonable faith in technocracy" as you clumsily put it. There is, as it there has always been in the beginning of time, manipulative and maleducated people who have found a bigger platform for misinformation, and gullible or naive people who are victimized by the former. The solution is multi-pronged, but at it's core is education.
When this topic reared it's head in mainstream sports discourse through Kyrie, one of the initial effects was on grade school kids who now believe the Earth is flat because of Kyrie. The solution is not, contrary to your belief, is a passive meditation on the "role of technocracy" as you once again clumsily put it. That is neither here nor there. In fact, this approach surrenders so much ground that we as modern society have gained through centuries of rational and methodical examination of the universe. Philosophers and anyone in the academe can argue about the philosophical and sociological dimensions of science to no end, and it would be productive.
But on our level here, and in the context of Kyrie, his fellow basketball players, and the children who are influenced by them, we can start the discussion most effectively by explaining that 1) there are authorities on this matter, and they are authorities because 2) they have comprehensively studied the matter using rigorous methods that can be copied and verified by everyone, and that 3) the result of these studies are part of mainstream body of knowledge (which we learn in school). Add the caveat, however, that one of the most important tenets of science is that knowledge is tentative. We depend upon the newest and most accurate methods with which to draw upon our conclusions. As such, what was true before may not anymore be true now. Similarly, what is true now may not be true anymore in the future. In the matter of the Earth being flat, such change or controversy in mainstream knowledge does not exist because there are mountains of evidence to support it and none that reasonably challenge it. The discussion can proceed then from this premise. It is not necessary to bring up the epistemology or role of science and technology in this discussion.
This is one of the most effective ways to draw Kyrie and other truthers to a reasonable discussion.
We were supposed to sign with the Cavs but something happened We were supposed to sign with the Rockets but something happened We were supposed to sign with the Blazers but something happened We were supposed to sign with the Nets but something happened We were supposed to sign with the Shanghai Sharks but something happened We were supposed to sign with the Kazakstan Jawas but something happened
Well, looks like I'm going to be playing fantasy basketball for the first time and I have no idea what I'm doing. The league I joined is head to head each category.
Ya, I was doing preliminary research on players. I was surprised at how well GSW players did last year on fantasy. While all the talk was on Westbrook's and Harden's numbers, Curry and Durant weren't too far below in the fantasy rankings. I assumed that the GSW players would eat into each other's numbers. Even Klay Thompson was around the top 30, IIRC, while not doing much besides scoring.
That's true. They do help in 3 categories (3-pt field goals, pts and ft%). They do take a hit on fg%, shooting a huge amount of 3-pt shots but still better than most. Durant did not make take and make many 3-pt fgs last year compared to previous years, but it helped his fg%. Thompson's regular season fg% was much higher than I thought, probably because I mostly remembered how god awful his shooting was in the playoffs. And he doesn't have many TO's because he just shoots the moment he gets the ball.
My league has a category for TOs, which brings Westbrook and Harden down a little towards the pack. Bad fg% doesn't help, either. They were still the best, but not by the margins I thought they would be.
And apparently, Lebron's ft% yips last year brought his fantasy value down. Tim Duncan had a similar year, when he actually dropped to Shaq levels at the free throw line. I remember him fixing it eventually.
Any one in an NBA fantasy league ...i recommend ...stay away from Kawhi Leonard. He has "right quad tendinopathy".
Leonard has been dealing with right quad problems since March 2016 and probably tendonitis in that quad tendon. Tendonitis is an overuse injury. Like you get it in the middle of a season where you've been playing way too much. you don't get it BEFORE you start playing a lot. He has had the entire summer to heal up. like WTF?
After you've been battling Tendonitis a long time you can develop Tendinopathy... where the tendon isn't healing properly even after adequate rest.
basically, Leonard's right quad tendon is fucked and the DRs have no idea why.
When this topic reared it's head in mainstream sports discourse through Kyrie, one of the initial effects was on grade school kids who now believe the Earth is flat because of Kyrie.
I'd like to point out that in the last discussion we had, you assured me that there was no chance that LaVar Ball could influence anyone and yet here you are claiming Kyrie is going to influence children. Won't someone please think of the children?
Also, you invoked Michel Foucault as the supreme authority in theories of human influence but now you're the standard bearer of scientific fact
I think I'm in a performance art exhibition, lads. I'm really sad that some people may be giving these posts a cursory glance and conclude that they are in any way equivalent. I generally find it a good policy to not be insulting. Have fun eating your 7 Layer Projection Bean Dip.
@Jerubal, you are obviously making no attempt to read and understand what I wrote. This exchange has dragged on for so long that I do not remember details anymore unless I dig them up, but did I not quote Foucault as a reading material on philosophy when I was young and naive, to paraphrase myself. Surely, you realize the influence gap between Kyrie (bonafide superstar who children see almost everyday and try to copy) and Lavar Ball (obnoxious self promoter)?
Anyway, I think you are just trying to to prolong this discussion in an effort to win no matter what. I have expressed my self fully, and you can reply in specifics if you wanted to, but it is obvious that you would rather resort to whatever it is you are doing now with this reply.
Poor Kawhi. are there any other players with the similar injury?
On October 01 2017 05:49 Twinkle Toes wrote: Surely, you realize the influence gap between Kyrie (bonafide superstar who children see almost everyday and try to copy) and Lavar Ball (obnoxious self promoter)?
You two are really littering this thread with you offtopic discussion but let me chime in that lavar ball is on national television a lot and when bbb blows up he will have more influence that kyrie because ball is actulally a good talker while kyrie is already discredited as a hoaxer.
EPT
