If you didn't catch it, HIS logical syllogism was, "I go outside. The Earth looks flat. Therefore, it is flat." Which is NOT a logical syllogism at all. 27:43
When I read this at the start of the video I thought you were summarising his 'syllogism' and poking fun at him. I cackled when he actually said that shit word for word
Using his "logic".. "I go outside.." (it's dark.. and I'm blind..), "..the Earth doesn't "look" anything, I don't see Earth.. therefore, Earth does not exist." Thanks, "genius", you just destroyed Earth.
Premise 1: the flat earth model says there is no 24hr sun in Antarctica. Premise 2: the sun was in the sky for 24 hours in Antarctica. Conclusion: the flat earth model is wrong.
lol! Can confirm! I've seen it! btw... I heard they were first working on building one with a rocket engine and wings... but they couldn't quite work out how to get it to "dip the nose down", so it doesn't go out into space....
@@830toAwesomeI think he genuinely has learning difficulties and no one told him (or he wasn't paying attention). He's got no idea that one can read other's emotions through their faces & body language - and no idea why the midnight sun is evidence for a spherical Earth. 😬
Detailed explanation for how a midnight sun can occur in Antarctica on a flat, unmoving, domed Earth. while accounting for a phenomenon like the Sun circling the South Pole rather than merely traveling around Antarctica. 1. Sun Following a Spiral or Helix Path Within the Dome Imagine the Sun moves in a three-dimensional helical pattern rather than a flat circular one. During the Southern Hemisphere summer, the Sun’s helical path dips below its usual "flat" circular plane and spirals inward toward the center (North Pole) before looping back outward. At its outermost spiral (during Antarctic summer), the Sun would trace a circular path that appears to rotate around the South Pole. This movement could make it visible across Antarctica for 24 hours. 2. The Sun as a "Light Projection" with Dynamic Focus The Sun could be theorized as a localized light source projected onto the dome from an unknown mechanism above or outside the enclosure. In this scenario, during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the projection system shifts the Sun's light source dynamically, creating a circular movement specifically centered over the South Pole. This shift would make it appear as though the Sun is circling Antarctica rather than merely moving around the perimeter of the flat Earth. 3. Antarctica as a Special Zone The flat Earth model could propose that Antarctica isn't just a landmass at the edge but rather a focal point within the dome's geometry. The dome itself could have optical properties, such as reflective or refractive layers, that cause the Sun’s light to behave uniquely when near the South Pole. During the Southern summer, the dome might act as a "light-bending lens," redirecting the Sun’s path into a circular trajectory that centers on Antarctica. 4. Dual Sun Phenomenon A second Sun or a mirrored reflection of the primary Sun could be invoked to explain the South Pole midnight sun. In this case, the "main Sun" might continue its regular path around the flat Earth, while a secondary Sun-like entity or reflection emerges specifically for the Southern Hemisphere summer. This secondary Sun could follow a unique path over Antarctica, creating the effect of a midnight sun. 5. Antarctica as a Portal or Energy Node For those who embrace metaphysical explanations, Antarctica might serve as a special energy node or portal within the flat Earth system. The Sun’s light could "lock onto" this node during certain times of the year, creating a unique circular path directly over the South Pole. This concept aligns with some flat Earth interpretations that assign mystical or energetic properties to the Earth's layout. 6. Rotating Dome Mechanism In this version, the dome itself rotates, while the flat Earth remains stationary. During the Antarctic summer, the dome’s rotational motion could cause the Sun to trace a path that circles Antarctica from the observer's perspective. This model would rely on the dome’s properties to focus and direct sunlight uniquely over the Southern regions.
@@autisticsimon12 We don't have to think about imaginary spirals. You still need to account for the fact that we can see the same sun, with the same sunspots facing us in the northern sin and spots in Antarctica. Flat earth with a local sun is DEBUNKED. There is no coming back from this fact. We, of course, already knew all this. But now flerfs and globies from TH-cam, together with a Christian pastor has proved this as well. Globe fucking confirmed. You ain't nothing! Stop this stupid trolling, everyone is just rolling their eyes, assuming you are grifting trolls. You aren't fooling anyone. But if you really think the Earth is flat, then you are beyond saving. The level of stupid required would be hard for a squirrel to match.
@@autisticsimon12 1- Then the sun would be moving all over the place each different day instead of what we observe. 2- Then you would have two suns in territories close to the poles at the same time. 3- Same as 2. 4- Same as 2. 5- That sounds like making up magic to explain why you cant answer the question with your model. 6- Same as 2.
Fun fact though: the Curry Howard Isomorphism indicates that that process of demonstrating an equality (i.e., "your change is $20") is equivalent to a logical syllogism, and any logical syllogism can be represented numerically.
1) The sun rising in the southeast in Ushuaia is only possible on the globe model 2) the sun is observed to rise in the southeast in Ushuaia 3) the globe model is the only possible model
Or inversely... 1) it is impossible for the sun to rise in the southeast in Ushuaia on the flat earth model 2) the sun rises in the southeast in Ushuaia 3) the flat earth model isn't possible
@@michaelmellen7437 The inverse would be the more scientific stance because it sets out to eliminate possibilities instead of affirming possibilities. The latter is generally forbidden in scientific experimentation as it gives bias a chance to sneak in.
Ah, you've overlooked one key point that destroys your syllogism: "nuh-uh' I overlook this point all the time before being "OBLITERATED" or "DESTROYED" online.
If there is "intelligent life" somewhere in the Universe, WHY would they want to visit Earth where there are NO INTELLIGENT lifeforms??? The existence of Governments as we know is PROOF of it...
20 วันที่ผ่านมา +3
They did visit us - but they found no intelligent life and left.
What’s ironic is how Flat Earthers are not willing to accept a conclusion based on tons of supporting data, but yet, they’re willing to form a conclusion based solely off of contradictory data. Stupidity on purpose.
You can't reason with the unreasonable. You can't reason with cultists who have been brainwashed to believe that reason is _literally pure evil._ The only way to function in reality is to reason out action->outcome, and by rejecting Reason entirely this leaves the nutjobs with no other option but to invent alternatives. So we get _shout louder -> more correct_ and _misuse multisyllabic words -> being smart_ and similar. It's why I have no problem whatsoever categorizing flat Earthers and other mental defectives as non-sentient; they don't meet the criteria.
Not stupidity...!!!! If they accepted reality they would loose all the money the gullible send to them to "do their research". They are simply scamming people and want the scam to continue.
This is like the equivalent of arguing with someone who is insisting the sky is purple and you're like I dunno I'm not a scientist or anything but that's blue.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb Data shows that our sky actually IS purple to some extent (most humans can’t see in this spectrum) but, as the original poster mentioned, good luck explaining it to someone who only makes ‘observations’ with their eyes.
@@michaelcole506 No not really. 1 of 2 things are occurring. A) its a common enough phenomena for the sky to be described as blue therefor this person is being wilfully ignorant and there is no burden of conviction B) they are part of a small outliar group that does perceive the sky as purple, literally. C) The colour of the sky fluctuates enough for this debate to actually still b more legit than any kind of ongoing debate regarding FE nd is of small enough concern to not be concerning if someone does think the sky is purple.
It's been a little while, but here goes: 1) 24 hour summer Antarctic sun is necessary for "globe earth model" 2) 24 hour summer Antarctic sun *cannot* exist on "FE" 3) 24 hour sun in Antarctic summer exists Conclusion: FE is destroyed
He wanted a syllogism about the sun rising in the southeast being impossible on the flat earth. Your syllogism doesn’t really make sense either. A more basic analogy to what you wrote would be: 1. Red must be red 2. Red cannot be blue 3. Red exists Conclusion: blue destroyed Under the right context, that could be true, but the syllogism doesn’t actually contain anything of substance to progress an argument
@W333L Within my premises are volumes of physics and trigonometry. Your appeal to conservation of identity notwithstanding, the "globe earth model" *is* the math that requires the daylight behavior that we observe. "Flat earth" belief requires the acceptance of light rays that inexplicably bend at a 45° angle.
The fallacy of four terms is a logical fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four terms instead of the correct three: Never mind the fact premise 1 and 2 are false. congratz you're a retard.
@@indio007 ? I’m literally explaining that to him by rewriting his syllogism. It originally had 4 terms, two of which are basically an inversion of the same statement so take it up with him.
@@screwielewie This is even less believable. This implies that there's a network of seemingly unconnected, extremely talented actors collaborating worldwide to enact some intricate plan for literally no gain.
@mikkelfraskui Call it what you will. They're clearly contrarians, claiming to hold a position that they actually don't in order to incite a reaction. Not like there's a single person out there who thinks the Earth is flat and doesn't ever mention it to anyone...
This is _so_ frustrating to watch. I can't imagine existing in a place where I think screaming over people when they try and answer my questions is successful arguing.
He then had to do what they inevitably have to do: flat out just deny the reality right in front of them Also yeah, what the hell happened at the end there? Did he anger himself into a confusion? There shouldn’t be a horizon on the globe? What does that even mean? Not seeing the far shore is proof the earth is flat? What?
@@eukaryote-primeyeah, the funny thing about that is that flat earth predicts you should be able to see far father than you can on a globe (infinitely far, with the right telescope). So even the presence of a horizon at all debunks them.
This guy and darth both appear to try to imitate Matt Dillahunte, but fail to realize Matt only interupts to keep them on track, and actually let's them get their point out. Also, unlike this muppet and darth, Matt knows what he's talking about 😂🤣
they probably have developed techniques to dodge and avoid triggering his flerf instinct,when he starts talking about certain topics,you just quickly tell him how fucking right he is and that you agree a 100 %,stuff like that.Its ends up costing less energy and time than to get someone like this to change his mind and explain where hes wrong and why.
20 วันที่ผ่านมา
think about this - he is allowed to reproduce......
I just wanna say for several years. I worked professionally on wind turbines on large and small farms. They absolutely use different makes,models, years, and yes, heights, of turbines in the same farms.
No way!! You mean when people install stuff on the rugged earth there's like minor differences in dirt, or even on components of the equipment itself which are literally made to be adjustable to fit any given situation.?? Are you trying to say it's not like building little perfect buildings in SimCity? You sir are preposterous
@@henryohse1Also he didn't explain what a syllogism is lmao Syllogism : an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
Density. Wait no um uh um angular viewing limitations. Flerfs have a non-answer for everything, there's no _point_ asking them questions. You have to strand them in Antarctica with their Failure until they get it. Or become popsicles. Either way we win.
Better yet, why can’t you see Kansas City(or further) from the Kansas-Colorado border, Kansas slopes up to the west so on a flat earth you should get an excellent view when you look back to the east
I think the most fun part of this is when Peterson uses the same standards these guys demand of him: “put it in a syllogism!” “Where you there?” “Do you have the plans for those exact windmills?” “Don’t just show me a website!”
also when they hear concede put in a sentence,they think"damn this word makes you sound smart,me wanna look smart too" 30 secs later they are trying to parrot it as if they had a clue.lol
Incredulity, narcissism, and irrationality define that person who clearly struggling with personal issues, unable to resolve them, and turning to flat earth beliefs to find meaning in their unfulfilled life. It's sad and pathetic.
No amount of data will convince him that the Earth is a globe. Conversely the only evidence he needs to confirm to him that the Earth is flat is "I went outside and it looks flat. No data of any kind is required.
The cope is strong with this one. Man, my headache doubled when he said he was the mod. Painful, just painful. Edit: Just got through the whole video. Somehow, it never fails to surprise me how these absolute skeevers give themselves permission to be surly (Ad Homs, interrupting, etc.) but the very moment someone reciprocates their own behavior to them, they squeal like children being fed vegetables. Is it funny? A little. Is it sad? A little. Is it exhausting? 100%.
Before the "final experiment", I thought flerfs were rather.... "unintelligent" at best. After the "final experiment", ....yup. Still the same thoughts.
@@Merrick Oh yeah! I agree! It's just that they could easily "trap" people into their ideologies, with such high levels of eloquence (and elegance) in their verbal lexicon. edit: ..had to correct a typo. The mere presence of the flerfs make me both insecure and nervous about my own intelligence, and I can mess up easily
If I look up and see the sky is blue, I can't determine the sky is blue simply based off that observation??? This guy's entire argument boils down to literally nothing but semantics and fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works.
no you can't determine the sky is blue simply based off that observation, you have to put that in a logical syllogism or otherwise the sky has no color ;D
Why, syllogism of course! Premise 1: I am right unless I receive data proving I am wrong. Premise 2: I deem what information I recieve as true or false. Premise 3: When I recieve data, I always deem it false. Conclusion: I am always right! 😂😂
Flerf: we can't reach a conclusion on an observation unless you can put it in a logical syllogism. Same flerf: me see ground. Me sees it flat. Me concludes erf is flat.
I mean, you can easily just make a syllogism. The observations make the premises sound. P1. if an observation contradicts a model, the model is inaccurate or incomplete. P2. The sun rises from the southeast. P3. The sun doesnt rise from the southeast on a flat earth model. Conclusion: the observation contradicts the flat earth model, thus the model is inaccurate.
@nateswan9527 I guess you could make one for it only working on a ball, but I always find it fun to just answer all their challenges and point out how many times they need to move the goalposts
The issue is communication. He actually wants to be baby walked through the start of collecting every point, what they used, how they plotted it, and how it forms a circle. So I’m sure it can be done but I mean no real normal person would have that data on hand unless they were preparing to show that specific data.
I can see that. Yup... also, it's quite possible that he spent too much time IN the "tropics", and the sun radiated the testicle he had inside of his skull. 🤔
Premise 1: On the flat earth map the sun would never rise in the southeast when viewed from the southern tip of South America. Premise 2: Several observers witnessed and measured the sun rising in the southeast from the southern tip of South America. Conclusion: The flat earth map is wrong.
This was one of the most infuriating debates I've ever witnessed! Who the f*** asks a question to then constantly interrupt the answer. You handled this astonishingly well.
How can you put up with word salad that the flerfers spew? Frankly, I can not tolerate the willfully ignorant who wish to remain in their ignorance. 🎉🎉
That Flerf has spent way too much time online debating in chat rooms. He has a "Debate Brain". He's not looking for a discussion, just an argument. Not an argument to exchange ideas, and an argument for argument's sake.
I don't get the demand for a syllogism, not that it would be hard to provide since it's a basic logical form: P1. If A, then B. P2. Not B. C. Therefore, not A. P1: If flat earth, then no 24-hour sun in Antartica P2. 24-sun in Antartica (i.e. not-"no 24-hour hour sun in Antartica") C: Therefore, not-"flat earth"
Yeah, the dishonest tactic there was trying to trick Peterson into claiming that his observation disproves the flat earth model as being accurate to reality, and then accusing him of claiming to be a mind reader and hiding from making any statement about reality. That’s why the surviving flat earthers have mostly abandoned the concept of having any kind of model or map, because computers and websites are good enough to instantly be able to wreck them with math.
@@dansmith7009 True but, honestly, if you come to the conversation with, "I don't have a model but I think your model is wrong," then I'm not sure there's much point in talking about anything? Like... if you don't claim to be able to explain _anything,_ and my model seems to explain _everything,_ I'm not sure why I should even give you the time of day.
their idiotic argument is analogous to "can you answer in Estonian?"... why would that matter.. a statement is a statement no matter how its constructed😂😂😂
Watched a few of your videos from like a year ago, and have been amazed how calm and respectful you are to people you speak to (with wild views), curious to see now a year on if you've been broken by all the stupidity ;)
How the hell can he say that according to psychology it's really hard to guess someones emotional state.... Dude we can recognize six universal emotions through facial expressions alone. When you add tone of voice, body language, and culture, it goes far beyond the basic six. Why are flerfers so WRONG about literally everything 😅
Dude does realize that... Premise: The earth is either flat or a globe Premise 2: The earth is not a globe Conclusion: The earth must be flat Is a false dichotomy right? Debunking evidence of a globe earth isn't the same as proving evidence for a flat one. This is literally the same technique religious people are using when arguing for god. If I had to take a guess I imagine it's because its easier to try to debunk evidence for something than to provide evidence that doesn't exist.
Had to google the equation of time - turns out it's something used to predict the different lengths of solar days throughout the year, a phenomenon caused by the fact the Earth rotates and orbits the sun elliptically. Really convincing me the Earth is flat.
It's just a fancy way of talking about propositional logic. A syllogism is just an argument in which a conclusion follows from a couple of premises. Something like: P1: If it is Monday, I have to go to work. P2. It is Monday. C: I have to go to work.
If you didn't catch it, HIS logical syllogism was, "I go outside. The Earth looks flat. Therefore, it is flat." Which is NOT a logical syllogism at all. 27:43
Yeah but..... Nun uh, it is one. Checkmate
When I read this at the start of the video I thought you were summarising his 'syllogism' and poking fun at him. I cackled when he actually said that shit word for word
Shallow knowledge of stuff they have heard debaters use, think they know how it's used, they don't.
That was amazing. Triggered flerfs are pretty fun.
Using his "logic".. "I go outside.." (it's dark.. and I'm blind..), "..the Earth doesn't "look" anything, I don't see Earth.. therefore, Earth does not exist."
Thanks, "genius", you just destroyed Earth.
Premise 1: the flat earth model says there is no 24hr sun in Antarctica.
Premise 2: the sun was in the sky for 24 hours in Antarctica.
Conclusion: the flat earth model is wrong.
Yes! Basic modus tollens, here. This guy propositional logics!
We don't have a model and we don't need a model and that proves nothing and as a matter of fact a 24-hour Sun is PREDICTED by flat Earth!!! 🤪
😂🙄
a model cannot possibly "say" anything. It has no vocal chords, lips or lungs.
@@jimsmith7212 If you don't have a model, you don't have anything to say
@@shassett79
I agree.
These are actual statements by flat Earthers before and after TFE.
I’ve never seen a turbo on a goalpost with wheels before. This guy is trying to make it into a rally car.
lol! Can confirm! I've seen it!
btw... I heard they were first working on building one with a rocket engine and wings... but they couldn't quite work out how to get it to "dip the nose down", so it doesn't go out into space....
Heard he got a 200 shot of nitrous just to get it off the line faster
@@billymanilli The reason that rocket-plane-goalpost project failed is because they had "Mad" Mike "Steamed Pancake" Hughes building it for them.
@@EdwardHowton Someone should have stopped Mike. There were so many flaws in his design, it was essentially assisted suicide.
Babe wake up you're a logical syllogism
Watch your mouth! 😂
😂
Premise 1: Babe is asleep.
Premise 2: Peterson posted.
Conclusion: Wake up Babe.
No. I think he is an illogical syllogism. 😂😂😂😂😂
An illogical one.
the saddest thing is, the flerfer thinks he's the intelligent one in this conversation...
That's Dunning kruger syndrome for you🤷
I object. You imply the flerf _thinks._
Dunning Kruger is in full effect
@@EdwardHowtonfair counterpoint.
All flerfers think, that they're the intelligent ones.
"I'm not triggered, YOU ARE TRIGGERED!" He said calmly.
LOL
"I'M COMPLETELY CALM AND COLLECTIVE!!!!" he screamed with breaking voice while frothing at the mouth.
While saying you can't know people's emotions.
@@830toAwesomeI think he genuinely has learning difficulties and no one told him (or he wasn't paying attention). He's got no idea that one can read other's emotions through their faces & body language - and no idea why the midnight sun is evidence for a spherical Earth. 😬
Bro is Dumbledore
😂
"What's your evidence?"
"My evidence is that-"
"LA LA LALALALALA! See? you can't even answer!"
Detailed explanation for how a midnight sun can occur in Antarctica on a flat, unmoving, domed Earth. while accounting for a phenomenon like the Sun circling the South Pole rather than merely traveling around Antarctica.
1. Sun Following a Spiral or Helix Path Within the Dome
Imagine the Sun moves in a three-dimensional helical pattern rather than a flat circular one. During the Southern Hemisphere summer, the Sun’s helical path dips below its usual "flat" circular plane and spirals inward toward the center (North Pole) before looping back outward.
At its outermost spiral (during Antarctic summer), the Sun would trace a circular path that appears to rotate around the South Pole. This movement could make it visible across Antarctica for 24 hours.
2. The Sun as a "Light Projection" with Dynamic Focus
The Sun could be theorized as a localized light source projected onto the dome from an unknown mechanism above or outside the enclosure.
In this scenario, during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the projection system shifts the Sun's light source dynamically, creating a circular movement specifically centered over the South Pole. This shift would make it appear as though the Sun is circling Antarctica rather than merely moving around the perimeter of the flat Earth.
3. Antarctica as a Special Zone
The flat Earth model could propose that Antarctica isn't just a landmass at the edge but rather a focal point within the dome's geometry. The dome itself could have optical properties, such as reflective or refractive layers, that cause the Sun’s light to behave uniquely when near the South Pole.
During the Southern summer, the dome might act as a "light-bending lens," redirecting the Sun’s path into a circular trajectory that centers on Antarctica.
4. Dual Sun Phenomenon
A second Sun or a mirrored reflection of the primary Sun could be invoked to explain the South Pole midnight sun.
In this case, the "main Sun" might continue its regular path around the flat Earth, while a secondary Sun-like entity or reflection emerges specifically for the Southern Hemisphere summer. This secondary Sun could follow a unique path over Antarctica, creating the effect of a midnight sun.
5. Antarctica as a Portal or Energy Node
For those who embrace metaphysical explanations, Antarctica might serve as a special energy node or portal within the flat Earth system. The Sun’s light could "lock onto" this node during certain times of the year, creating a unique circular path directly over the South Pole.
This concept aligns with some flat Earth interpretations that assign mystical or energetic properties to the Earth's layout.
6. Rotating Dome Mechanism
In this version, the dome itself rotates, while the flat Earth remains stationary.
During the Antarctic summer, the dome’s rotational motion could cause the Sun to trace a path that circles Antarctica from the observer's perspective. This model would rely on the dome’s properties to focus and direct sunlight uniquely over the Southern regions.
Literally the entire conversation
@@autisticsimon12 We don't have to think about imaginary spirals. You still need to account for the fact that we can see the same sun, with the same sunspots facing us in the northern sin and spots in Antarctica. Flat earth with a local sun is DEBUNKED. There is no coming back from this fact. We, of course, already knew all this. But now flerfs and globies from TH-cam, together with a Christian pastor has proved this as well. Globe fucking confirmed. You ain't nothing! Stop this stupid trolling, everyone is just rolling their eyes, assuming you are grifting trolls. You aren't fooling anyone. But if you really think the Earth is flat, then you are beyond saving. The level of stupid required would be hard for a squirrel to match.
@@NPC-jt3gp You make no sense, try using grown up full sentences as you simply make no sense making random sounds with your mouth, TRY AGAIN...
@@autisticsimon12 1- Then the sun would be moving all over the place each different day instead of what we observe.
2- Then you would have two suns in territories close to the poles at the same time.
3- Same as 2.
4- Same as 2.
5- That sounds like making up magic to explain why you cant answer the question with your model.
6- Same as 2.
Me: "your total is $20"
Customer: "oh yeah? Can you put that in a logical syllogism?"
Fun fact though: the Curry Howard Isomorphism indicates that that process of demonstrating an equality (i.e., "your change is $20") is equivalent to a logical syllogism, and any logical syllogism can be represented numerically.
Earth is flat because I went outside and saw it. Reply should be, that's just an optical aberration
"PETERSON, DID YOU TRIGGER THE FLERFER IN THE GOBLET OF DISCORD?!" he asked calmly.
And what did it cost?
1) The sun rising in the southeast in Ushuaia is only possible on the globe model
2) the sun is observed to rise in the southeast in Ushuaia
3) the globe model is the only possible model
Or inversely...
1) it is impossible for the sun to rise in the southeast in Ushuaia on the flat earth model
2) the sun rises in the southeast in Ushuaia
3) the flat earth model isn't possible
@@michaelmellen7437 The inverse would be the more scientific stance because it sets out to eliminate possibilities instead of affirming possibilities. The latter is generally forbidden in scientific experimentation as it gives bias a chance to sneak in.
Well technically, it's not enough to prove the globe. It just disproves flat earth. You could still have some weird shlt going on.
@@cobalt4045 I realized that which is why I made the second one. Anyone commenting to say the same thing - please note that.
Ah, you've overlooked one key point that destroys your syllogism: "nuh-uh'
I overlook this point all the time before being "OBLITERATED" or "DESTROYED" online.
This kind of flerf troll is why aliens are too embarrassed to visit us.
They may be here right now, just in time for christmas!
@@Ssstone3.14 Starting in New Jersey..... Rgr
You paint eaters would believe those drones are aliens....smh
If there is "intelligent life" somewhere in the Universe, WHY would they want to visit Earth where there are NO INTELLIGENT lifeforms??? The existence of Governments as we know is PROOF of it...
They did visit us - but they found no intelligent life and left.
What’s ironic is how Flat Earthers are not willing to accept a conclusion based on tons of supporting data, but yet, they’re willing to form a conclusion based solely off of contradictory data. Stupidity on purpose.
You can't reason with the unreasonable. You can't reason with cultists who have been brainwashed to believe that reason is _literally pure evil._ The only way to function in reality is to reason out action->outcome, and by rejecting Reason entirely this leaves the nutjobs with no other option but to invent alternatives.
So we get _shout louder -> more correct_ and _misuse multisyllabic words -> being smart_ and similar.
It's why I have no problem whatsoever categorizing flat Earthers and other mental defectives as non-sentient; they don't meet the criteria.
Not stupidity...!!!! If they accepted reality they would loose all the money the gullible send to them to "do their research".
They are simply scamming people and want the scam to continue.
Literally looked at an model that didn't showcase a globe earth and said "yeah that's fact that flat earth no globe on it" like huh?
Even worse, they won't accept a conclusion based off their OWN positions, which is just so telling 👌🤣
A fraud going back on what he believed proving it all wrong..I'm shocked! 😂😂
This is like the equivalent of arguing with someone who is insisting the sky is purple and you're like I dunno I'm not a scientist or anything but that's blue.
Yeah, and then you’re supposed to convince them, not prove to them, that what they are seeing is actually purple. An impossible feat.
Around sunrise/sunset in certain weather conditions there are definitely purple areas.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb
Data shows that our sky actually IS purple to some extent (most humans can’t see in this spectrum) but, as the original poster mentioned, good luck explaining it to someone who only makes ‘observations’ with their eyes.
@@michaelcole506 No not really. 1 of 2 things are occurring. A) its a common enough phenomena for the sky to be described as blue therefor this person is being wilfully ignorant and there is no burden of conviction B) they are part of a small outliar group that does perceive the sky as purple, literally. C) The colour of the sky fluctuates enough for this debate to actually still b more legit than any kind of ongoing debate regarding FE nd is of small enough concern to not be concerning if someone does think the sky is purple.
“I KNOW MORE ABOUT THE GLOBE MODEL THAN YOU!” Is actually hilarious
They all say this. It's so funny
And then he immediately says that the globe model does not predict a 24-hour sun.
If any of them knew anything about the globe model, they wouldn't reject it (unless they were dishonest).
They're all insufferable, but some are more insufferable than others
Each is more insufferable than the last.
8:30 you gave him the logical syllogism he wanted and his response was “no, not like that!”
It's been a little while, but here goes:
1) 24 hour summer Antarctic sun is necessary for "globe earth model"
2) 24 hour summer Antarctic sun *cannot* exist on "FE"
3) 24 hour sun in Antarctic summer exists
Conclusion: FE is destroyed
He wanted a syllogism about the sun rising in the southeast being impossible on the flat earth. Your syllogism doesn’t really make sense either. A more basic analogy to what you wrote would be:
1. Red must be red
2. Red cannot be blue
3. Red exists
Conclusion: blue destroyed
Under the right context, that could be true, but the syllogism doesn’t actually contain anything of substance to progress an argument
@W333L
Within my premises are volumes of physics and trigonometry. Your appeal to conservation of identity notwithstanding, the "globe earth model" *is* the math that requires the daylight behavior that we observe. "Flat earth" belief requires the acceptance of light rays that inexplicably bend at a 45° angle.
The fallacy of four terms is a logical fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four terms instead of the correct three:
Never mind the fact premise 1 and 2 are false.
congratz you're a retard.
@@W333L your syllogism is a fallacy of four terms and a non sequitur .
@@indio007 ? I’m literally explaining that to him by rewriting his syllogism. It originally had 4 terms, two of which are basically an inversion of the same statement so take it up with him.
Bro, my blood pressure is rising just listening to this, how you stay so calm is beyond my comprehension
When you know the script better than the pseudoscience apologist, it's easy to numb yourself from the nonsense and short circuit the script.
A big bag of weed.
The fact people believes the earth is flat baffles the mind
I don't accept that they actually believe it. To me, at least, it's obvious they're just trolling.
@@screwielewie This is even less believable. This implies that there's a network of seemingly unconnected, extremely talented actors collaborating worldwide to enact some intricate plan for literally no gain.
@@mikkelfraskui Hardly. They just parrot each other after watching all the same TH-cam and Tiktok videos.
@screwielewie thats not trolling. Our definitions clearly differ; i define it as deliberately rage-baiting by misrepresenting your actual beliefs
@mikkelfraskui Call it what you will. They're clearly contrarians, claiming to hold a position that they actually don't in order to incite a reaction. Not like there's a single person out there who thinks the Earth is flat and doesn't ever mention it to anyone...
This is _so_ frustrating to watch. I can't imagine existing in a place where I think screaming over people when they try and answer my questions is successful arguing.
This is the only human interaction they have. These people don’t have friends.
It's an echo chamber. Once you realize that they don't actually want to be proven wrong, that's when you realize you shouldn't take them seriously.
@ i don’t think anyone ever took them seriously. It’s just a thought experiment.
This is actually the first time I could SMELL stupid through my phone
See, smell, feel, taste and hear. All senses are activated by the person on the other side.
I love the silence when they were proven wrong in their own video
He then had to do what they inevitably have to do: flat out just deny the reality right in front of them
Also yeah, what the hell happened at the end there? Did he anger himself into a confusion? There shouldn’t be a horizon on the globe? What does that even mean? Not seeing the far shore is proof the earth is flat? What?
@@eukaryote-primeyeah, the funny thing about that is that flat earth predicts you should be able to see far father than you can on a globe (infinitely far, with the right telescope). So even the presence of a horizon at all debunks them.
This flerf has a very "Darth Dawkins" air about him. Just as obstinate, and probably abuses the people in his life.
pseudo-intellectuals the most insufferable bunch on the internet
Ah that was exactly the vibe I got as well! Their voices are even a little similar.
only the most vulnerable ones, he's a big man like that
This guy and darth both appear to try to imitate Matt Dillahunte, but fail to realize Matt only interupts to keep them on track, and actually let's them get their point out. Also, unlike this muppet and darth, Matt knows what he's talking about 😂🤣
He doesn't have people in his life. He's a flerf.
My God, the projection, the lack of self-awareness. It's a little upsetting. This guy's poor family, holy f
I'm sure they have already cut ties with him, so no worries.
they probably have developed techniques to dodge and avoid triggering his flerf instinct,when he starts talking about certain topics,you just quickly tell him how fucking right he is and that you agree a 100 %,stuff like that.Its ends up costing less energy and time than to get someone like this to change his mind and explain where hes wrong and why.
think about this - he is allowed to reproduce......
I just wanna say for several years. I worked professionally on wind turbines on large and small farms. They absolutely use different makes,models, years, and yes, heights, of turbines in the same farms.
No way!! You mean when people install stuff on the rugged earth there's like minor differences in dirt, or even on components of the equipment itself which are literally made to be adjustable to fit any given situation.??
Are you trying to say it's not like building little perfect buildings in SimCity? You sir are preposterous
I'm clutching my pearls so hard right now at your blatant attempt to brainwash me into being a globehead. How do you sleep at night??
Holy schmoly, this person rejects millenia of sun observations
does this guy know what logical syllogism means
obviously being facetious
1. This model predicts Not X.
2. Observing X shows that this model is wrong.
3. X is observed.
4. Therefore, model is wrong.
@@peronkop not talking about peterson lol
@@henryohse1Also he didn't explain what a syllogism is lmao
Syllogism : an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
@@henryohse1I think that was pretty clear.
@@henryohse1 I think that was pretty clear.
If the earth is flat, why can't you see Topeka Kansas from Lawrence Kansas? They are only 30 miles apart and there are no hills between them.
Density.
Wait no um uh um angular viewing limitations.
Flerfs have a non-answer for everything, there's no _point_ asking them questions. You have to strand them in Antarctica with their Failure until they get it. Or become popsicles. Either way we win.
Better yet, why can’t you see Kansas City(or further) from the Kansas-Colorado border, Kansas slopes up to the west so on a flat earth you should get an excellent view when you look back to the east
I think the most fun part of this is when Peterson uses the same standards these guys demand of him: “put it in a syllogism!” “Where you there?” “Do you have the plans for those exact windmills?” “Don’t just show me a website!”
Giving them a taste of their own medicine is really the only way for them to understand their medicine doesn't work
Your patience is something that should be studied to see if it can be bottled and sold.
Facts
Gotta treat these people like babies. The moment they hear the word "concede" they think "LOSE" and they can't stand to lose.
also when they hear concede put in a sentence,they think"damn this word makes you sound smart,me wanna look smart too" 30 secs later they are trying to parrot it as if they had a clue.lol
Incredulity, narcissism, and irrationality define that person who clearly struggling with personal issues, unable to resolve them, and turning to flat earth beliefs to find meaning in their unfulfilled life. It's sad and pathetic.
The amount of copium from flerfs is insane
No amount of data will convince him that the Earth is a globe. Conversely the only evidence he needs to confirm to him that the Earth is flat is "I went outside and it looks flat. No data of any kind is required.
The cope is strong with this one. Man, my headache doubled when he said he was the mod. Painful, just painful.
Edit: Just got through the whole video. Somehow, it never fails to surprise me how these absolute skeevers give themselves permission to be surly (Ad Homs, interrupting, etc.) but the very moment someone reciprocates their own behavior to them, they squeal like children being fed vegetables.
Is it funny? A little. Is it sad? A little. Is it exhausting? 100%.
Its impossible to die from a copium overdose, but holy shit is he trying
They get so emotionally unstable if you ask them legit questions. They all behave this way. Its bizarre to say the least.
This kind of person is what we unleashed on society when Regan defunded all the mental institutions in the 70s
The democrats pushed that
Before the "final experiment", I thought flerfs were rather.... "unintelligent" at best.
After the "final experiment", ....yup. Still the same thoughts.
There's unintelligent and then there's aggressively stupid.
@@Merrick Oh yeah! I agree!
It's just that they could easily "trap" people into their ideologies, with such high levels of eloquence (and elegance) in their verbal lexicon.
edit: ..had to correct a typo. The mere presence of the flerfs make me both insecure and nervous about my own intelligence, and I can mess up easily
After the final experiment they’ve turned the stupidity and dishonesty up to 11
How their logic works:
"I turn on the wifi router. But I can't see the waves. Therefore, wifi does not exist"
I like how they go: we did the experiment at a smaller scale so we did not have to deal with a curve during our experiment. That’s amazing
If I look up and see the sky is blue, I can't determine the sky is blue simply based off that observation???
This guy's entire argument boils down to literally nothing but semantics and fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works.
no you can't determine the sky is blue simply based off that observation, you have to put that in a logical syllogism or otherwise the sky has no color ;D
Assuming clear skies and a sun higher than a couple of degrees, yeah it's blue. I envy you if your weather is reliably that good.
@@SchiwiM Looking out of the window right now. The sky is actually black.
"I want your data, but i won't accept any data that i deem non acceptable. And there is no acceptable data".
What type of reasoning is this?
Why, syllogism of course!
Premise 1: I am right unless I receive data proving I am wrong.
Premise 2: I deem what information I recieve as true or false.
Premise 3: When I recieve data, I always deem it false.
Conclusion: I am always right! 😂😂
No reasoning, flat earthers used to try using science up until they proved the globe thousands of times, now they stick to dishonesty
I’ve never felt my brain cells melting away so much
Your never gonna change his mind. But at least you ruined his day.
That statement is so good, it should be in a song. ;)
Flerf: we can't reach a conclusion on an observation unless you can put it in a logical syllogism.
Same flerf: me see ground. Me sees it flat. Me concludes erf is flat.
"The Most Dishonest Crybaby Flat Earther Ever?" There's a lot of competition for that title!
Im starting to think the flat earth community is starting to lose it because of TFE.
"Starting" to lose it? Buddy, that ship sailed over the horizon centuries ago.
This guy is incredibly butt hurt. His entire grift is falling apart and he can't handle it.
I mean, you can easily just make a syllogism. The observations make the premises sound.
P1. if an observation contradicts a model, the model is inaccurate or incomplete.
P2. The sun rises from the southeast.
P3. The sun doesnt rise from the southeast on a flat earth model.
Conclusion: the observation contradicts the flat earth model, thus the model is inaccurate.
But then he would just say "That's just one flat earth model out of millions; you have to defeat all of those too"
@nateswan9527 I guess you could make one for it only working on a ball, but I always find it fun to just answer all their challenges and point out how many times they need to move the goalposts
The issue is communication. He actually wants to be baby walked through the start of collecting every point, what they used, how they plotted it, and how it forms a circle. So I’m sure it can be done but I mean no real normal person would have that data on hand unless they were preparing to show that specific data.
I was skeptical of him being the most insufferable. Not anymore.
“I know the globe earth more than you” but refuses to say anything about the globe earth whatsoever
what an absolute waste of breath trying to reason with a flerf
This guy is a denial-of-service attack manifested in human form.
I'm sure he ptoudly takes that title as a compliment.
Rage is consuming me
It's just mindless contrarianism to deal with the cognitive dissonance of the situation.
37:40 "That's part of THE VIDEO!!!!!" What a winey flat crybaby. 🍼😂
Im not surprised he’s having such a hard time connecting the dots on the Tropic of Cancer
I can see that. Yup...
also, it's quite possible that he spent too much time IN the "tropics", and the sun radiated the testicle he had inside of his skull. 🤔
Premise 1: On the flat earth map the sun would never rise in the southeast when viewed from the southern tip of South America.
Premise 2: Several observers witnessed and measured the sun rising in the southeast from the southern tip of South America.
Conclusion: The flat earth map is wrong.
i tried reading the title but it wasn’t a syllogism so i couldn’t
So they claim an observation is not valid but they also claim that the earth is flat because it looks flat, isn't that an observation?
‘Im a mod so shut up I won’t do anything meh! 😡’
This was one of the most infuriating debates I've ever witnessed! Who the f*** asks a question to then constantly interrupt the answer. You handled this astonishingly well.
PP does. That's who.
It's one of his go-to tactics that he uses
@@Snowramabama Only if the the person he's debating deflects or diverts from the topic.
Goalpost getting moved right now.
At this point might as well remove the goalpost entirely
Arguing with toddlers is hard enough, but when they haven't had their nap yet it's another level.
How can you put up with word salad that the flerfers spew? Frankly, I can not tolerate the willfully ignorant who wish to remain in their ignorance. 🎉🎉
"Good morning"
"Uhh, is it though? Do you have a logical syllogism for that?"
Smooth brains with anger problems
That Flerf has spent way too much time online debating in chat rooms. He has a "Debate Brain". He's not looking for a discussion, just an argument. Not an argument to exchange ideas, and an argument for argument's sake.
Lol you owned his ignorant butt.
I woke up this morning. But I cant put that into a logical syllogism so I guess it didnt happen.
did you just find the Flat Earth equivlent of Darth Dawkins.
I think this is Darth Dorkins
These guys are going way, way back into the DBC for their argument.
I don't get the demand for a syllogism, not that it would be hard to provide since it's a basic logical form:
P1. If A, then B.
P2. Not B.
C. Therefore, not A.
P1: If flat earth, then no 24-hour sun in Antartica
P2. 24-sun in Antartica (i.e. not-"no 24-hour hour sun in Antartica")
C: Therefore, not-"flat earth"
Yeah, the dishonest tactic there was trying to trick Peterson into claiming that his observation disproves the flat earth model as being accurate to reality, and then accusing him of claiming to be a mind reader and hiding from making any statement about reality.
That’s why the surviving flat earthers have mostly abandoned the concept of having any kind of model or map, because computers and websites are good enough to instantly be able to wreck them with math.
@@dansmith7009 True but, honestly, if you come to the conversation with, "I don't have a model but I think your model is wrong," then I'm not sure there's much point in talking about anything? Like... if you don't claim to be able to explain _anything,_ and my model seems to explain _everything,_ I'm not sure why I should even give you the time of day.
He says you cant assess people's emotional state by simply watching them, and then he says you're triggered.
This flerf lady is so triggered by the 24 hour sun.
His “logical syllogism” is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. 🤦🏼♂️🤣🤦🏼♂️🤣
And this guy is allowed to go outside the house on his own & vote!
The funniest part is, that they really believe that they have an argument...
When I saw the title of this video it could have referred to any of ten different flerf sigmas without science degrees
Bros whole argument was “LOOK HOW LOUD I CAN YELL”
their idiotic argument is analogous to "can you answer in Estonian?"... why would that matter.. a statement is a statement no matter how its constructed😂😂😂
"Your honor, the prosecution failed to present their case as a logical syllogism."
".....guilty."
Watched a few of your videos from like a year ago, and have been amazed how calm and respectful you are to people you speak to (with wild views), curious to see now a year on if you've been broken by all the stupidity ;)
The flerf had the moderator on his side and still looked like a complete fool. 😂
Perfect way to handle a flerf.
Flat earthers use one of two arguments to prove their point:
1 Nuh uh rreebuttal
2 Talk over and not allow other speaker to make any point
Anyone else under the impression that these idiots don't actually believe that the Earth is flat, and that they're all just trolling?
Some of them are, but others really are this stupid.
@DavidSmith-vr1nb oh don't get me wrong, they're all incredibly stupid. Them faking a belief in flat Earth isn't a point against that.
The proponents of flat earth are grifters, followed by people with mental illness or at worst and learning difficulties at best.
How the hell can he say that according to psychology it's really hard to guess someones emotional state.... Dude we can recognize six universal emotions through facial expressions alone. When you add tone of voice, body language, and culture, it goes far beyond the basic six. Why are flerfers so WRONG about literally everything 😅
Dude does realize that...
Premise: The earth is either flat or a globe
Premise 2: The earth is not a globe
Conclusion: The earth must be flat
Is a false dichotomy right? Debunking evidence of a globe earth isn't the same as proving evidence for a flat one. This is literally the same technique religious people are using when arguing for god. If I had to take a guess I imagine it's because its easier to try to debunk evidence for something than to provide evidence that doesn't exist.
Had to google the equation of time - turns out it's something used to predict the different lengths of solar days throughout the year, a phenomenon caused by the fact the Earth rotates and orbits the sun elliptically. Really convincing me the Earth is flat.
So many coping mechanisms its sad
But hilarious at the same time 😂
Yeah lets focus on 2 blurry pixels and ignore the entire bottom half of the windmill being behind the curve.
The people who don't know where the sun goes at night sure are condescending!
The old playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind
1. If Planet Peterson posts, Babe must wake up
2. Planet Peterson posted
3. Babe, wake up!
Never argue with an idiot, they'll just pull you down to their level!
I've never even heard of a logical syllogism. I guess nothing is real.
It's just a fancy way of talking about propositional logic. A syllogism is just an argument in which a conclusion follows from a couple of premises.
Something like:
P1: If it is Monday, I have to go to work.
P2. It is Monday.
C: I have to go to work.
@@shassett79 What if it's a Bank Holiday?
This is the guy the phrase "listen with your ears, not with your mouth" was made for.