The Satisfying Anger Thread

[Tex Mechs Robot]

2 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Nope, I'm just doing it for the interest of it. I'm interested in who has the best rebuttals for arguments that most people would just swear at with caps lock on. This is supposed to be a humorous thread, filled with witty replies, statistics, facts, etc.

I see. I was thrown off by you asking me "to make an intelligent answer to that, to aid others" and myself. If humor be your goal, then I feel that I already contributed with my initial post in this thread :-)

[Guest]

Here. Have fun with this.

 

[Matuchkin]

15 minutes ago, Tex Mechs Robot said:

I see. I was thrown off by you asking me "to make an intelligent answer to that, to aid others" and myself. If humor be your goal, then I feel that I already contributed with my initial post in this thread :-)

You did. Thank you :-)

[razark]

6 hours ago, Sanic said:

I wonder how many points can be made to counter the classic 'the moon landings were faked'.

The only one you need is "If it was faked, why did the Soviets let us get away with it?"

Edit:Or just ask them "If the landings were faked, why do we have many photographs and video of them?"
 

Edited January 25, 2016 by razark

[hugix]

How does it help? Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but the same goes for playing KSP, how does playing ksp help?

 

I quite like going through conspiracy theories, I read posts and blogs about them and try to figure out where the reasoning went wrong. I don't comment on them or go into discussion. It's just a practice for myself. And recognizing a fallacy is very handy in whatever you do in life. 

[Matuchkin]

5 hours ago, razark said:

Edit:Or just ask them "If the landings were faked, why do we have many photographs and video of them?"

People (not referring to you) get even more stupid here. I saw someone on youtube say that it was impossible for the Eagle to be seen on the dark side of the moon. His reasoning was that, on the Moon's dark side, there is no sun and therefore no light. He concluded that on the Moon's dark side, one would not be able to see.

[razark]

Yeah, some people aren't worth seriously arguing with.  Fortunately, the area I live in tends to be very low in landing hoaxers.

[cubinator]

9 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

People (not referring to you) get even more stupid here. I saw someone on youtube say that it was impossible for the Eagle to be seen on the dark side of the moon. His reasoning was that, on the Moon's dark side, there is no sun and therefore no light. He concluded that on the Moon's dark side, one would not be able to see.

Technically, this is correct. Since there's no sunlight except what is reflected off Earth, its hard to see anything when on the dark side of the moon. But NASA didn't have to "see" the Eagle, they used radio waves to communicate, which did mean they were not able to communicate for a short period each time the orbiting vehicle passed behind the Moon. However, I don't see what the person was trying to make an argument about because no Apollo missions landed on the dark or far sides of the moon. There were jokes about landing on the far side just to freak out mission control if you look at the transcript though 

[Nemrav]

I usually find with these things is that I end up (while not agreeing with them in the least) defending the conspiracy theorists, because usually I see a lot more insults coming from the professional side (making them unprofessional enough to warrant attack). But anyways, why didn't the opposing political party of the time try to discredit his opponents in office with the forgery. (for the no moon lander theorists).

[Motokid600]

2 minutes ago, Nemrav said:

I usually find with these things is that I end up (while not agreeing with them in the least) defending the conspiracy theorists, because usually I see a lot more insults coming from the professional side (making them unprofessional enough to warrant attack). But anyways, why didn't the opposing political party of the time try to discredit his opponents in office with the forgery. (for the no moon lander theorists).

I see that too, but at one point there's nothing else to do but to insult them. Logic does not work with these people. So eventually insults are all that's left. ( flat earthers deserve it honestly ) 

But the problem here is most of this refers to youtube comments. There's no victories to be had there. 

Bumping into people like this in real life is rare. But chances have it that a good friend of mine is a flat earther. Every time we talk about it I just shut him down with "how does the flat earth theory explain two poles? How is it people in the southern hemisphere see completely different stars?"

He can't explain it and that's usually the end of the conversation. And that's another part of the issues. Simple astronomical ignorance. Most people don't travel to find out for themselves or take the time to learn. But as you move from north to south the sky changes above you. Old stars set and new stars rise to come together to the southern pole.

People simply don't know that. There knowledge ends at the horizon.

[razark]

58 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

"How is it people in the southern hemisphere see completely different stars?"

Because they're farther away from the central point, which is the North Pole.  Since they are farther away from those central stars, and closer to the outer stars, they see those ones instead.  They only appear to come together over a south "pole" due to optical illusion and the way the disc of the earth rotates.

Besides, the "round earth" theory doesn't account for how a serpent is able to encircle the entire world and grasp his own tail.  Any theory the fails to account for Jormungand is obviously false.

 

There's a difference in dealing with an ignorant person and a willfully ignorant person.  If someone is ignorant, they simply don't know something.  If someone is willfully ignorant, they are actively refusing knowledge they have no reason to reject.  Sometimes, mockery is the best way to deal with those people.

[GeneralVeers]

On 1/25/2016 at 5:30 PM, astrokerb said:

I don't think there are enough conspiracy theorists on the forums to keep this thread going, so i'll just toss out a random conspiracy theory. Lets see...er...THE EARTH IS FLAT!

According to all the evidence I have on hand right now, at this moment, yes. The Earth does appear flat. Keep in mind, the only evidence to the contrary comes from other people, and there's no way you can verify their "proof". The only way to see for yourself is to go to space.......

So there's some conspiracy-theory fun for ya.

 

On 1/25/2016 at 9:02 AM, Sanic said:

I wonder how many points can be made to counter the classic 'the moon landings were faked'.

Actually, that's backwards. The deniers need to prove the landings were faked. They haven't.

The Mythbusters spent one of their episodes testing that. Basically, the deniers claim that Moon landing photos contain various glitches that "could only have been produced through fakery".

The Mythbusters created a miniature Moon surface on a table, with miniature lander and astronaut action figures, with simulated regolith having the same albedo (reflectivity) as the real Moon, in a room with black walls and only one light source, to test all the claims. And they were able to produce all the "glitches" with no photoshopping at all. For example, shadows that don't seem to point straight away from the Sun? Making little bumps and dips in the ground the shadow falls on produced that effect. Astronaut in shadow, who should have been invisible? Wrong. Reflection from the mini-Sun bounced off the ground around the lander and provided enough indirect lighting that the astronaut action figure was visible. Dimly lit, but visible.

Short version: all the Moon photo "glitches" were possible without photoshopping. Now, don't read this the wrong way: this is NOT proof the Moon landings were real! It's only proof that the deniers' claims that the photos must have been bogus, are bogus. The Mythbusters didn't prove the Moon landings actually happened. But then, they didn't have to.

[Sanic]

19 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Now, don't read this the wrong way: this is NOT proof the Moon landings were real! 

*facepalm*

 

[GeneralVeers]

What?? It didn't prove the Moon landings were real, it proved the deniers were bogus. I fail to see a problem here.

[razark]

15 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Now, don't read this the wrong way: this is NOT proof the Moon landings were real! It's only proof that the deniers' claims that the photos must have been bogus, are bogus. The Mythbusters didn't prove the Moon landings actually happened.

Exactly!  The landings were fake, but the photographs were real.  Neil and Buzz actually started their journey from the moon, and landed on earth.  Any photographs of them on earth prior to late July of 1969 were created by the government to fool people into believing they landed on the moon.  This "reverse moonlanding" also explains how they were able to travel through the belts of lethal radiation.  By doing it backwards, it actually removed excess radiation from the astronauts!  Also, of all the moon missions, there's no a single shred of video showing the lunar lander actually landing.  The only video we have is from Apollo 17, and that's footage of the LM leaving the moon!

[GeneralVeers]

There's no evidence of that. The only evidence "was" the photographs, except now there's no proof those were faked.

[razark]

We have real photographs of men on the moon.  We know they were there.  Now they are on earth.  Since we have been shown the evidence that they couldn't have landed on the moon, the only possibility is that the originated on the moon and landed on earth.

[Motokid600]

47 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

The deniers need to prove the landings were faked. They haven't.

 

And that's another problem. These nut jobs seem to think the burden of proof is on us. 

Or the entire flat earth thing is one big troll and we've all been had. It's a conspiracy!

Edited January 26, 2016 by Motokid600

[Matuchkin]

My main concern about that "The Flat Truth" video I posted in the OP is... have you ever eyeballed the horizon on a trans-oceanic flight? Is it just me, or could I see the Earth curve last time I did that?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Matuchkin

[RainDreamer]

There are some things that are very difficult to disprove due to perspectives. It took people hundreds of years to prove that the earth orbits the sun, because it is easier to see it that way from the ground. And if someone who only believe in what they see, it would be hard to convince them. I think that saying: "don't argue with idiots, they will drag you to your level and beat you with experience" is applicable here.

 

Though I get what you are trying to do in this thread. Sometime we need to vent, because we want to say something against wrong stuff but can't because we know that the other person is not listening. So vent away and give proper answers at last.

[Tex Mechs Robot]

2 hours ago, razark said:

Besides, the "round earth" theory doesn't account for how a serpent is able to encircle the entire world and grasp his own tail.  Any theory the fails to account for Jormungand is obviously false.

It's only an effect of the way light bends as you get higher. It doesn't actually prove the spherical earth theory but they won't stop pushing the "curved horizon" as "scientific fact".

[GeneralVeers]

19 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

And that's another problem. These nut jobs seem to think the burden of proof is on us.

Lots of people think the burden of proof is on the other guy, pretty much regardless of the topic.

[Tex Mechs Robot]

2 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Lots of people think the burden of proof is on the other guy, pretty much regardless of the topic.

Can you prove that?

[Matuchkin]

11 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

There are some things that are very difficult to disprove due to perspectives. It took people hundreds of years to prove that the earth orbits the sun, because it is easier to see it that way from the ground. And if someone who only believe in what they see, it would be hard to convince them. I think that saying: "don't argue with idiots, they will drag you to your level and beat you with experience" is applicable here.

 

Though I get what you are trying to do in this thread. Sometime we need to vent, because we want to say something against wrong stuff but can't because we know that the other person is not listening. So vent away and give proper answers at last.

Exactly. This thread is just to vent off, chill, and talk about conspiracies. No one's trying to prove anything to anyone, as I saw previous people say.

[GeneralVeers]

17 minutes ago, Tex Mechs Robot said:

Can you prove that?

Lol, good one.

This is one of those things you can prove by what people say, and I've observed lots of people saying this in many chat forums. Go lurk in a bunch of chat forums and note how often you see people going "yeah? prove it!" May take some work; I recommend looking for threads on global warming, those are always really nasty.