Philosophical Vegan Forum

teo123 wrote:First of all, how am I supposed to know who is to be trusted?

Don't trust conspiracy theorists who obviously know nothing about science. Did you watch that video I linked to above?

teo123 wrote:To me it seems like that mainstream science is one that is making exceptional claims of space exploration and providing no evidence of it. I might be wrong.

You're certainly wrong.

No exceptional claims have been made. We already know the size and distance of the Moon and Mars, as well as other planets. Any amateur can understand the limits of the technology available, and see that this is clearly possible.

The claims are actually quite boring, which is why NASA has so much trouble staying funded. They send rovers to roll around on rocks and collect samples with robotic arms. And they don't find much that can't already be determined from Earth.

And in terms of the evidence, if you are committed you can even bounce a laser off one of the mirrors that were placed on the Moon, as many people have for over 40 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... er-funding
We've already learned what we needed to from that, and it's no longer very scientifically useful: the only purpose they have any more is convincing idiots who still believe conspiracy theories.

If you think this is some grand conspiracy that millions of people are in on, that's pretty insulting alone.

The mirrors are still there, and if you set your life to it, you can do it yourself (it will just cost a pretty penny for the lasers and equipment to detect it). You can easily do the math yourself to find out how powerful the laser needs to be and how broad a detection area you need to collect the returning photons.

teo123 wrote:There might be some evidence, just like there might be some evidence of God I am unaware of. But for now, I don't believe that.

Then the appropriate response is not to assert the opposite. It is to tentatively accept the mainstream scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus on god happens to be agnosticism; that there's no evidence for it, and that at least biblical accounts are largely false (like the age of the Earth).

teo123 wrote:And can you finally explain why are dragons not a credible claim according to you?

No. I'm not wasting MORE of my time on you when you're dead set on believing all of this bullshit. I explain one thing, it takes forever, and then it's another, and another conspiracy. You'll have conspiracy theories from here to the end of the internet, and you'll never be satisfied that it's reasonable to trust scientific authority until you know enough to form your own opinions.
Your head is too far up your own ass.

You just need to accept what people smarter than you tell you unless and until you take the time to educate yourself properly so you can understand what science is, how it works, and how to come up with a legitimate competing theory.

I told you to learn what reaction mass is, you ignored me. Right now you're insulting me by asking me to waste more of my time. And then it'll be another thing after this. The conspiracy theories are endless with you.

teo123 wrote:Hey, it's not like I had no idea about round-earthism and space exploration, I had used to believe in it myself.

You were correct to accept those things, which you were told by people who are smarter than you are.

Veganism and Atheism are not in the same category as rejecting science; they ARE science. Both are accepted mainstream beliefs and practices.

teo123 wrote:But you are the only one I've ever talked to about this that actually defends their position with some arguments.

And what has that gotten me? An endless stream of conspiracy theories. You still won't trust mainstream opinion after I explained clearly why you should, and how it's arrogant and insulting for you to reject it in ignorance.

There's a reason people don't bother to supply conspiracy theorists with arguments: it's a bottomless pit of ignorance and pseudoscience.

Show me that I didn't waste my time, and that you aren't a bottomless pit of ignorance and pseudoscience. Research "reaction mass" by yourself.

teo123 wrote:Until now, it seemed to me that only conspiracy theorists are showing any arguments for their positions.

Conspiracy theorists are fabricating ad hoc hypotheses, not making sensible arguments. They're just making shit up.
To actually explain how these things work requires an understanding of science and mathematics. That's much harder than just making up senseless bullshit.
For every scientists busy doing science who doesn't have time for your bullshit, there are dozens of do-nothing conspiracy theorists who have all the time in the world to spoon feed you their shit straight from their asses (they love doing it too; they get off on it because it makes them feel special).

Watch that video I linked you to in the prior post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGqzqsoGhI

Hahaha. Jesus. It is spreading...
(fixed)
(fixed)

ThinkAboutThis wrote: Hahaha. Jesus. It is spreading...

That's terrifying. You should do a video on this stuff. Maybe they'd rethink spreading it if they realized it harmed their vegan advocacy by undermining their scientific credibility in the most extreme way possible?

Again you go with "trust those who are smarter than you". How do I know who is smarter than me? If your answer is again "trust those who are smarter than you" you end up in an infinite regression. That's simply not how the world works. It can't be. Claiming that the mainstream science is always right is not less absurd than claiming that a god is real.
To me it seems like we simply know different stuff. You are clearly unaware that the conspiracy theorists make arguments. To get a general idea of what I am talking about, watch this.
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=A%20Funny%20Thing%20Happened%20on%20the%20Way%20to%20the%20Moon&sm=3
Better start at 22:40. They not only explain how those photographs can be faked, they explain how do they know they are fake.
As for the burden of proof, I realize that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but should the taxes money be spent on researching the cold fusion just because it has never been proven wrong?
And you are right, it may be pointless to talk about the possibility of the humans getting to the Moon for the same reason as it is pointless to debate whether humans can breathe under water. And I can't see how it's insulting to claim they can't.

teo123 wrote:Again you go with "trust those who are smarter than you". How do I know who is smarter than me?

You have to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

You believe yourself far more intelligent and competent than you are because of your ignorance.
First, you have to admit that you're an idiot who is clearly incapable of evaluating claims made by others in terms of rationality.

Smart people know what they do not know, and are aware of their limitations. Did you watch that video I linked you to?

How do you know who is smarter than you? Easy: Everybody. You're one of the dumbest people I've ever met, so you can safely assume anybody you meet who has any kind of basic education is smarter than you. This may not always be the case, but it is now and until you get an education.

You can safely disavow any idea you think you've come up with as moronic.

Now, when other people disagree, you have to figure out which of the two are smarter. Always go with the person who is advocating a mainstream scientific view. Go with experts and mainstream authority. Sometimes authority is wrong, but it's wrong infrequently enough that you'll be right most of the time if you tentatively follow that lead.

Mainstream scientific authority is best, since they try to avoid biases.

teo123 wrote:Claiming that the mainstream science is always right is not less absurd than claiming that a god is real.

You completely ignored my argument, and are still spouting this arrogant anti-science bullshit.

I explained to you how science is provisional, and rather than trying to understand what that means, you just call it absurd and hunker down in your own cesspool of ignorance.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_11

Science is always right because it doesn't take risks, it says something like "here is what we observed, and this may mean X or Y or Z, and the probability is 90%"
It's always about probability, and always contingent on the experimental observations and mathematical deductions from what we find.

teo123 wrote:And you are right, it may be pointless to talk about the possibility of the humans getting to the Moon for the same reason as it is pointless to debate whether humans can breathe under water. And I can't see how it's insulting to claim they can't.

It's called SCUBA gear, moron. Nobody is claiming people flapped their arms and floated off to the moon either.
I have personally been nearly a hundred feet under water and breathed just fine. How? Technology, you asshole.

Of course its insulting to make horrible straw man arguments against science like you are.

If you don't understand what SCUBA gear is, then don't make claims that everybody who says they've been diving is in on some grand conspiracy. Instead, say "I don't know" and shut the fuck up until you learn something
Likewise, if you don't understand how rockets work, say "I don't know" then shut the fuck up rather than making the opposite claim that they don't work because you don't understand them and that it's a grand conspiracy.

It's OK to just not know. That's honest, and can be respected.
It's not OK to accuse people of lying and of making some grand conspiracy because you're too stupid to understand how things work but you can't admit it and instead assume that if you don't understand it it must be a lie.

teo123 wrote:should the taxes money be spent on researching the cold fusion just because it has never been proven wrong?

You need to understand the difference between empirical observation and mechanism of action.
If a scientist proposed a cold fusion machine and had a mathematical model which said it should work, then it should be tested.

The point is you have to do the math first to show where the collision energy comes from, or show some early results from simpler tests that are promising enough to make it worth investing in.

MATH -- it's the difference between science and bullshit.

We can't waste money on every single thing, and we probably shouldn't be wasting money on space exploration -- not because it doesn't work, but because there's nothing much of economic value in visiting Mars (it's just entertainment, and flexing of national muscle).

There's a big difference between bad government expenditure and a conspiracy theory/fabrication. We have gone to the moon, wasted a lot of money doing it, and not gotten very much back from the investment. Same with our rovers on Mars. Why? People like it, but it's not very useful science.

NASA does the math, and it is science. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of NASA and government expenditure, but saying they are hoaxes is not one of them.

teo123 wrote:To me it seems like we simply know different stuff. You are clearly unaware that the conspiracy theorists make arguments.

Go fuck yourself, you witless peon. I know more than you do about this conspiracy theory bullshit, and I've been debunking this stuff since before you were born. Don't pretend to know anything of value that I don't, it's insulting (again).

Read the WIkipedia page on the conspiracy theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_land ... y_theories
You didn't even bother to do that, did you? No, you didn't. You're just repeating the same mistakes, and not doing an iota of fact checking.
Everything in that video is clearly debunked there.

This video series debunks the claims of faking the distance in transit: https://www.youtube.com/user/venompangx ... nar+legacy

This video specifically shows video that "documentary" didn't show, because the maker, Bart Sibrel, is a liar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiawImv7Xbo
Part 3 also shows more of this.

I explained why and how they don't make arguments -- they are outright lying, and otherwise making shit up, just like the Flat Earthers. If you take time to look into their claims rather than mindlessly repeating them and promoting them, you'll learn that they are false once you start understanding how things work.

I explained how sensible people won't be dragged into your shit to spend a lifetime debunking all of the nonsense you can dredge up -- you are a bottomless pit of arrogant and insulting ignorance, and you and your kind are dragging the rest of society down.

You can crawl out of your pit and learn something for once, or you can sink in it and die. I'm done with you unless you disavow this bullshit, apologize for being so insulting, and start asking honest questions and listening to the answers.

You don't learn about rockets by calling people liars and saying there's a grand conspiracy -- all that is is being an insulting asshole. You can't be surprised if people don't want to teach you about rockets after you insult them.

You learn about rockets by admitting your ignorance, reading about them, and asking questions when you don't understand -- asking questions in GOOD FAITH, not insulting people and insinuating that they're liars and NASA is some giant government conspiracy.

You STILL don't know what "reaction mass" is. Congratulations on not learning anything on your own even when I pointed you in the right direction, your life is really shaping up to be one of perpetual ignorance at this rate.

So, how can you be certain that something is an element and not a compound?
Actually, back when I was a flat earther, I watched Shane Killian's Lunar Lunacy. He didn't explained anything. He claimed that the shaddows on the photographs are actually paralel, but the perspective makes them appear to intersect. But the perspective makes the paralel lines appear to intersect at the horizon and not at some random points on the ground as those photographs show, right? He made a computer simulation of that with the lenses and claimed that the results are different than what videos show, but apparently he assumed that the rocket was circuling around the Earth. Why? As for that with the bright shaddows, I think he completely misunderstood the point. On the Moon there is no atmosphere to cause the Tyndal's effect and the shaddows should be completely dark, right? Then the astronout in the shaddow should seem like a black siluete, and you wouldn't be able to see the bright colours of the suit visible on the photographs. And for the slow motion to explain low gravity, he didn't even attempt to explain why would they have to slow it down exactly 2 times before showing that it wouldn't work. I haven't bothered to watch the other videos, because I assume they all say the same things.
And I did know about the "reaction mass". That's not an explanation of any kind. If you break a balloon while it is still in the air, it doesn't start moving at a straight line. Why would the rockets then do?

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's terrifying. You should do a video on this stuff. Maybe they'd rethink spreading it if they realized it harmed their vegan advocacy by undermining their scientific credibility in the most extreme way possible?

I probably will after reading these:
(fixed)

teo123 wrote:So, how can you be certain that something is an element and not a compound?

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm done with you unless you disavow this bullshit, apologize for being so insulting, and start asking honest questions and listening to the answers.

You don't learn about rockets by calling people liars and saying there's a grand conspiracy -- all that is is being an insulting asshole. You can't be surprised if people don't want to teach you about rockets after you insult them.

You learn about rockets by admitting your ignorance, reading about them, and asking questions when you don't understand -- asking questions in GOOD FAITH, not insulting people and insinuating that they're liars and NASA is some giant government conspiracy.

How was I not clear enough, asshole?

1. Disavow this bullshit. Admit that you don't know how it works instead of arrogantly promoting the claim that it's a conspiracy and that it doesn't work because you are too stupid to understand it.

2. Apologize for being so insulting as to have done the above and pretending to know enough about this to criticize it.

3. Start asking honest questions and listening to the answers.
That means reading the Wikipedia page I linked you to which you still have not read, and reading the basics about how rockets work so you know enough that you can formulate intelligent questions about what you don't understand.

Look, brimstone, this dude is just the guy who reads a page on some website, and if it seems legit, he'll jump on the bandwagon.

ThinkAboutThis wrote: I probably will after reading these:

Those are disturbing, please do.
This kind of pseudoscience is a cancer in the vegan movement.