Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11426  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:11 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Land’s sake, boys, peacegirl is back to talking idiot nonsense babble about photons again! :cheer: Why she insists on contradicting what her father actually wrote on this subject in the Authentic Text is a matter of pure speculation, but perhaps it is a species of Father Hatred. Sad! :sad:
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), Spacemonkey (06-14-2017), The Man (06-13-2017)
  #11427  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:36 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXI
Images: 2
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That light is reflected, but this has nothing to do with our ability to see in real time. The non-absorbed photons that show blue will be blue when we look at the object. The only difference is that we will see the object instantly (because the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye/film when we are looking directly at the object through a lens or with the eye), not 8 minutes later.
Dearest Readers, please be advised that here peacegirl is simply hawking another of her vile Corruptions. I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I reject peacegirl's Corrupted Text and each of her manifold Corruptions.

I invite you to join me in rejecting her Corruptions and interpreting the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, without blame from peacegirl.

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), Crumb (06-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11428  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:42 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Peacegirl, why do you insist on gang-raping the Authentic Text with your idiot nonsense babble about light and sight? :sad: It it some species of Father Hatred? It is, isn't it? Why do you hate and resent your father, dear?
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11429  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:43 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCLXIX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

This is really simple, you guys. It's a closed system. Just think of a long rectangular box with Seymour Lessans (the observer) at one end and "a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair [sic] lip, and she lisps and stutters" (the object) at the other.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), But (06-14-2017), ChuckF (06-13-2017), specious_reasons (06-13-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11430  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:39 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCDXCIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And you still don't know whether he is right or wrong about the eyes.
:lol:
Laugh all you want. It's really okay.
:yup:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
peacegirl, how is it possible that NASA hasn't figured out yet that their calculations are off by tens of thousands of kilometers?
This is a fake issue because no one is refuting their calculations.
You are the one claiming they are wrong. The assumption is that every time we take a picture or look through a telescope at a planet, we see with a light-time delay. Every single scientist makes that assumption because, well, that's how the world works.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11431  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:20 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Ooh! Answers! Is this a new leaf, Peacegirl? Are you willing to answer my questions now? Let's take a look...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

The nonabsorbed photons

13. What does light consist of?

Wavelengths
You have this back to front. You have said that light consists of wavelengths and that photons are a property of light. In reality, light consists of photons and wavelength is a property of light. But that is only a minor problem compared to the following. If you recall, I explained why one particular question in the list was more important than all the rest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Since you've gone and brought up vision again, I'm going to require you to answer my list of questions again. The problem for you was Question 4. If you answer 'No' then you have to explain how light which arrived from somewhere other than the object being photographed can have properties which will interact with the film to create an image of that object. If you answer 'Yes' then you have to explain how the light's properties can change during its travel time to match the state of the object at the time when the photograph is taken and the light hits the film.

Neither problem is solvable, and that's why you kept flip-flopping between answering 'Yes' and 'No' each time you realized the answer you were trying to give wouldn't work.
So let's look at your response to Question 4...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

Light is always traveling (no one is arguing with that), but if a camera works like the eye, then the wavelength/frequency would be at the film instantly as the lens is focused on said object. That is because the requirements of capturing an image have been met, which is the same as the requirements for seeing in real time.
You simply haven't answered the question. You're just waffling again about nonsensical requirements instead of answering what was asked. To review...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You clearly need to re-answer the questions below. Please answer ONLY with respect to the specific photons being asked about (i.e. those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
Bzzzt! That's a fail on #2, Peacegirl. Please answer Question #4. Or answer the above quoted set of questions. Or perhaps those reposted below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the camera film at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
Let's see how long this new leaf of yours will last.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11432  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:18 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Ooh! Answers! Is this a new leaf, Peacegirl? Are you willing to answer my questions now? Let's take a look...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

The nonabsorbed photons

13. What does light consist of?

Wavelengths
You have this back to front. You have said that light consists of wavelengths and that photons are a property of light. In reality, light consists of photons and wavelength is a property of light. But that is only a minor problem compared to the following. If you recall, I explained why one particular question in the list was more important than all the rest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Since you've gone and brought up vision again, I'm going to require you to answer my list of questions again. The problem for you was Question 4. If you answer 'No' then you have to explain how light which arrived from somewhere other than the object being photographed can have properties which will interact with the film to create an image of that object. If you answer 'Yes' then you have to explain how the light's properties can change during its travel time to match the state of the object at the time when the photograph is taken and the light hits the film.

Neither problem is solvable, and that's why you kept flip-flopping between answering 'Yes' and 'No' each time you realized the answer you were trying to give wouldn't work.
So let's look at your response to Question 4...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

Light is always traveling (no one is arguing with that), but if a camera works like the eye, then the wavelength/frequency would be at the film instantly as the lens is focused on said object. That is because the requirements of capturing an image have been met, which is the same as the requirements for seeing in real time.
You simply haven't answered the question. You're just waffling again about nonsensical requirements instead of answering what was asked. To review...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You clearly need to re-answer the questions below. Please answer ONLY with respect to the specific photons being asked about (i.e. those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
Bzzzt! That's a fail on #2, Peacegirl. Please answer Question #4. Or answer the above quoted set of questions. Or perhaps those reposted below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the camera film at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
Let's see how long this new leaf of yours will last.
The postman's mistake is not the mistake that you believe is analogous to what you think it is. Anyway, I'm not going to continue. You seem uninterested in his first discovery, and when everyone else calls me disgusting names, you join in. You have never apologized even in private. I can't accept that. That means there's no one left to discuss the book with and that's okay.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #11433  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:25 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Anyway, I'm not going to continue.
Well, that was predictable. Your attempt at providing honest answers lasted exactly zero posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You have never apologized even in private. I can't accept that.
You still owe me an apology for accusing me of twisting Lessans' words when all I did was repost your exact words verbatim.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-14-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11434  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:27 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Anyway, I'm not going to continue.
Well, that was predictable. Your attempt at providing honest answers lasted exactly zero posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You have never apologized even in private. I can't accept that.
You still owe me an apology for accusing me of twisting Lessans' words when all I did was repost your exact words verbatim.
Um, accusing you of twisting Lessans' words, which you may or may not have been responsible for, does not come close to being called a cunt. I'm done with everyone else. It's only you and me left, and if you don't apologize publicly (privately would be acceptable but you would never do it), we're done too. I cannot accept what you called me, and act like nothing happened. It's unfortunate that it will end this way. It's like breaking up a relationship. :sad:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #11435  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:33 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Um, accusing you of twisting Lessans' words, which you may or may not have been responsible for, does not come close to being called a cunt. I'm done with everyone else. It's only you and me left, and if you don't apologize publicly (privately would be acceptable but you would never do it), we're done too. I cannot accept what you called me, and act like nothing happened. It's unfortunate that it will end this way. It's like breaking up a relationship. :sad:
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-14-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11436  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:40 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Um, accusing you of twisting Lessans' words, which you may or may not have been responsible for, does not come close to being called a cunt. I'm done with everyone else. It's only you and me left, and if you don't apologize publicly (privately would be acceptable but you would never do it), we're done too. I cannot accept what you called me, and act like nothing happened. It's unfortunate that it will end this way. It's like breaking up a relationship. :sad:
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
I said hi to you, and you called me a cunt. Where did that come from? I was trying to welcome you back and that's the thanks I get? It really stung. I can't forget that Spacemonkey. Before anything else, I'm a human being.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #11437  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:59 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXI
Images: 2
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Truly, Spacemonkey, such language!



peacegirl, what was all that about twisting Lessans' words? You mean like you twisted and distorted the Author's words into your worthless Corrupted Text? (For example, peacegirl, where might we find the above passage in your :airquote: compilation :airquote: Corruption?)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), But (06-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-14-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11438  
Old 06-14-2017, 02:10 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said hi to you, and you called me a cunt. Where did that come from? I was trying to welcome you back and that's the thanks I get? It really stung. I can't forget that Spacemonkey. Before anything else, I'm a human being.
Fuck off, cunt.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11439  
Old 06-14-2017, 02:56 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said hi to you, and you called me a cunt. Where did that come from? I was trying to welcome you back and that's the thanks I get? It really stung. I can't forget that Spacemonkey. Before anything else, I'm a human being.
Fuck off, cunt.
This response was expected although the damage is irreparable. You blew it. Goodbye Spacemonkey.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #11440  
Old 06-14-2017, 03:19 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This response was expected although the damage is irreparable. You blew it. Goodbye Spacemonkey.
Do you have any idea how many times you've said this already only to return and respond to me once again?

#mentalfog
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11441  
Old 06-14-2017, 04:46 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Boys, Flo has been noodling on it and I think I finally figured out how light and sight works in efferent seeing.

First, you have to imagine a closed system, like a box, but it’s important to bear in mind that the inverse but I would sure like to suck his cock law holds within the box.

Now imagine that at one end of the box God turns on when he saw her cunt staring him in the face, he felt like biting it. Now it is true she opened his fly and began to play sixty nine. However, these non-absorbed but unreflected photons could never go back to Charlie. But even though they can’t go back to Charlie, she came out wearing a shorty negligee. OK? Therefore the light is at the eye instantly even though I would like to stick my tongue inside your precious, precious cunt.

This is because scientists made a mistake when they assumed that they eye is a juicy cunt. It was an honest mistake. In reality, Harry can suck my cunt all night long. As always, this is mediated by the inverse but I would sure like to suck his cock law.

I think that is pretty much how it is supposed to work.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (06-14-2017), Spacemonkey (06-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-14-2017), The Man (06-14-2017)
  #11442  
Old 06-14-2017, 05:28 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCLXIX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

O most beloved lurkers, ye who we revere, ye who I have cowed into silence through brutish bullying, ye who art more numerous than the grains of sand in the Sahara, amen:

Please do not despair. peacegirl has not gone anywhere. In all likelihood, she is perusing 5-6 year old posts in this thread even as I write.

At the moment, peacegirl is dealing with a loss. Yesterday she came face to face with the mathematical, scientific and undeniable (that is to say, undeniable, undeniable and undeniable) truth that she's never going to sample Spacemonkey's germinal substance. :sadcheer: peacegirl doesn't deal well with realities, but she'll be shitposting at full speed again soon.

See, peacegirl has a deep-seated need to tell you, o billions of lurkers, about the two-sided equation, dog eyes, how there's no such thing as date rape because saying yes to a date automatically qualifies as saying yes to fucking, the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness, translucent fuck garments, how fat chicks and certain homo-sexuals will fall by the wayside in due time, perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night ... the list is endless. As dumb as she is, peacegirl knows that this tiny Internet backwater is the only place her appalling behavior won't get her banned. She may rejuvenate a bit by taking a booze cruise - with or without the cruise part - but she'll be back.

Besides, peacegirl does not leave :ff: for good until I say so. peacegirl is not going anywhere, since I haven't yet given her leave to go. :yup:
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), ChuckF (06-15-2017), Florence Jellem (06-15-2017), Pan Narrans (06-14-2017), Spacemonkey (06-14-2017), The Man (06-14-2017), Vivisectus (06-15-2017)
  #11443  
Old 06-15-2017, 04:32 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Light is always traveling (no one is arguing with that), but if a camera works like the eye, then the wavelength/frequency would be at the film instantly as the lens is focused on said object. That is because the requirements of capturing an image have been met, which is the same as the requirements for seeing in real time.
If porcine aerodynamics works, then lift would be generated by the pig. That is because the requirements for flight have been met!

So now I have explained how pigs can fly!

It is so awesome how you got to this point by starting with the assumption that your book is 100% correct and then sort of working backwards. basically you are saying: since sight works this way (my book says so, so it must be true!) then somehow the photons have to just be there!

And according to you, this is somehow an explanation. It really isn't. It is just you claiming sight works like that, over and over.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-16-2017), ChuckF (06-15-2017), Crumb (06-15-2017), Florence Jellem (06-15-2017), Pan Narrans (06-16-2017), Spacemonkey (06-16-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-15-2017), The Lone Ranger (06-15-2017), The Man (06-15-2017)
  #11444  
Old 06-15-2017, 06:05 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Boys, now that we have seen how efferent vision is explained by a closed system, or a box, in which the inverse but I would sure like to suck his cock law holds at all times, we can extend, a fortiori, these founding principles with respect to dog eyes.

Think of it in terms of a parable — the parable of Fido and Alice.

That evening, rather than just wear his sexy outfit and do nothing else, Fido partially opened his robe so that she could see his penis, and then began to squirm. He then said to her:

“Alice — woof! — you know I can’t recognize you by sight alone because efferent vision, but only by the smell of your cunt. I know I never did this to you before, but I sure would like to lick your juicy cunt. Woof! I could lick on it for an hour, especially if — from to time — I could take a break to enjoy some Good Lovin' Hand Tied Pork & Chicken Jerky Dog Bones (the 8.4oz bag). Woof! I could lick you entire body all over. Boy, would I like to stick my tongue inside your precious, precious cunt. Woof!”

She was absolutely shocked. She did not know that Fido could speak. He had never spoken before. And she had never been eaten out by her dog before. But, she reasoned with herself: “I would sure like to suck my dog’s cock.” But in spite of everything, she couldn’t get up enough nerve to accept Fido’s invitation. She still remembered that she considered such things as being fucked by her pet dog perverted acts.

She finally went to her room again and Fido thought that he had lost her for another night, and he began to whine and blubber and lick his own balls. But soon she came out wearing a shorty negligee. She sat down on the couch opposite him, opened her legs and said:

“C’mon, Fido, you can lick my cunt all night if you want to.” She assuaged her guilt by realizing that once she was fully dressed her dog would have absolutely no idea who she was because dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone, so both of them could forget what was about to transpire.

“Woof!” (furious tail wagging)

Boy, perhaps we could add the Parable of Fido and Alice to be promoted for careful study (in the private fora) along with the Boohog Corollary, the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem, the Parable of the Breasts, etc.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (06-15-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-15-2017), The Man (06-15-2017)
  #11445  
Old 06-15-2017, 08:09 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXI
Images: 2
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Done!

Semper Fidolingus: Interspecies Application of the Boohog Corollary in Theory and Practice
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (06-16-2017), Florence Jellem (06-16-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-16-2017), The Man (06-15-2017), Vivisectus (06-16-2017)
  #11446  
Old 06-16-2017, 05:04 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMDCXXVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I am [thanks]ing that post because it led me to these forgotten memories (if you scroll down a few posts).

Apparently I am the one who suggested :nerdrage:!

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
We should have a :nerdrage: smiley.

Because there's so much :nerdrage: around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It should convey the anger a nerd has when he hears about some of the following things (some real, some not):

1. George Lucas is re-releasing the entire Star Wars series in 3D
2. Dr. Who will be made into an American movie starring Robert Pattinson as the Doctor, while Daleks will be "reimagined" as lithe, nimble killing machines
3. midichlorians
4. Michael Bay will be directing a remake of Aliens

I'm having trouble thinking of more/betterer examples at the moment, but you get the idea.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-16-2017), JoeP (06-16-2017), Pan Narrans (06-16-2017), The Man (06-16-2017)
  #11447  
Old 06-16-2017, 04:17 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Hooray! :cheer: Flo has made her own academic contribution to the ongoing Authentic Text seminars!

When I was a professor of home economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High, I always had the feeling that the other professors were looking down their noses at me because I was professing mere food (as if food isn't the most important thing in the world) while they were professing high-falutin' subjects like social studies, English, biology and suchlike. Now Flo can give them the big middle finger. :finger:
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-17-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-16-2017), The Man (06-16-2017)
  #11448  
Old 06-16-2017, 05:28 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCLXIX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
. . .

4. Michael Bay will be directing a remake of Aliens
That idea might not generate quite so much :nerdrage: now, in the wake of Ridley Scott's latest offering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
I always had the feeling that the other professors were looking down their noses at me
Dang, Flo, the struggle was real, as the young people say nowadays. You're basically Seymour Lessans!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-17-2017), Florence Jellem (06-16-2017), The Man (06-16-2017)
  #11449  
Old 06-16-2017, 05:39 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
. . .

4. Michael Bay will be directing a remake of Aliens
That idea might not generate quite so much :nerdrage: now, in the wake of Ridley Scott's latest offering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
I always had the feeling that the other professors were looking down their noses at me
Dang, Flo, the struggle was real, as the young people say nowadays. You're basically Seymour Lessans!
It's true, isn't it? Flo is the Seymour Lessans of the rarefied world of junior high school academics. :sadcheer:

Do any of you boys have Will Durant's number? Flo suddenly has an overpowering urge to get on the horn and chew him out.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-17-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-16-2017), The Man (06-16-2017)
  #11450  
Old 06-16-2017, 05:53 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCLXIX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

We have an excellent form complaint against POTUS in our document bank, just in case Mr. Durant's number in the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness isn't listed.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson

Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 06-17-2017 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-17-2017), ChuckF (06-21-2017), The Man (06-16-2017)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.31765 seconds with 14 queries