we havent , but microbes have

For how long then?

I couldn't give an accurate assumption of how long we've been around

we as in homo sapiens ?

200,000 - 1,000,000 years. somewhere in there

😂

No

"We" as in the earth

The earth is approximately around 4.5 billion years old.

And everything that has or will happen on it

This is some real hippy stuff

yeah, something like that. i was reading an article that was saying we're early to the party lol that not many earth planets have been forming at this stage of the universe

more will from later on

I haven't even gotten into why I don't think evolution is real <:confused:625494374402228244>

Go on

you basically said it was lol....

but yes, go on

Did you guys know that the earth is actually round? I didn't know this..

😱

@Squiddy what evidence do ya have?

This YouTube video! Here, I'm going to send you the link.

Did you know that the earth is actually flat?

This YouTube video! Here, I'm going to send you the link

https://youtu.be/hNZUZm-sV54

https://youtu.be/k0xClWgidZU

She left

The earth is pretty curved if you ask me

very curved

Circular

What going on here?

Is there a problem?

What seems to be the officer, problem

Whattttt lol

Has different opinion. Gets banned

B a n

No just it might be concerned trolling so a mute

Comments about opinion gets banned

Nah it ain't concern trolling

I'm just sayin what happened

Mate as long as ya Stay w the rule ur fine if u are making ur self suspicious of trolling then u will get muted fora temp time

I get muted all the time for stupid reasons, the ice box is basically my second home

Did u get told for what?

Not every time

Carry this in <#484514023698726912> since this chat is only for flat earth talk

Not necessarily just for flat earth stuff, could be a debate about anything if it’s an actual debate

Ya @RadRhys I thort we were in the flat earth chat only I realised after but I cba to change it

😉

***Thort***

Ya I spell thought thort as a short version don’t judge me 😓😂

@DaddyCabbage🎃 trolling isnt allowed, especially in this channel

What? I'm not trolling

earlier you were

do we understand eachother?

Not really

if you keep it up youll be muted again

I'm not doing anything

not now you arent

im letting you know with this warning

Question if the earth is flat how can you explain solar eclipses?

@Horror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-N0TloYHr8

Ah ty

yw

alright

i got a good one

do u think palestine is a country, yes or no

sure

cool

Does it matter?

yes

tell me now

Palestine is a country both de facto and de jure, and it has a moral case for existence

Does a majority vote make something moral and how are morals developed? (In your opinion, this is a question to anyone)

most peoples morals are developed from tuning innate biases based on the conditions you were raised

^^^^

why do you think gladiators were a thing. just a product of their times/environment

What things are immoral regardless of how a society see it and how can we tell? @Fran

Generally our 'inherent' or natural morals arent really consistent with one another

morality is relative

Usually you adopt one of the more fleshed out moral systems; And You're either going to be a consequentialist or a deontologist if you do this

our inherent morals dont really say much

I mean like these morals that are consistent across most cultures arent really that specific

Usually its like 'incest is bad' and even that isn't 100% for all cultures

Mhm

Some people thing a more general statement all cultures believe is 'dont harm group X' where group X changes

but that seems a little silly to me, the societies that survive are going to be the ones that generally cherish some group

Whether it be the aristocracy or the childbearers

So i'd say thats survivorship bias more than anything

With regards to if things are universally moral; If you were a consequetialist it would depend on the consequences of the action

That's true for the most part

I asked this because I was having a discussion with someone about if a country were to make things like certain sexual acts or murder legal, would it be morally right because legally it is allowed/majority vote says it is alright to happen.

Id say no, unless you for some reason believe some weird kind of normative cultural relativism, but that has a lot of issues that come along with it

To be honest you're better off saying morals dont have true or false values than preaching normative cultural realtivism lul

I can see why you'd say that

But it really does beg the question on how moral things really are

If 100 years from now for example murder (or rape for an example) was legal and people got used to it and 200 after that people would see it as the normal and moral

Culture and time seem to create morals

I think if you think they have the same kind of true or false values as descriptive claims the idea that the morality of a thing depends on where in the world you find yourself to be is kind of silly.

For example, When I say 'This chair is brown', it doesnt matter if I am in England or in Kuwait

it would be weird if when I say 'This chair is brown' and I have with me a chair it is true in England but not in Kuwait

of course im assuming the languages have equivlanet words for the same things

that is; the brown in the language spoken in Kuwait is the same kind as in English

but it works just as well for say the US and England

How is it silly?

Language is different

I don't see why you're bringing it up

Then do the thought experiment in England and the US

if I brought a chair with me that was brown in the US, would it not be brown in England?

it seems in general we agree on these physical facts, despite language barriers

A Saudi Arabia is going to think of the same brown I do and say his languages brown when I ask him what color the chair is

Wait

for moral facts to be different is to me really weird

where there is some objective truth, and we disagree on the objective truth and agree we are both correct

Because of where in the world we happen to be situated

Are you arguing that people have the same morals regardless of where they live? But that their societies can shape them to view it differently?

No. I'm saying when we say there are truths, we usually mean in the same way this chair has a true color, there is a truth in if murder is wrong

If the truth in if murder were wrong were to change based on where you were

that'd be very different than the truth of what color the chair is

🤔

That's understandable

So if I brought a chair with me that we agree has an actual color and an American said it was Red and a Englishman said it was Black would you say they were both correct?

But it would change in the long term based on the example I gave

No

That's what I'm saying

If moral facts have some truth it's really weird for it to depend on location

It's totally unlike any other truths we are familiar with

If I say murder is wrong and someone half way across the globe says murder is right, it would be kinda strange to call both of us correct unless moral fact is totally unlike the fact of the color of the chair

Who determines what is morally right or not? Or as you say, a moral fact.

well some people say it's God, some people say it's derivable from laws of logic lol

the correct moral system? I have no idea. But the fact I don't know doesn't mean there isn't a correct one.

Just like the fact I don't know if there is a God doesn't mean there isn't one

That's like asking "who decides the chair is red?"

Well.... That's a good question

I have no idea lol

Well that's what this all boils down to in the end

It's a question I want to know to know the answer too

yeah I was just trying to get across the fact cultures seem to have different moral beliefs doesn't say anything about the truth values of those beliefs

It's true cultures do have different beliefs, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist a list in heaven of morally right and wrong actions

just like there's a list of prime numbers

Or red chairs

The most logical of course would be the "laws of logic" like allowing murder without punishment wouldn't help a country grow but have it collapse under itself

Well if you follow the "laws of logic" usually you derive some axioms you deem necessary

For a ultitarian is the concept of utility

For Kant it was the categorical imperative

Kant in particular would probably interest you because he thought you could derive morality purely logically

So a moral logical being would be more moral

Sure

An interesting practical case for this; if kantianism is true and we developed an General AI smarter than us we need not worry because it would be much more intelligent than us

and therefore much more moral

Well that's a different story in my book on that

But it is an interesting thing to think about

false equivalency between intelligence and morality

^

it does not follow

Thats the idea of kantianism; that it does follow

hey guys

Hello

Ok so I'm kind of the fence the shape of the earth and I wondered if any Flat Earthers could give me their arguments

@NinjaApple sight distances.

Such as lighthouses.

If earth was a 24900 mile ball, lighthouses wouldn't work.

Its that simple

Would the curve of the earth really be visible from a lighthouse @Citizen Z ?

Thats not what im saying

Oh

Im saying.

If earth curved...lighthouses wouldn't be seen from as far away as they are seen due to curvature blocking the light

Fair enough

The bulge in the middle would block the light

At a certain distance

Depending on lighthouse elevation, observers elevation and the distance between them

Ah

I believe the reasoning is because light from a lighthouse spreads and part of the spread travels upwards.People can see the light from a lighthouse even with the actual spotlight being obscured.

What I read, anyway.

I'll do the maths on this tomorrow and I'll come back to you with it.

I did this up real quick.

From that distance would the light be so dispersed you couldn't really see it? Idk

No, not at all

I mean, *some* probably.

Ok so apparently you can see a lighthouse from 20.2 miles away

If its 130 feet

And they vary in height from 80-200ft

I might be wrong, too, but that's how it made sense to me when I read this explanation.

Alright

The light would be disburse, especially through the water.

Flashlights lasers mirrors

Well, you wouldn't see it through the water, but definitely through the air.

If those two points were on the round earth it would be a massive distance

earth is that big that even boats really far away can see the light

earth is big guys

really big

compared with a lighthouse? it's negligible

seriously, for such a big sphere when you look at the curvature of earth from the top of a lighthouse, it's very small, thus the light being able to travel very far

```If those two points were on the round earth it would be a massive distance``` It's a bit of an exaggerated diagram, but the point is even if the lighthouse light is below the earth's curve, its light spreads and should still be visible as a glow on the horizon.

i have a good video I found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPDCfV19UWM

We have access to Hydrogen engines and big oil bought and hid the patents

According to my dad anyway

Prolly had for a long time

@oƃǝW I'm good at math

Bruh

You the weeb

Come on ask me I bet I know the answer @oƃǝW

So r u

Mhm it's a good series so ur just jealous

Ask me I bet I know

There now you can ask me

1.4 something

1.41

Binomial theorem

-5, 4

lol do your own homework

No it's 5, -4

Oopsie

I could tell you the answer but I'd rather keep it for myself and make millions off it

:D

let's have a debate

can we say PI and e are both 3 ?

If someone integrated gravity with quantum mechanics I'm pretty sure they'd be the first person is a discord server to randomly and successfully create a theory of everything

@Quorum I did it it was decently tough

Took me a couple hours

lolwut ?

Yeah

I guess it's pretty cool

Successfully renormalized quantum gravity, no big deal.

Yeah I did it in my free time

I'm sure it's been done before

@lapizzle The point was that the different air density (elevation) would affect buoyancy and the weight exerted. You can see this by taking Kenya, highest elevation point out of all the results, is the lightest weight tested. Using a vacuum chamber would negate the air density factor and make it controlled so you can prove gravity.

Yeah, no large number of scientists are actively trying to figure it out at the moment.

@lapizzle But they never use a vacuum chamber do they? They always ignore the fact that a lower air density makes things lighter, you can see this with the Kenya example that I pointed out.

I'm saying you should test it if you don't believe that it is an insignificant variable

lower air density makes things lighter

hmmm

interesting

btw

do you know how sattelites work @rivenator12113 ?

it's very interesting

I don't have all the results to test it out, I only have the location and how much it weighs with what the guy gave.

many flat erthers say it's impossible because sattelites and gravity are a huge contradiction

I don't have any good evidence against that but flat earthers would say that they are attached to high altitude balloons

but actually

without gravity sattelites would just make a straight line into the space

when I was a child I have a small Apache helicopter toy

it had a little propeller which made it go foward

and it was attached to the celling

by a small nylon string

when it wasn't turned on it goes to the middle right?

but when you turn it on

it goes foward and then starts rotating

now imagine that where the string is attached is Earth