Like, try imagining that image you drew with the straight lines over my image, but with the northern and souther polar stars

To the left and right

Its impossible to always get straight lines besides near the equator since eventually the lines will have to shrink in size

Like this

And become the polar stars and the tiny circles around them, slowly making them circles and not straight lines

That middle line represents the star trail at the equator btw

The child chooses to be

No kid is becoming trans unless they want to

Becoming trans isnt even sexual

It was sexual because it was sexual, not because they were trans

What is wrong with being trans exactly?

Why? It's not hurting anyone.

Idk anything about politics, so

This is sharp shooter fallacy tbh, you're taking an event where kids were wrongly sexualized and saying that means all transgender kids are sexualized.

k 1 sec

School is always useless

Pre-k to 7th is useful, then it's just wasting your time until youre 18

Peper, I think that's sharpshooter fallacy

Most people I see in my schools can hardly write a decent essay

Can I switch to flat/globe stuff, because I think I have 2 things that debunk flat Earth

"Geography: Define latitude and longtitude" jesus christ

Sexualizing kids is wrong, but idk what trans people in general have ever done to you 🤷

iss

Its vague on purpose, so just think about it or google it

Fake card, kewl

How hard is it to Google the meaning of words? I guess it's easier to stay wrong and use the "fake" card 24/7 isn't it.

Sex: "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

Gender: "either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

There is no "redefining" the words when they're straight from the definitions.

Google the definitions. I admire your ability to pick and choose which facts are correct and which facts aren't, based on your beliefs.

Sex is biological. Gender is social. Hence, trans*gender*. You can redefine English words or decide they don't exist if you want.

Ill debate about the earth being a globe.

Im for globe

Welp

There you go.

This isn't about curvature, it's about how there is observably a south pole, which isn't on a flat earth.

It's like I'm in 24/7 again.

You can power tantrum about an hour long video, I don't really care. 👌 👋

Actually why y'all were un-partnered from Flat Earth Society

I already sent the star trail photos, so.

Ignore them if you want.

You made an irrelevant answer.

Whoever is saying buoyancy and density causes things to fall, stop.

It's an effect of things falling, not the cause.

Because in schools they teach you the melting temperature of unsaturated fats and how to make oragami DNA using crayons and paper in high school.

The stars are light years away. If an object is light years away and even if you're moving really fast, does it appear to move? No. The further away something is, the more you (or it) has to move for it to actually appear to be moving.

This is really just a Google away.

That picture with the rates of vaccines and the rates of autism is false cause fallacy.

It's like saying "The older Donald Trump got, the more people got autism, Donald Trump getting older causes more autism!"

Ever considered the reason there are more people with autism in the U.S. is because there are more people in the U.S.?

<:thonk:485324336874651650>

Didn't read your point beforehand.

!model

Nvm

?t

/t

ColdHardLogic

If you click on my name, you can see im not a flat earther

It's that the earth is a ball...

Don't apples have cyanide?

If it's hours long, don't expect anything.

Deception = Biology?

Pretty sure that doc is talking about decieving their enemy by hiding their strength.

Explain

The milky way does move very fast, but we are IN the milky way, so we're moving with the Stars aswell. It's also spinning, but so are we. Because we're in the milky way aswell. The stars, even if they do move seperate from the direction everything else is moving in, won't appear to move since they are light years away.
Have a guy walk past a camera 1 ft away. He'll zip by the camera. Now have him walk past the camera, but 100 ft away. It takes way longer for him to walk past the camera, even if he starts full-sprinting.
You can have a star move at millions of miles per hour, but they are hundreds of *light years* away, and the same thing applies.

The other galaxy, Andromeda, is moving as well. It will collide with the Milky way in 4+ billion years. Pretty hard to notice in a life time.

Are you talking about how the universe is expanding too fast for us to reach anything else?
And why do the stars have to be infinitely distant?

That rainbow tunnel thing you two keep posting to ignorantly dismiss how there is observably a South pole is :Yikes:, as well as obviously dishonest.
There is a point in the sky above the Arctic, North of the equator that the stars rotate around, which is the North pole. Everyone agrees this is the North pole. But when there is another point in the sky that is South of the equator, that even has the stars spinning opposite direction around it which is what we expect to see on a globe, you now instantly dismiss this.

Sounds honest 👌

That vortex hallway gif you keep posting to dismiss observable facts isn't an enclosed sphere.

You didn't even attempt to disprove anything I've said. You just said my drawing "proved nothing".
On a flat plane, you cannot have several people looking in opposite directions while all seeing the same exact things in the sky. On a globe, you can have several people see the Southern polar star. Take an orange and mark two arrows pointing towards the little brown stump thing on the bottom, and both arrows are on opposite sides of the brown dot on the orange's bottom, representing two people looking at the same point on a globe. They are in different locations, but looking at the same object which is **possible**. Then peel the orange so the peel is flat and level for the two arrows. They are now facing opposite directions, meaning them seeing the same point is **impossible**.

I also already explained why the star trails diverge from the equatorial trail.

Which claim?

That star trails are imoossible on a flat earth?

Kalerteth, which part of my proof revolves around relying on school taught subjects?

They didn't teach me this in school 🤦

Stop giving indoctrination speeches :/

Heard them all already.

Also, here you go Z.
These are two places below the equator that are opposite of each other, Australia and South America.

In reality, no matter the model, basically everyone agrees that Polaris is not visible from South of the equator. Meaning they aren't looking at Polaris by deduction.

Ergo (first and last time I'm saying ergo), they're looking at *another* point.

Also, literally anyone South of the equator can see this.

Those star trails aren't of Polaris.

I said "...everyone agrees that Polaris is not visible from South of the equator..."

I like how you assume it's Polaris. The stars circle Polaris going counter-clockwise I believe, while the stars around the Southern point circles the opposite direction. There are also different constellations then the stars around Polaris.

You kept saying "Polaris is visible south of the equator"

I never said that.

Can you quote what exactly youre replying to then

Which is south of the equator.

I know