Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part b

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:10 or a little before:

What "childish claims of cospiracy"?

Am I giving claim that God and angels "conspire" for anything?

Like being useful to us, by seasons and lunar phases, bemusing Heliocentrics and finally amusing your viewers and my readers?

I mean, conspiracy claims are usually about lower deeds, like Bilderbergers conspiring to impose "population control" or things like that.

I do believe that too, but am not entertaining that belief each time I give a Geocentric explanation, Sir!

Bel-Shamharoth

No, the conspiracy he mentions is that the (apparent) majority of flat-Earthers believe that shadowy overlords, typically NASA and the Illuminati, work together to spread "lies" that the Earth is a globe for reasons unknown. Nothing to do with religion.

That's another video series.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very well, but in that case, believing that conspiracy is NOT a requisite for being a geocentric.

He is simply wrong to claim this conspiracy is all that geocentrics have to offer.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's called hyperbole. It's not ALL they have to offer, but it's all that MOST of them have to offer, and the ones that don't offer that rarely have anything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, I do offer some conspiracy too, but only after beiong confronted for so long with practical obstacles offereing the rest I have to offer to the world.

What was it a Brexit advocate recently said?

"Not a conspiracy, but worse : a confederacy of dunces".

Though the last word is vastly unfair to Duns Scotus!

So, when it comes to explaining why I have a hard time giving what else to give, I do offer the explanation "conspiracy or confederacy of dunces" too.

But if you really think this is all "we" have to offer, either you haven't met many of us, or you have been trusting someone who was dishonest about us.

It could of course also be you are in fact dishonest, you might be claiming to have read very many of us Geocentrics, and to have come to this conclusion about us, in that case you would be dishonest - like a conspirator, since very many people seem to share this same dishonesty (as perpetrators or as - as I just suggested for your case - victims).

If not, an uncautious reader might get the impression you had read many of us and found "no explanations, only conspiracy theories".

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You haven't been paying attention to a word I have said have you? I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying. Once again, I don't believe that conspiracy is ALL that geocentrists have to offer. But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government. CHL just exaggerated that into a generalization about ALL geocentrists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying."

What he said needed no clarification. It was simply untrue.

"But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government."

• 1) "a majority of those believing X consider non-X a conspiracy" does NOT equal "those believing X only have to say in response to non-X that it is a conspiracy";
• 2) you are confusing geocentrics with flat earthers.

Most known geocentrics, namely Sungenis, DeLano, De Bouw, myself (perhaps, if I may propose my own case as known) are in fact ourselves believers in the globe theory.

Thus, we do not consider globe theory as a conspiracy.

Those who do are mostly Protestants who would also consider Magellan as capable of conspiring with the Papal States to prepare Papal reconquest of Protestant countries through globe theory.

Of the Geocentrics I considered as known in the enumeration I made, only De Bouw is a Protestant. And he also respects Magellan.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently it did need clarification, because you still don't get it. It was a generalization. As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do.

• 1) See the definition of the word "hyperbole" and the above paragraph.
• 2) No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale.

I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do."

Hyperbolé is one thing, hyperbolé within another hyperbolé is another thing.

Not only generalising from most of us to all of us, but "generalising" and vastly exaggerating having a conspiracy theory into having nothing else - even when the conspiracy theory is actually a minority of what someone actually says.

That is no longer within acceptable limits for hyperbolé, it is falsehood.

"No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale."

Similar or not is not the point.

A geocentric who believes the globe theory will not pretend that precisely the globe theory is a conspiracy.

Either you forget what you said a few days ago, or you are being diffuse and obtuse on purpose.

"I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth."

Yes, I did understand precisely that.

I was being facetious in my previous remark.

But since I am a geocentric believing a gloàbe shaped earth, I will for one thing NOT say globe shaped earth is a conspiracy by people like the groups behind Nelson Rockefeller (responsible for the catastrophic building of Twin Towers!).

ALSO, when it comes to heliocentrism and specifically explaining what CHL thought I could only explain with "childish conspiracy theories" while I do indeed believe there is a conspiracy, that is NOT my explanation for the phenomena he is talking about. Angelic movers is, and on any Christian view, these existed long before Nelson Rockefeller became a conspirator.

He is deliberately shifting attention away from what I have to say on the subject at hand to what I am saying on another matter and what he can best ridicule by not doing so on THAT debate.

And you are trying to defend his foul tactics. Are you conspiring with him?

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are taking things way too seriously. You need to calm down; there is no such thing as "beyond acceptable limits" for exaggeration; that is literally the whole point of exaggeration. And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory". I don't have the patience explaining this to you anymore, since if even the basic uses of literary devices eludes you so utterly, I don't think there is hope for you to understand the complex mechanics of the real universe, instead of your fairy tales. So I won't spend my time on you anymore. Good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By "acceptable" I mean the difference between exaggerating what is there and exaggerating what isn't.

You are not qualified to tell me when to calm down, you are not very calm yourself.

"And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory"."

Perhaps not his specific use, but I do understand every one else means if saying the phrase "all you have to offer is childish conspiracy theories" something other than "all of you have on occasions offered conspiracy theories, which I consider childish".

Every one else's than his specific use would clearly involve the claim we have nothing else to offer. What is more true is that this is what we sometimes do offer, but some of you want to hear it over and over again.

On to next.