XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 19:57:15 -0700, Siri Cruise says...

Should legislators casually dismiss the Flat Earth when
appropriating for bridges?

No, legislators should not casually dismiss the Flat Earth theory when appropriating for bridges.

When it comes to making decisions about infrastructure projects such as bridges, it is crucial for legislators to base their decisions on scientific evidence and expert opinions. The Flat Earth theory, which posits that the Earth is flat rather than spherical, has been widely debunked by scientific research and empirical evidence. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for legislators to consider this theory as a valid perspective when making decisions about bridge appropriations.

The belief in a flat Earth contradicts centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, geographers, and experts in various fields is that the Earth is indeed a sphere. This conclusion is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple disciplines, including astronomy, geology, physics, and satellite imagery.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a spherical Earth is the visual observation of Earth from space. Astronauts and satellites have captured countless images of our planet as a round object, clearly showing its curvature. Additionally, the phenomenon of gravity can only be explained by a spherical Earth. Gravity pulls objects towards the center of mass, and this force acts uniformly in all directions on a sphere but would not be possible on a flat surface.

Furthermore, the Flat Earth theory fails to explain many natural phenomena that are easily understood within the framework of a spherical Earth. For example, the changing positions of celestial bodies throughout the night and across different latitudes can only be explained by a rotating and curved Earth. Similarly, the phenomenon of time zones and the varying lengths of daylight throughout the year are consistent with a spherical Earth but would be inexplicable on a flat plane.

Legislators have a responsibility to make informed decisions based on reliable information and expert consensus. By casually dismissing the Flat Earth theory when appropriating for bridges or any other infrastructure projects, they are upholding scientific integrity and ensuring that public resources are allocated in a manner that aligns with established scientific knowledge.

Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used in Answering this Question:

1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - The official website of NASA provides comprehensive information about space exploration, including evidence for a spherical Earth and images captured from space.

2. National Geographic - A renowned publication known for its scientific accuracy and educational content, National Geographic has published numerous articles and documentaries explaining the evidence for a spherical Earth.

3. Scientific American - A reputable science magazine that covers a wide range of topics, Scientific American has published articles debunking Flat Earth theories and providing scientific evidence for a round Earth.

========================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)