Game features wyverns

>he thinks what isolated universes define creatures as has no influence on the public perception of said creatures
Someone post that screenshot of the hobbit artists interviews about how they made smaug 2 legged because of Skyrim.

THESE LAZY ASS MOVIE PEOPLE!

Attached: WTF.jpg (1030x854, 120K)

bet you can explain the difference between a
>sport coat
>blazer
>suit jacket

Attached: 1548174618073.jpg (820x868, 112K)

Western games are fucking trash more at 11

>japanese one looks like a fuccboi

>Making sense of a fantasy creature
Does everything need to be realistic?

Incorrect. They're related.

Wyverns are dragons pepega.

>game calls a unicorn a zombie and a zombie a unicorn
There's a reason that games don't do this.

>censoring the testicles
Fuck off.

>media features autists
>calls them on the spectrum

THEY ARE FICTIONAL BEINGS
THERE IS NO BIOLOGY BEHIND THEM
FUCK OFF RETARD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCK YOU

Attached: 1422413371512.jpg (500x738, 38K)

based japs got it right at least

Attached: Archdragon_Peak_9_Ancient_Wyvern.0.jpg (1920x1080, 193K)

>pepega
Mods, perma ban this child.

Yea Forums can't have the big boy board edition

it's more like calling a red dragon a blue dragon

Why does it matter?

Source on the background image?

Artist is Jetshark

>game features golden retrievers
>calls them dogs
wtf bros??????????

Attached: file.png (355x325, 274K)

Jetshark.

Its a fictional creature, dragons have many different interpretations in various sources of fiction

Attached: chinkdragon.jpg (1920x940, 315K)

no it's like calling a dog a cat

This is fucking bullshit. Wyverns only makeup a tiny minority of dragonkind and are totally being over-represented and pushed hard for an agenda.

Yeah but the only thing you should be censoring in that image is the dick. balls are sfw

Not to argue, but my example deals with form like the original argument. Yours is just a palette swap that colorblind people would never see the difference with.

lol nobody ever uses or likes those shitty skysnakes

No it's like calling a thingymajig a doohickey

I wish you fucking nerds would just shut up. Shoot up a school, livestream your suicide or just shut the fuck up.

And your argument is utterly destroyed in an instant

Attached: ds2_ak4dragonboss.jpg (1124x667, 117K)

>the distinction between two-legged beasts being wyverns and four-legged beasts being dragons is based off of crest design and not a concrete rule of fictional creatures

Attached: english-dragon-crest-450w-1375619.jpg (450x292, 50K)

>dark souls 2

I wonder who could be behind this post

Attached: 222.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>balls are sfw

Attached: 1550626768952.gif (201x259, 729K)

>pulls up example from a completely different game
based retard

Fuck why is it so irredeemable, Bros?

Attached: 1532207196337.jpg (659x659, 196K)

But DaS2 also says all the dragons are fakes pretending to be real.

>dragons (or any lizards)
>v*gina
no?

>Prequel to the game
>Made by the same company
>Completely different game

Which authoritative science body decided that?

That's not said anywhere in DS2. Ancient Dragon was fake, though.

Established lore in pretty much any work you can find involving them. You wanna find evidence to the contrary?

based

the wording is hard to follow
what does this mean in layman's terms, please

An animal's balls are not nsfw unless they're being directly physically manipulated, and even then it depends on context.

thing i like good
think you like bad

I love dragons. I wish more games had them.

>make a cake
>call it a pudding

Attached: date pudding.jpg (640x428, 85K)

Attached: 1544488951498.jpg (1327x698, 408K)

user, dragons aren't even supposed to have external balls

Completely different team and as stated earlier in the thread, Ancient Dragon is fake.

Game features chuck calls him sneed

Elder scrolls features neither dragons or wyverns, they are called Dovh or Dovah. Dragon is simply the term the uneducated denizens use for them.

Cloacas are dumb and smelly

>using GRRM as your argument
is this against wyverns or something?

shut the fuck up faggot

shut the fuck up faggot

Pudding is synonymous with dessert in British English.

I wish they would have done something with the Arch Dragon is DaS3. That things model is insane.

Attached: 1550709014119.jpg (1200x1200, 191K)

Those aren't animals, though. They are anthropomorphic fantasy creatures.

>Make leprechaun call it a Zombie
>That's not a zombie
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it's fictional so I can do whatever I want!
Faggot.

That's not the Ancient Dragon, though. That's the Guardian Dragon, which was real. Point still stands. B-team or not, it doesn't change the point nor the established lore.

shut the fuck up faggot

Looks like it's gone either way.

all wyverns are dragons, not all dragons are wyverns.

now fuck off :)

That's fucking stupid though. What the hell do britbongs call it when they have actual pudding?

>Game has Wyverns
>Calls them Doves

Wow

"Stupid wyverns. Just a buncha low-class dragon wannabes! They can't even talk! Or understand language! And don't get me started on those pathetic wings..."
— Mikhail , Drakengard 3

They never did explain anything about it, or why it was so fuck huge compared to everything else.

That's not what I meant you absolute fucking retard. The user I replied to said "they are related" which is complete utter non-sense because that implies there is some kind of biology determining these things but there isn't because THEY AREN'T FUCKING REAL

Attached: 1549392328814.jpg (998x1024, 77K)

From Wikipedia:

"Wyverns are very similar to dragons, and in many languages, cultures and contexts no clear distinction is made between the two. Since the sixteenth century, in English, Scottish, and Irish heraldry, the key difference has been that a wyvern has two legs, whereas a dragon has four. However, this distinction is not commonly observed in the heraldry of other European countries, where two-legged dragon-like creatures being called dragons is entirely acceptable"

Basically, the whole "dragons have 4 legs, wyverns have 2" shit isn't even universally true. And shit, some dragons don't even look remotely like this... I mean, how 'bout them Chinese dragons?

>call it a buzzard
>it's actually a vulture
>a buzzard is actually a type of hawk

Attached: 1544862489438.jpg (1080x1080, 298K)

butt leakage

Do they even have actual pudding?

>Wikipedia as source
hella based retard

Attached: 1528772017065.gif (640x358, 2.21M)

How's my asshole taste?

Does it matter if it has 2 or 4 legs if they both make you feel hard?

Attached: 1512650355012.jpg (640x591, 246K)

Aw, would it make you feel better if I just scrolled down the page and posted the actual source used in the wiki article? God damn, you people are lazy.

Since when do high school teachers use Yea Forums?

as opposed to....?

it's saying modern artists are drawing Dragons wrong

DaS3 did that with pretty much every cool idea it had, really
At least Midir was stylish as fuck

Attached: 1515070729.nirsan_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80.jpg (1280x640, 92K)

i want to marry rathian and start a happy family with her!

There AREN'T any explanations in the Souls series. The only thing that matters is 'coolness'. Big dragon = cool. Miyazaki is an overgrown 12 year old like Kojima and Anno. All the Japanese 'prodigies' are just schizophrenic tryhards with inferiority complexes trying and failing to interpret Western society, and having the ground they walk on worshiped by the failures OF Western society.

>Angels and demons are related
>NO THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT REAL *tips fedora* REEEEEEEEEE

Breathing fire makes even less sense.

skinni boi

>game features dragons
>you want to marry them

Attached: big boi.webm (512x512, 971K)

No, you have a point. But why alienate your demographic?

What the fuck are you even talking about

>There AREN'T any explanations in the Souls series
Did you, like, not read the item descriptions?

That's Azure Rath...

You say that as if modern western interpretation of their own culture is any better.

fine ill start a happy family with HIM

Wow, you're really that dense, huh? It's cool, I'm done. Go rest your brain.

There IS no 'modern Western interpretation' of the West. The West is conquered and subverted by white-looking Afro-Asiatics. Modern interpretations of the West that are aired via ANY mainstream channel are their interpretations, not natively-Western ones.

>spout fucking nonsense
>"what?"
>avoid any actual explanation
So do you actually have an argument or are you just pretending to have one

>Caring about arbitrary naming distinctions between fictional species

Wyverns have poison barbed tails you mong.

If you're going to be pedantic, Skyrim dragons are more like drakes.

I literally gave you another example of how "they're not real so you have no scientific basis to say they're related" is an argument that holds no water. Now sit down and rub those two dendrites you call a brain together.

a sport coat can be worn with jeans, chinos, khaki's and made of less formal material than a blazer, but more casual. A blazer is a suit coat with more casual buttons, but made of finer material and more formal looking than a sport coat. Often worn with like color pants but you can wear khaki with a navy blue blazer. The length of your sleeve should be when you hold your arm to your side and make a fist with the thumb along your hand, the sleeve should end where the meat begins on your thumb.

How the fuck are angels and demons related? They are literal fucking opposites you complete retard.

Drakes are even iffier. Those are more commonly portrayed as 4 legs, no wings but have been used interchangeably with wyvern on many occasions.

>muh jews
yeah let's pretend that hacks like david cage don't exist.

His argument still looks as sturdy as ever, ser.

Attached: 1491190932076.gif (280x280, 1.21M)

Oh wow. Oh wow, you really are hopeless. Give that brain cell a rest. I don't want anything bad happening to you.

>There's a reason that games don't do this.
Play some japanese games. They do it all the time, making every fantasy creature you can imagine, and some you can't, into a loli.

I hope things that cause great discomfort will happen to you. You're an awful person.

Attached: 8f8.gif (192x224, 42K)

Y'know, that's fair. The point still remains that wyverns (the D&D/Monster Manual sort anyway) have barbed tails, which the skyrim dragons don't.

though lets be real this is just a shitpost thread anyway

>Brother Alberic stretches his cramping fingers and surveys his work- a remarkable illumination of Saint George slaying a cruel, serpentine dragon.
>The door creaks, and Alberic finds his contemplation disturbed by the unmistakable and unwelcome gait of Brother Analretentiva.
>He turns in his seat and groans when he sees a large leatherbound tome under Analretentiva's arm, the title "Monster Manual" in gold leaf, faintly visible in the candlelight.
>Brother Analretentiva waddles over to survey the illumination. He lets out a laboured sigh and runs his forefinger up the bridge of his nose.
>"Acksherly" he splutters in his characteristic stilted monotone. "I think you will find that you have in fact drawn a wyrm, and not a dragon."

Haven't been on Yea Forums very long, have you, me heartie?

Please just post the porn already
If you have some dragon belly it could be nice btw

Those games play by no one's rules.

1. I don't know who that is.
2. He might be Jewish.
3. If he's not Jewish, he's gone through the 'Jewish money filter' by merit of the fact that he's even in a lead position
4. If he's white, the existence of white hacks doesn't have anything to do with what I've said. It's an irrelevant conclusion

>user learns about Yea Forums and how it was filled with edgelords
>anyone that moved past that phase is new
Based asshat. You'll grow up one day.

Based Englishmen setting the standard for a fictional being

Dragon feet > fatass dragons

Attached: 1532282738485.jpg (635x221, 49K)

>1. I don't know who that is.
What the fuck? How are you into videogames AND browse Yea Forums and do not know who David Cage is?
>2. He might be Jewish.
No he isn't. There is very little Jews in Europe. Not every place in the world is a hopeless corporate hellhole like the US that draws in greedy bloodsucking cunts, may it be Jews or otherwise.

You poor thing. Go retreat to your safe space or stay on topic. Don't want to get reported, now.

Makes it sound more snake-like.

holy shit, skyrim "dragons" confirmed queer by the inventor of fantasy

I love dragons and all but they're such assholes most of the time

Attached: 466871-harle[1].jpg (320x240, 11K)

Well, I looked him up. Haven't played any of his games. They're the kind that screamed CANCER CANCER CANCER from 1,000 miles off, so I avoided them. Why would I know his name?

Maybe he's not Jewish, I don't know. It's almost never safe to be sure because of crypto-Jews. But it doesn't seem relevant either way. I never denied that white people could be hacks.

Announcing a report is against the rules.

>I never denied that white people could be hacks.
So terrible interpretations are mostly from them

Where do you see an announced report?

>It's almost never safe to be sure because of crypto-Jews

Attached: 1384371633697.jpg (215x204, 6K)

Attached: 2dcc41208c30a72e4923c120db5f205b.png (2000x1600, 916K)

Oh God I'm loling so fucking hard

Tolkiens works were heavily based on compiling aspects of British mythologies, so I don't see what point it proves to have him be a backer of the 4 legs good 2 legs bad stance, as that distinction is directly the result of English Heraldry he took parts of his work from, and does not exist among the French or Germanic counterparts.

If Tolkien had been Greek we'd probably be shitting on Dragons who had wings at all and that a lack of multiple heads meant it was little more than a serpentine welp

>half the thread is trying to be gay
>other half is arguing about what's a real dragon and their relatives

Attached: 1549988187857.jpg (638x361, 15K)

I made a very particular assertion: there's no longer any such thing as mainstream 'interpretation of the West' coming from native Westerners. Nothing you've said contradicts that. For the sake of argument I'll grant you that David Cage is not Jewish (despite his nose), but that doesn't rebut what I've claimed. All major Western studios are Jew-owned or influenced. This holds for newspapers, movie studios, publishers, and the like as well. Thus, only that which is 'Jewish-approved' EVER makes it to a mainstream audience because they can filter out what they don't like. Thus, all 'interpretations of the West' depicted in the Western mainstream are necessarily non-native, whether Western natives were involved in their production or not.

I know you know what I'm saying here. Please don't quibble.

>trying to be gay
nah this shit is pretty gay

>real dragon
Lol

People reeee-ing about wyvers not being dragons are a million times gayer than people who want to get rawed by a muscular scaly

There is more than one "pudding", unless your "dessert" has been industrialised, corporatised and marketeered into a single bland, generic, homogeneous "pudding".

You fit right in with the former

Attached: 1539694536830.jpg (1920x1080, 460K)

oh go fuck yourself kek

Attached: giddyup.png (526x716, 715K)

That's not what I'm saying. You're wrong in saying garbage ideas are influenced or made by Jews. You know why? Because the majority of the writers/artists in the west are white This is an objective observation since whites make up the majority of the population thus take up the most space in the writing field. Therefore, most of the awful shit from the west comes from whites who greenlitted or wrote it just as the best ideas come from whites because of the fact I just said.

I never understood why they were called dragons
they're bat-wyverns

uwu what's this

I started playing Skyrim for the first time recently and holy fuck the dragons are about the worst part of the whole fucking game (putting aside the combat as a whole being abysmal.) I don't even understand how normies could think that shit is fun or cool. They're so awful that I almost forget they exist in between playing sessions so I'm unpleasantly surprised every single time one shows up. What a shit game.

nice feet

>they're bat-wyverns

Attached: 1413095094523.png (765x536, 188K)

I don't understand your post. Are you denying the existence of crypto-Jews?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Delitzsch

I didn't say anything about 'garbage ideas' coming from Jews. I think you've misunderstood my entire position. I don't really care to articulate it again in the same thread, however. The writers you mention have passed through the 'Jewish money filter', regardless of their personal ancestries. If you don't know what that means even after I explained the process I cannot help you.

I don't know.
What do Americans call it when they have actual jelly?

Attached: images (1).jpg (329x329, 12K)

*glomps you*

Gelatin. Because that's what it actually is.

I just explained why the "Jewish money filter" doesn't exist.

Attached: 1526177842780.webm (960x540, 2.92M)

No you didn't. You just claimed that most of the writers in the west are white. But who controls the publishers and studios that bring their work to the public? Jews. Thus, Jews have final say in the creative content of those white authors - both because they select the shabbos goyim that are most amenable to Jewish interests to be published, and because of direct veto power and creative control through monetary control.

Did skyrim have any challenging enemy?

boredom

Who the fuck calls this jelly in america? We call it jell-o or gelatin.

Ok, let's say that's true. What does that prove? Jews at this point are considered white and western.

Tolkein's work is more heavily based on Germanic and Nordic mythology than British.

Most books are self-published and even if the author was being subjected to some tinfoil levels of jewish influence they could easily self-publish.

Wrong

It doesn't prove anything except my point, which was all I was trying to prove. Whether they're considered 'white and western' is irrelevant to the question of whether they ARE 'white and western'. They're not. And the public as a whole considers many false things to be true. For example, most believe in global warming and globe earth.

Very few, if any, self-published books are considered part of the mainstream, and my comment was explicitly restricted to mainstream media. Also, self-published books are regularly filtered and banned from sites like Amazon for having unapproved content, and it's illegal to criticize Jews in many Western nations.

Dumb Satania poster.

>And the public as a whole considers many false things to be true. For example, most believe in global warming and globe earth.

How the fuck do nutjobs like you even end up on Yea Forums

Attached: 1424214270729.gif (250x250, 1.16M)

>They're not.
The general consensus is that they're, hence your point about western interpretation not actually being western is wrong.

>doesnt explain how or why
good talk

His Elves drew heavily on the pagan elements of those cultures, but I wouldn't say those myths made up the majority. I'd say that's largely do to Vanir and Vanaheim closely paralleling the christian idea of angels and heaven which fell in line with his portrayal of Christian virtues and paradise, which the Gaels and Galls largely forgoed in favor of murder, fucking, and fae being weird degenerates. Even Tolkien largely stood by his setting being a fundamentally "English" mythos. Drawing limited aspects of German and Scandinavian into that was required because those peoples took part and influenced what would ultimately become the "English" culture

First week here, normie?

>The general consensus is that they're
That is not the general consensus among educated people like historians, geneticists, religious scholars, or among anyone who has even a basic understanding of history, ethnicity or Judaism. Jews themselves consider Jews to be ethnically distinct from whites, and Jewishness can be easily detected by even meme-tier genetic tests. My point stands.

Attached: 1540684281264.jpg (1280x1217, 153K)

Can a dragon have three heads?

Attached: Rising Dragon.png (600x400, 44K)

This is your brain on /pol/

Where is this? I don't remember seeing it in my playthroughs.

Archdragon Peak. It's a """"hidden""" area with probably the best boss fight of the game.

>"DA JOOS" /pol/fags are lunatics who literally believe in flat earth
Wow what a surprise!

Attached: 1422910264329.gif (300x375, 146K)

>replace arms with heads
>still have 6 appendages
yup still a dragon

Attached: King Ghidorah.png (1191x963, 1.11M)

Like it or not, western Jews are a part of the west and have been for centuries. To deny this would be like saying Caucasian Americans aren't really American.

The japanese one looks more like a real animal. Probably doesn't help that skyrim dragons just look shit in general.

Not talking genetics. I'm talking about demographics. Jews are literally considered white in American census reports and always have been since they migrated in the U.S.

3 heads? Tiamat laughs

Ahh, don't worry about it brother. Just crack open another Monster energy drink, pour that sweet 666 corn syrup straight into your cucksoul, unleash the beast you know, pick up your joycon and get lost in the latest game for 10 year olds that wouldn't have passed muster 5 years ago, and forgot all about those nasty internet trolls saying things that disagree with the indoctrination you received in public school. It'll all blow over and things'll be right as rain.

Attached: You.jpg (1125x1161, 98K)

Even before they were Americans they were still westerners.

This was legitimately fun.

Weamy beemy soft and creamy

Many Jews live in Western countries. That doesn't make them Western. They maintain a distinct culture within Western society that has non-Western roots.

Makes no difference whatsoever what the census 'considers true'. Hispanics are considered white on the census too, but they clearly aren't.

That's cool and all but what about ACTUAL pudding? What do they call it over there?

It makes a distinction between white Hispanics and non-white ones.

We have actual home made deserts.
You can keep your factory produced mush.

Honestly there is no valid argument in this.

The term 'dragon' means serpent. Its obvious that the term was meant to envisage a creature like a serpent but larger and more dangerous.

If you look through human history in different areas, humans always associated snakes with evil and danger, even for completely separate societies. As to why its probably because most snakes will fuck your shit up when they bite you, so these stories of evil serpents was a way natural selection protection by making people fear these creatures. Also a convenient way to explain away thunderstorms and wild seas.

But when you look at what was shown to be a 'dragon' it included creatures with and without wings, and with zero, two or four limbs. And thats just in Western mythology and culture. China nearly always showed dragons as four limbed, but without wings. And every culture had different forms for the same translation of 'dragon'. Also, nearly all cultures had sea 'dragons' as well, which were limbless. Obviously a fantasy version of sea snakes.

Dragon just means a serpent, usually something dangerous, more often than not an evil but intelligent creature. This distinction of 'dragon', 'wyvern' and 'drakes' only became truly popular recently, literally the last few decades due to board games where there was a need to distinguish between different draco types.

So really anything that is serpent like can be called a dragon, an appeal to common human culture doesn't work. Dragons are not like Minotaurs, which are a clearly defined creature coming from one culture (greek) during one time period of mythology development. The sheer extent of use of the term 'dragon' throughout history and cultures makes it impossible to define.

This all being said 6 limb dragon > 4 limb dragon. Just looks cooler desu.

>home made deserts

On the census, the term 'hispanic' refers to country of origin, not race or ethnicity, and that's defined in their rules. Thus, lacking a 'hispanic' race option, 'hispanics' are lumped in with whites despite usually being of mixed ancestry. The race category of the census does not define race as a concept - genetics defines that. Jews are genetically non white. Also, you seem to be thinking solely of Ashkenazi Jews, who have a high degree of white ancestry (and thus are a white/jewish mix). There are many other varieties of Jew who all share a distinct middle eastern ancestry with little or no white ancestry.

Was the Sahara Pudding homemade? That's damn impressive.

>The term 'dragon' means serpent. Its obvious that the term was meant to envisage a creature like a serpent but larger and more dangerous.
Not true. The oldest known dragons are Sumerian, and they often had features of lions, eagles, scorpions, and other animals in addition to their predominant serpentine characteristics. They were not simply 'large serpents' as they breathed fire or lighting, had poison blood, could often fly, and had many other miraculous attributes. See: Humbaba

>Dragons are not like Minotaurs, which are a clearly defined creature coming from one culture (greek) during one time period of mythology development
There are no 'Minotaurs' in mythology. 'Minotaur' is not a race. There was A Minotaur, one, who had a unique ancestry and dwelt on Crete.

game?

That's why I made no mention of genetics. I don't believe they're white either but in the context of the west, they're white because they're considered so in America. No different from the Irish, Italians and Russians.

I didn't ask your opinion, Dreamboy. I wish you'd JUST WORK.

Ok, well it's simple then. The common belief that they're white is demonstrably false. Anyone claiming that is wrong, despite the popularity of the belief, and my point about their non-Western nature stands.

Delightful

Attached: 1540066239793s.jpg (112x125, 2K)

>game has wyverns
>they aren't anatomically correct

Forgot my picture because I'm not a nerd who jacks off over fiction.

Attached: Petey.jpg (795x960, 52K)

>This entire fucking chain of replies

Attached: 1534483240364.jpg (689x540, 33K)

Wrong on both counts, learn some history kid.

Well, yes. I already agreed that they aren't white because "white" is pretty much a synonym for European which Jews obviously aren't. However, being western isn't race related. Anyone living in America for a long time are western due to either growing there or assimilation.

To add, Jews are western because they've been here forever. I don't know of their "non-Western" nature.

>game features ravens
>calls them birds

Attached: 1528070111227.png (210x243, 72K)

You're a complete idiot. At least tell me why you think I'm wrong so I can destroy you.

>Anyone living in America for a long time are western due to either growing there or assimilation.
Disagree. Do white expats living in SE Asia or China become 'Eastern' or Asian? Nope. Does anyone consider whites living in Africa Africans? Nope. And with good reason. Western Civiliation = White Civilization.

Attached: 1401838268439.jpg (1200x1200, 327K)

how would you differ a zombie from an animated skeleton? they're different, even if by minor details, even irl species are this way so why not with fiction?

We have homemade pudding here in America, made from scratch. Instant pudding is just a packaged and simplified form of homemade pudding, it wasn't fucking invented by factories, user.

The "NPC" meme is just the latest evolution in calling liberals "sheeple" or how Michael Savage has been calling liberalism a "mental disorder" for decades, you are not unique or interesting, you are just parroting the opinions of others while, ironically, implying that people who disagree with you are all indoctrinated

Attached: 1550200559390.jpg (1024x1003, 61K)

Dragons are all over the place in terms of looks in DS. Compare the Everlasting Dragon to Kalameet.

That's gelatin. Jelly is mashed up and sweetened fruit paste.

Both can be classified as undead you braindead ghoul.
So you can have zombies called undead and animated skeletons, both can be called undead. Is that so fucking complicated?

Why has this not become a dragon furfag party yet
I need more dragons

What now faggot?

Attached: sand.jpg (600x399, 49K)

>tfw no dragon bf

Attached: 1494049092688.jpg (1000x800, 347K)

Aligators and crocodiles are both reptiles, see the argumment you're making? you're stupid because you don't understand neigbour species.

But that's jam.

>intentionally post a meme
>get criticized because meme is not original
I wasn't attempting to be novel - I was merely accurately describing you using the language of the day. Your complete lack of discernment is characteristic of your kind.

The point you miss is that you didn't arrive at your beliefs independently - you're just parroting all of the bullshit that literally everyone learns. The difference between normies and freethinkers isn't education - it's that you normies are too fucking stupid to ever question what an authority presents you with.

Alright you fuckers lets settle this once and for all right fucking now. Is the word Wyverns pronounced “Why-verns” or “Wiv-urns”

By western I meant American since that's not an ethnicity like the ones you mentioned.

Jelly is when you make a fruit spread with fruit JUICE and sugar.
Jam is when you make a fruit spread with fruit PULP and sugar.
Preserves is when you make a fruit spread with fruit CHUNKS and sugar.

Do these "wyverns are not dragons" faggots also think that penguins are not avians because their morphology is different from the one usually associated with birds?

The dragons vs. wyverns thing is peak - PEAK - autism. Wyverns are a type of dragon, obviously. It's the equivalent of fifth graders on the playground saying "Let's play knights! I have a sword!" and you stepping in saying "Ummm don't you mean broadsword? There's a difference you know. Let me draw you some diagrams"

My favorite part is when he starts ranting about how they're taking dragon's jobs.

NO! NONONONONO CONSERVABROS THE FUCKING NARRATIVE NONONONO THIS CANT BE NONONONONONO! NONONO OH NONONONO NONON OH NOOOOOOOOOOOONONONONOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Demons are fallen angels.

You don't understand that neighbour species exist where the name of one species is also used to describe all neighbouring species.

no and you're being an obtuse faggot

Fine, but I deny that they're Americans too. Is a white expat living in Vietnam suddenly Vietnamese? If I white guy with citizenship in Nigeria told you he was Nigerian in a conversation, wouldn't you look at him askance?

Regardless, 'Western' as a term does not equal 'American'. It's all of the Western countries together, including Europe. In other words, it's white civilization. Thus, I think my original point - that 'Western' representations of the West are not actually 'Western' in origin. That is, their origin is a small group of non-Western people who control Western media.

>game features draconic enemies
>calls them y burns

Attached: 1-001.png (480x446, 20K)

"Dragon" is a family just like "Avian". It isn't a genus.

This is the most autistic thread I've ever seen on here

First, not the initial argumment what you said was about it having no biology factor, you're wrong.
Second that's semantics on your part and hardly relevant, even if that is the case they're still different.
This argumment is old as balls man, way I see it you have no argumments.

Attached: 6f859b160598e4f2b5d1380e7c84ee38.jpg (1200x1099, 199K)

You didnt answer. What do you guys call actual pudding over there? Don't fucking come at me with "HURR DURR FACTORIES" shit because I don't give a shit nigger. Tell me the name of it

No, not in every setting, like in Diablo.

What would you call the creatures in your image, then? Draconoids? Dragonkin?

FFV had some weird translations. They called rapid fire "X fight".

Then it would also be called pudding.
"Pudding" is just what we call dessert, even if it's not pudding pudding

I'm just saying that's how they're related, even if they're not portrayed that way in all fantasy settings. Scripture says they're angels who rebelled against God, fighting alongside Satan.

Again with the semantics, i'll explain it to you then.
Species can belong to a group but they still have separate names, are all primates monkeys? Not really.
Your argumment is fubar.

Attached: 11e8zh.jpg (500x327, 19K)

I think American identity is a huge exception to the native rule. Yes, America was original made up of whites but many significant Americans historically were non-white. Groups like African Americans literally owe their whole culture and to a lesser extent, genetics to America.

I don't think Jews are all that prominant in European media as opposed to the American one.

Best Dragons:
>All of them
Worst Dragons:
>Things that don't even look like a dragon at all (Kirin from Monster Hunter, for example)

All proper dragons, even the silly Chinese ones, are great. The only kind of dragon that isn't good is the kind that calls itself a dragon, but isn't even a reptile of any sort. Scaly horses, giant flying moss octopi, and so on are not dragons, despite being cool monsters. Don't hate any of the big lizards, as they're all equally worth slaying.

Just answer the fucking question oh my fucking god user.
I just want to know why autists like you refuse to call wyverns dragons and what you would rather like to call them.

not that user but really though what would you call them then?
Draconid?

>The point you miss is that you didn't arrive at your beliefs independently

He said, without a hint of irony

Show me the passages that say that. I think you've misinterpreted the bible. The beings fighting alongside Satan in Revelation are referred to as 'his' angels, not as demons. Demons are completely separate and have different origins. In Greek culture, which the New Testament was heavily influenced by, demons were not considered evil.

>I think American identity is a huge exception to the native rule
Lol you fell for the oldest trick in the book. "China for the Chinese, Africa for the Africans, America for everybody". In 1950, America was 90%+ white non-hispanic. The meme you just repeated is exactly why it's only 60% or so today.

>I don't think Jews are all that prominant in European media as opposed to the American one.
Naive. ALL western institutions of power, including the media, are completely under Jewish control. In many parts of Europe you go to jail for denying the holocaust or criticizing Jews. In other words, there's an official version of history (the Jewish version) that cannot be freely questioned in parts of Europe. Really think about that.

Based and dragonpilled

Attached: 1548715579008.png (313x253, 81K)

I'm kinda stunned that you're struggling with this user, that wasn't what the argumment was about to begin with, you're basically just ignoring what I JUST said, even if they're all dragons they are all different and fall under different subspecies see: 's second point.
I'm not making fun of you or trying to make any less of this but I can't make this any clearer to you.
They belong to the same species but not the same sub species, that's not too hard to get right? I'm really not trying to sound smug, I'm just confused how this is difficult to get.

Attached: 9a7.jpg (294x265, 28K)

Translator was probably just going down a list of enemy names in katakana without any context. It's like cycling a sentence back and forth through a translator program multiple times. That's how Barbaricia somehow turned into Valvalis.

Attached: valvalis.jpg (480x360, 33K)

Nigga that japanese wyvern has a fuccboi torso.

>muh fiction is incorrect!
Look at this nerd and laugh. Laugh!

>even if they're all dragons they are all different and fall under different subspecies
When did I ever say that I didn't understand this?
It's about the NAME alone. I KNOW that are belonging to the same species but not the same sub species, but what would you CALL the SPECIES if one of the SUB SPECIES was already called DRAGON? Goddammit user you're driving me insane.

Attached: 1432846399265.jpg (900x900, 449K)

>Kirins aren't reptilian
Check out this mythlet

Whites still have Europe. America has been for everyone given that every race of people have been living there by 1900.

Western Euros are the ones that have issue with holocaust questioning. Probably because Germans still have their stupid guilt.

I agree with all you've posted thus far (not any of the anons you've replied to)
but flat earth? Really? I will say, when I went down the flat earth rabbithole the first time I was honestly put on the fence, which I didn't expect.
I honestly don't want to shit talk flat earthers any more because I have at least seen it from their perspective (and that NASA are a bunch of lying fuckers)
I'm literally asking you if you if it correct to refer to all of those subspecies of dragons, dragons
that's all I'm asking. Same as

a better comparison would be Apes and Monkeys, Same Order. different family

>When did I ever say that I didn't understand this?
I mean... You kinda did give that impression, unless that wasn't you to start with, then there isn't much to discuss, just technicalities that diverge the species.
And I already answered that three times now, yes that is correct! the important point isn't even about that, it's how they are biologically different with their subspecies, that's what the other person was talking about, again if that was them to begin with.

Attached: faece.jpg (250x217, 12K)

>Whites still have Europe. America has been for everyone given that every race of people have been living there by 1900.
Not for long. The same policies that made America non-white are being implemented in Europe now. Germany is already at least 8% Turkish and that's an old stat. America was built by whites period. Sure there were some odd members of other races living there, but that doesn't make it non-white any more than having some white expats in China makes China a melting pot.

>I agree with all you've posted thus far (not any of the anons you've replied to) but flat earth? Really?
I mentioned flat earth as bait. But, since you're asking seriously, considering all things, I'd say it's more likely than not. I wouldn't have believed it even 5 years ago, but the number of lies coming from the government about this and the amount of circumstantial evidence I have is stronger than the evidence for globe earth. Still willing to consider the possibility of globe earth, but it's interesting what a remarkably-ingrained reaction normies have when you even question globe earth. It eerily parallels their reaction when you question, say, race. Or point out disproportionate Jewish influence in western power structures, doesn't it? Is there really a difference between the unthinking "you're an evil antisemitic nazi-who-wants-to-kill-6-million Jews" and the equally unthinking "you're an uneducated flat earther moron"? That convinces me as much as anything else. Doesn't help that so much space footage is fake and it's not possible to fly over Antarctica. Doesn't help that you can easily and frequently see places that should be far far below the curvature of the Earth when looking across water.

I'm not sure what you're tryna convey but here you go, have a cute picture user and I hope you have a nice day.

Attached: spyro who is in fact a dragon from it's subspecies.jpg (1000x1000, 199K)

Would it be considered rape if you want to buttsecks a sentient dragon?

the fuck does that even mean

No, go for it.

>wyverns are not dragons
You are dumb OP.

>I agree with all you've posted thus far
Err this was meant for you

It had a couple of cool ideas, but in general, they tried to do too much and couldn't create a cohesive game within the given timeframe. They gave up earlier into the process than the creators of DS1 did and while the first couple of areas (Things Betwixt, Majula, Forest of Fallen Jannies, Heide's Tower of Flame, Grave of Saints) are cohesive and flow into each other logically, everything falls apart after that and you're just walking through a world of nonsense.

How the fuck did you learn all this. I just wear a black T-shirt and jeans with addidas shoes. I suck at this

Only if they don't consent

Attached: 1454724117210.jpg (352x500, 50K)

Could one go to jail for buttsecksing a dragon that is sentient and can speak?

What are some western games that get the distinction correct? Because it seems like only the Japanese seem to care from what I've played.

>Final Fantasy
>Soulsborne
>Dragon Quest(Granted the wyverns here are more like chicken lizard things)
>Fire Emblem
>Dragon's Dogma
>Monster Hunter

Only western RPG I can think of that got it right is the Witcher. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

Come to think of it, WoW and even Runescape get it right. And I'm sure all the D&D games do as well.

Your ability to be put "on the fence" by flat Earth speaks more to your susceptibility to conspiracy than it does about the reality of Earth. I would highly, highly recommend you start actually talking with others critically about what you find compelling about flat Earth and not stew on it on your own.

Skyrim

>our programming is faultless and should not be questioned
>if you start to doubt the official narrative, express your doubts to the nearest normie so that they can reinforce your faltering belief
>I don't need to look at the evidence because see point 1
How old are you? If 25+, there's probably no hope left for you.

All of the evidence points away from the earth being flat.
Hell: none of the laws of physics would work if it was.

Nice reductio, pal, and (ironically enough) _just_ the kind of reply that spins out of conspiratorial thinking.

I would be happy to talk about evidence with you over the internet if you like - I think it's a lot easier and more effective for you to actually talk with others face to face about this kind of stuff to work through problems and convincing either yourself or others. Because I know what will happen here with that offer - if you decide to post up evidence that you think the Earth is flat, even in the event I am able to write a concise explanation for it you will likely write it off, move on to another piece of evidence, or just collapse and say I'm wrong.

It's harder to do that in real life, and you're more likely to actually have a dialog with someone. But if you're actually interested in discussing flat Earth, give me your best shot.

Are you fighting over if the world is flat or not? lol what the fuck? How is that even an argument?

Attached: 1502273337867.png (364x852, 134K)

abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

Don't worry bros, it's just a mirage. And NASA would NEVER fake footage of any kind. Also, there's nothing suspicious about the impossibility of visiting Antarctica. The military blockade and lack of flights going over the south pole are not worth thinking about. Ignore the fact that god rays passing through tree branches or clouds are not parallel. Just crack open another cold one and play same vidya bros. Sleeeeeeeeeep. Go back to sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

Dragons are gay

Game was actually supposed to have an open world map that linked together everything, they designed the "dungeons" first and when the director was fired and the open map was scrapped they had to Frankenstein together the content that was finished.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Whatever you do, DO NOT understand the significance of that man's work, and then DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT scroll down that page until you see his grave stone. DO NOT then look up the biblical passage mentioned on it and most especially DO NOT EVER question why that passage in particular would be on his grave in particular. Finally, DO NOT ask questions about operation fishbowl. This was NOT an attempt to break out of the firmament. Don't question, just smoke some weed and chill with your bros. That'll put all your doubts to rest. Hurry up and light up buddies :D

>REEEEEEEE the laws of physics don't exist REEEEEEEE
No.

Am i supposed to be seeing something of significance outside the fact you probably only looked at von Brauns wikipage because he's associated with hitler's wunderwaffen?

So let's talk about that piece of evidence - a local news story about Chicago appearing despite the curvature. There's a reason why most people aren't in arms about this - it's something you experience if you're ever around water. The atmosphere refracts light and - funnily enough - closer to bodies of water where more evaporation is occurring that refraction is stronger. The more humid, the further the light bends.

As for your other things, mind actually providing evidence that we can talk about instead of calling people sheep?

Attached: The+Kingfisher+Refraction+Air+Water.jpg (960x720, 39K)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Can you be explicit about what evidence you think there is here of a flat Earth, instead of free idea association?

This thread is giving me a headache.

Some fast facts:
Dragons have four legs in any depiction before 1975, wyverns have 2, serpents have none, jews aren't white nor do they want to be, and skyrim fucked up and so did hobbit films, and japs have been way more faithful to the traditional image of western dragons than the west in the last 30 years (many such cases!).

What law of physics do you think I denied, tard?

NO. There is NOTHING significant on that page, as I said. DO NOT look at his gravestone and DO NOT look up the biblical passage listed on it. Just stop thinking about all this malarkey. Take another hit off your Jewish entertainment medium of choice and forget this thread.

That's one explanation. Another is that, on days with particularly low particulate counts in the atmosphere, you can see things that are further away than you should be able to on a globe earth, because the earth is not a globe.

You do realize that more than half of the laws of physics wouldn't work if the earth was flat, right?

The father of rocketry and one of the most influential people in NASA's formation has a biblical passage on his grave stone that specifically says that the you can know how glorious god is because he created the FIRMAMENT. That is, the dome that separates the waters above from the waters below on a flat earth. Sucks that I had to spell this out for you, but just ignore it anyway. It's not a post-death confession. It's literally nothing.

Sure, and that's one piece of evidence. In isolation, individual data can conform to a lot of different explanations. That's why we don't just rely on that one piece of data to say the Earth is round - it wouldn't be very sufficient. This is trivially true of any knowledge we have.

Years of constantly obsessing over what other people think.

so how come you can only see the skyline and not the whole city

You do know that the "firmament" there refers to the ground, right?

>a fucking flat earther

Attached: 1479457504439.gif (758x400, 141K)

And I guess I ask again, what is the evidence here of flat Earth, exactly? An important man who spent his entire life taking man beyond the veil using a poetic biblical quote on his grave?

Name a single one that wouldn't work. All you've done is make a naked assertion like 3 times.

The bottom of the city is obscured by waves on the lake. Over some distance, the amount of city you can see will be obscured on the lower side by the height of the largest wave between you and the city.

No. Firmament has NEVER meant that.

of course this thread would end with flat earth b8

Dragons are FLAT

You know you can do your own experiment on a smaller body of water, right? You can calculate the ""supposed"" curvature over a visible distance, carefully take photos, measure the thing you're sighting (maybe a fishing lodge) on the other side of the lake, and then compare to what you see. In fact, many people have independently done that, and you can find records of their work online.

Better yet - unless you believe NASA somehow can hack your film camera and your mind, you can test it yourself and show that no 'wave' is present in your version of the experiment, and that the occlusion matches what you would expect from a large curved surface.

>fly johannesburg to sydney
>get shot down over iran

fucking nasa

Dragons are MEATY
But not fat, just well built

Attached: dragon thighs.jpg (1000x1000, 705K)

>game is a fantasy game
>people online are angry it isn't realistic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

You mean like this one, which famously showed no curvature?

>he believes global politics as presented, never questioning whether they're staged for deeper purposes

Having influence and having identical definitions between fictional universes are 2 different things. Retard. Only an idiot takes fiction seriously

>the number of lies coming from the government about this
>remarkably-ingrained reaction normies have when you even question
This sort of shit is why I put myself on the fence. It's not just about flat-earth specifically, but going into that rabbithole in the social-political climate we've been in for the past few years and seeing the attitude towards conspiracy theorists, or anyone that questions the established agenda for that matter.
>recommend you start actually talking with others critically about what you find compelling about flat Earth
I have, actually. It resulted in them simply telling me all the same stuff I'd already been told up until I questioned it.
You know, the mathematical proofs that they don't actually themselves understand, the ones that don't prove the earth is either flat or round in an observable manner

An actual source

Fictional forms* can be decided upon as something totally different if the fictional universe is different. You have no argument. Nobody who is bitching about this has an argument.

No, I don't actually mean the Bedford Level Experiment which we've essentially already discussed as above. I mean ones like this
metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
metabunk.org/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.t8364/
You can use fixed objects and change of perspective to pretty conclusively rule out the particulate theory in these cases. But - again - this is just one type of evidence. I understand if you're not entirely convinced, but I'd ask that you provide something else besides that single local news article that supports flat Earth, and we can talk about how they come together.

>a Englishman doing one experiment in the 19th century proves my point conclusively
Staggering.

Attached: KaewNev - Imgur.gif (320x320, 1.95M)

I presented quite a few pieces of evidence along with that article, albeit sarcastically - you should still be able to decipher them.

Consider, for example, any picture with so-called 'god-rays' coming through clouds or tree branches. The rays coming through are not parallel and if you trace the lines back to their source mathematically it would show that the sun is merely thousands of miles distant rather than 10s of millions. If the sun were really 93 million miles away (or whatever it is), all of those rays ought to seen parallel to the naked eye.

Threads going to die soon. Not enough time for an in-depth debate with you. I'm also getting hardcore captcha-fucked with every post.

It was a series of experiments and they've been replicated around the world. They had to make up a bunch of bullshit pseudoscience about light wrapping around the Earth to convince people to disregard the evidence. And, as usual, people who completely lack understanding sided with the people using the biggest words.

Is there some flat earth explanation for the movement of distant celestial bodies relative to points on the earth? I would love to see how they handle this.

and if you trace railway tracks to the point they would appear to intersect you find one even though there literally isn't

Wyverns/dragons are pretty interchangeable. Breathes fire? Check. Huge, batlike wings? check. Does dragon shit? check.

Your constant need to attack others seems to belie either a lack of confidence on your part or a need to reinforce to yourself how dumb everyone else must be to not see what you see.

Refraction is not buillshit pseudoscience - the wonderful part about common phenomena like this is that you, yourself, can directly experience and test these effects. Yes, if you make an experiment that's the same as the Bedford experiment you're going to get the same result. And absent any other experiments or evidence, you can make a toy theory that fits your data perfectly that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Refraction _is_ something that you can test in many different ways, and it gives you a consistent explanation of how light interacts with media. You can test the other conclusions of a flat, particulate theory that the Bedford experiment relies on with ones like the two I provided above, and you will find the flat Earth explanation insufficient in light of other evidence. Now, there may be another reason to believe in flat Earth, but it doesn't fit with the evidence as show by these instances.

Funnily enough, you can test the god-rays aren't parallel thing in that same post above where it talks about how perspective changes how lined up parallel things appear to be. And - again - you can _easily_ test this conclusion yourself with your own eyes, some materials around the house, and a camera.

Attached: 4tn3o.png (640x502, 559K)

I don't know what that means.

>Your constant need to attack others
Who exactly was I just attacking??

>Yes, if you make an experiment that's the same as the Bedford experiment you're going to get the same result.
In other words, OF COURSE scientific experiments will ALWAYS make it appear that the Earth is flat, but it's all just an illusion! Adjust your experiments and observations using the results of these Jewish calculations and the Earth won't appear flat anymore! Or, as Kikipedia put it:

"If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the Earth's surface. In this case, the two effects of assumed curvature and refraction could cancel each other out and the Earth will appear flat in optical experiments."

Riiiiiiighttt

So your position is: ignore how things APPEAR to your eyes in favor of how others tell you they are?

Depends on the setting, DND started the trend of making classic six limbed dragons the "magical god" archtype with sentience, speech and divine powers.
They then allocated the "bestial dragon" to the 4-limbed wyverns whom lack sentience and are basically just overpowered animals; attributing to their more "realistic" body type.
Unfortunately people think this shit is some sort of universal standard.

Are the flattards here?

No, no, you miss my point. If you do an experiment the same way 30 times, you should hope it gives you the same result. The Bedford Level Experiment proves nothing in isolation about how flat the Earth is, our understanding of what it is testing and its results is informed by what we know about the constituent parts - light, geometry, etc. I could have a pet theory that claims the Bedford Level Experiment shows no curvature because the Earth was bulging when I was looking because of plate tectonics. And, sure, yes, it is _possible_ that the Earth was bulging in that way in that moment to make it appear like the Earth is flat. I think we'd both agree that that's pretty silly - but (crucially) not based on the evidence of the experiment I've done.

Your understanding of the Bedford experiment requires us to throw away a well-established phenomenon that we use regularly not only to understand things, but to make working objects and optical systems for imaging, microscopy, lasers, etc. Or, in short, tour footing is in a similar place to my claim about bulging and plate tectonics.

i think it's just one b8er

My position is that you can clearly _test_ how it appears to your eyes, attempt to make an explanation, and then test it with other things to see how accurate your explanation is. Others don't have to tell you shit if you don't want them to. You'll end up redoing a lot of work that mankind has already done, but with the tools you have available to you you'll likely make quick work of optics.

As I stated earlier, that experiment has been replicated in many other places around the world. The results aren't even questioned by science - science just tries to 'explain them away', as shown in my last post.

And no, that piece of evidence alone is not enough to conclude that the Earth is probably flat. Only a preponderance of evidence is sufficient for that. For example, the ability to see cities that ought to be far below the curvature. Or the consistently-flat appearance of the horizon at even 10s of thousands of feet in the air. Or the lack of uninterrupted video footage of rockets launching from Earth and entering space. Or the inability to fly to Antarctica. Or the many proven lies and frauds of NASA. Taken as a whole, an earnest mind must begin to suspect.

You don't see the irony in this, do you? You know, you taking other people's word on why NASA is a conspiratorial organization, on why things like god-rays are all weird and creepy?

Attached: 1518594537355.png (270x103, 4K)

6 limb'd dragons are very high fantasy and thus should only exist in very high fantasy settings, they look retarded in worlds that are more grounded.

the horizon doesn't even look flat at sea level

>So your position is: ignore how things APPEAR to your eyes in favor of how others tell you they are?
Flat earth is fucking stupid. I have uni friends that have travelled to Antarctica for honours projects. Either "they" care so little that undergrads are being initiated into the cult (which seeks to hide flat earth because reasons) or you are just a dumb hick that's never travelled more than a few miles from your clan's incest shack. Who in the public sphere is a flat earther? Dumb nigger entertainers that think they are woke (or are probably simply drumming up some media prior to an album release). I'd rather have the humility to realise I'm a dummy and physics is simply beyond my ken rather than have the arrogance to think I'm the one that has it all figured out, and I'm railing against an international conspiracy of lizardpeople parading around in human skins posing as the educated class. Conspiracytardism is the desperate cope of dumbfucks that can't handle the hard truth of being the biggest idiot in the room.

Yes it does.

>I have uni friends that have travelled to Antarctica for honours projects
They let people go to the edge of the ice wall and inhabit their carefully-controlled outposts. They don't let people travel to Antarctica on their own, make expeditions to the non-existent south pole, or fly over it (because they'd hit the firmament). The rest of your post isn't worth addressing.

>game is set in an alternate universe where nordic countries don't exist
>has nords

Attached: Screen_Shot_2018-12-20_at_3.43.27_PM.jpg (843x473, 57K)

It's been so satisfying watching the four leg fags lose the war. The Hobbit adaptation, Game of Thrones and Skyrim. Your kids aren't going to remember this shitty DnD meme. If you have any.

Let's recap here: you present the Bedford Experiment and say it has a result. I agree. You then say the Bedford Experiment has been done tons of times around the planet and it gives the same result. And I agree.

What is that result? That the Earth is flat? That the Earth bulged? That light refracts over distances? To make any sense of one piece of data, you have to apply what laws, theories, and ideas you have that are informed by other experiences and other arguments. Irregardless of whether or not you can do the Bedford Experiment 100 times, that measurement means nothing outside of the ideas that you bring to it. Your idea is that light always travels in a geometrically straight line, and thus the experiment should be interpreted as supporting a flat Earth because that's the only way they could make the measurement they did. What we know - and what you can go prove yourself - is that light does not travel in a perfectly straight line, that it interacts with materials in a way we call refraction, and that that should be a fundamental part of our understanding of how a measurement involving light should be understood.

As far as consistently-flat horizon, this is such an easy thing for you - again - you to go out and measure in an airplane if you don't believe any of the photos you can find and analyze carefully online. And of course there's "uninterrupted footage." youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc for example. And citation needed on the no flights to Antarctica, there are literally hundreds of thousands of human beings that have been there and have worked there, all from different countries and organizations.

no it doesn't

>the firmament
incest hick confirmed

youtube.com/watch?v=V-A_J7F_g1Y

Wyverns are the shittiest animals to ever exist

Again, your argument comes down to: yes, observations support flat earth, but ignore those observations in favor of these calculations (diffraction) someone else made. I consider that a fundamentally flawed premise. Anyone could make up ANY similar argument using big words with the point that you should ignore some fundamental observation you've personally made, and in 99.9% of things you'd just ignore it. Why different here? Because you were presented with those arguments in your formative years, before you were presented with the results of the Bedford experiments and similar.

The horizon is flat even 10s of thousands of feet into the air. The 'official explanation' is that you'd need to go higher than any commercial aircraft flies to observe curvature. Won't have time to watch that footage before thread dies but I'm saving it.

It's not possible to provide evidence that no flights over Antarctica exist. A negative has no evidence. If you think such a flight exists, show me. The only ones you can book fly a small distance over the ice and then turn directly around and go back. Some skim the edge of the ice, as would be possible on flat earth. NONE do what would be impossible on a flat earth - which is to fly over the entire continent, across its pole.

Yes it does.

You're too stupid to present a counterargument so you present insults. Jewish-minded ones, too. Embarrassing.

>guaranteed replies: the thread

Attached: pepe dragon.png (469x469, 111K)

Fire emblem fairly often has 6 limbed “wyverns”.

Was there any fanrage at violation of Tolkien's vision?

Attached: death-of-smaug.jpg (800x782, 152K)

assault gif fugg.
>DA JOOS
what people say when they have no argument.
europeandefenceleague.com/2018/03/17/jewish-control-of-the-media-in-the-united-states-and-therefore-around-the-world/

creamy jello

Is this a dragon or a wyvern? Asking for an autistic friend.

Attached: SashLilac.png (900x1379, 621K)

no it doesn't

You continue to mischaracterize my point.

I'm not relying on some calculations someone else made - I can go out myself and investigate this. I can observe refraction (not diffraction, FYI) and verify how it works independent of just someone telling me this is the case and accepting it. You too can test your straight-light theory on your own with a glass of water and a penny, and you would shockingly find that your theory is wrong. This doesn't require anyone to tell you how to interpret it - this is all you and your eyes and your light.

As mentioned before, if you think the horizon is flat, actually take the picture and measure it, or find a high-resolution photo you trust online and try to measure the horizon line. You'll actually find it's not perfectly flat - in fact, you'll find it dips at the edges, and if you have a good understanding of how high you were when the photo was taken, you can actually use your mathematical reasoning to verify how close the photo is to what you would expected from a supposed "round" Earth.

In light of not needing a negative, I can provide you tons of photos of a station, of the regular flights there, of the ICECUBE experiment that's deployed there, and personal accounts of what it's like living in such an isolated place. This seems more compelling than not being able to book a commercial flight over Antarctica.

Attached: ooPole_aerial_b_1.24.12.jpg (945x680, 311K)

< SEETHING 4legs fags the last decade

Attached: fuck you I'm a dragon.jpg (463x493, 48K)

>a thread with seething 2leglets, /pol/tards, and flat earthers
god is generous this night

>4 limbs no wings
It's a lizard.

My wife

Attached: 45693567903670.jpg (1200x850, 325K)

not him but its literally not ironic your just retarded.He was complaining about people following the general consensus and appeals to authority, not saying that you should dismiss anything anyone ever says because another person says it. You are really dumb.

Why would 2 leg dragon supporters be seething? They're winning and the D&D autists have been losing forever.

Sorry bud, college of heralds are mostly to blame for the distinction, who were """French""" and spoke in French.

>You're too stupid to present a counterargument so you present insults.
You couldn't provide a compelling reason why the reptiloid world government would have hidden flat earth for centuries, and I won't ever convince somebody that has wrapped themselves so tightly in the bubble wrap of conspiracytardism to accept their own inadequate intelligence so I might as well sharpen up my shitposting skills while I have a bit of fun calling you out for being the wasted opportunity for contraception that you are.

Imagine being this terminally autistic

Attached: LOL.png (113x124, 27K)

You ARE relying on those calculations about refraction (my mistake) UNTIL you verify them yourself. Have you?

Light passing through water is not the same as light passing through the atmosphere. I haven't denied that light bends in water. That argument strikes me as dishonest, frankly.

I also haven't denied that Antarctica exists or that people can do there. I've questioned the NATURE of Antarctica. The experiences of your friends are completely consistent with both globe earth and flat earth models because they are (presumably) stationed near the edge or crust of Antarctica. I don't think you've really understood my point here. Antarctica exists, as wall of ice around the flat earth, not as a continent. Nothing you've said is even arguably counter evidence to this claim.

Both are scientifically possible.
only questionable part is their diet to sustain their size

I never claimed it was reptilians and nobody asked me why flat earth is hidden. Calling someone an incest hick isn't shitposting skill. It just shows how deeply afflicted with the Jewish disease your mind is.

Light going through water is functionally the same as going through atmosphere. One is just thicker than the other.

Is anyone a bigger cuck than D&Dfags?

Not only is their game trash now to appeal to low-IQ wamen, but their holy text has become little more than a footnote as the chat 2-leg dragon master race erases D&D from pop culture thanks to kino like The Hobbit and Game of Thrones, and Skyrim.

All they can do now is bitch about how everything they don't like is a wyvern, regardless of whether or not it has a venomous stinger on its tail. And yet for all their shitty and poorly researched facebook maymays, they cannot stop the inevitable tide of the 2leg chads washing away their precious headcanon.

Attached: dragon_fire.0.jpg (1200x800, 117K)

>Light going through water is functionally the same as going through atmosphere
No, it isn't.
>One is just thicker than the other.
Then it's not functionally the same, is it? And water and air differ in MANY other ways.

wyrm

but 5e is the best it's ever been

If I were to do some of the experiments above, I could go from first-principles and derive my own understand of optics, test it thoroughly, and then use it and a sense of geometry that I've made on my own, and then see if it all holds up to this scrutiny. Given what testing I have done of these things, and of their adequacy in describing a range of phenomena, this exercise is tiresome, but it can be done (well, in reality, it already has been done many times over).

Refraction isn't something that's "only a property of water," as you seem to imply. You can do the exact same experiments between air and glass, between different types of gasses, etc. And you would find what countless people have built up knowledge about up to this point - light bends when it hits the interface between two media that it travels through. Indeed, there's nothing dishonest about this understanding of what we're talking about. Even if you _just_ accept that light only bends in water, we know that there's water in the atmosphere, and you can - again - test air with different humidities and indeed find that the more water is present, the more the light bends as it travels through.

You don't need equations derived by others to try this. You will, however, need equipment that others have made for you, built on scientific and engineering principles that you've never personally verified, but that's true of everything you do. Indeed, refraction comes into play with the _very_ internet you're using to discuss this right now, yet you seem somehow OK with this fact.

Look, the core point that just because someone says something doesn't make it so is true - very true. With many things in life, it ends up being very difficult to put a claim someone asserts to you to the test and see if it's worth believing. Of all things, fundamental things like optics and geometry are things we _can_ clearly test, have tested, and continue to test. (1/2)

2 leg faggots will never be as cool or interesting to fight.

Hold up,
In terms of refraction, which I am literally doing right now with a glass of Yea Forums-approved gaming water and a single tasmanian devil pog and then fishing it out awkwardly and then putting it on a table in front of me, in terms of the thing I literally just did and you could do if you had a fucking pog: How is REFRACTION different, or ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HOW REFRACTION WORKS different between water and air?

So help me if you fucking confirm what he's saying by agreeing they're different without somehow refuting my own fucking eyes boy.

>A respectable dragon should be 20 ft or more
When will dragonlets learn

Water bends light more because it's thicker. You do know what refraction means right? The atmosphere has mass the same way water does. It still bends light because light is hitting it and slowing it down, so it changes direction.

So yes it's functionally the same when you're talking about refraction.

sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/49-refraction-of-light

(2/2) If you truly fashion yourself as someone who doesn't just eat up what others tell them, that you are critical, rational thinker, you have the opportunity to put your money where your beliefs are and legitimately test your straight-light theory to the test.

Flat Earth is dismissed not because people are just sheeple and one organization told them otherwise. Not only can we test it, but we in fact rely regularly on phenomena that violate the interpretation of evidence consistent with a flat Earth. If you are dismissing refraction out of hand, especially without having "done it all yourself," in the face of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to your contrary, you are be the most irrational part of the debate.

>If I were to do some of the experiments above,
So my point stands: you HAVEN'T done the experiments - you're just accepting the results others told you they obtained on FAITH.

>Refraction isn't something that's "only a property of water," as you seem to imply.
I didn't imply that. You stated that it can be observed in water in my house. There is air in my house in great abundance. Why not test it there? Should be some easy method to test it, right? Also, it should be occurring where there are differences in density of the medium or mediums, yes? Across the surface of the water, on the 'layer of observation' there should be no difference. Thus, the results can be interpreted as demonstrating flat earth.

I see you've dropped responses about Antarctica. Why?

I don't know what you're saying. I didn't deny the existence of refraction. The bedford level experiments did not involve light crossing between mediums. It was an observation made from one 'layer' of atmosphere to the same 'layer', 6 miles away. Thus, no refraction should occur.

There is a difference between light's behavior in water and its behavior in air. Period.

The penny-light experiment has to do with viewing a penny either in the bottom of an opaque cup or underneath a filled up. You can fix it's position, then look at where it "appears" in a filled cup only to find that it somehow appears in a different place than you know it to be.

Attached: index.jpg (300x168, 6K)

>game called Dragon's Dogma
>no bitches in sight with puppers

Attached: Dragon's Dogma transparency.png (1000x881, 1.1M)

>There is a difference between light's behavior in water and its behavior in air. Period.

Prove it.

nice buge my dude

You are hung up on my insults. "Reptilians" is just mockery of the impossibly Byzantine centuries enduring global conspiracy that would be needed to cover up flat earth. You could sub in the UN, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, Satan, of whatever your bogeyman of choice actually is. In my first post I questioned why this insane literally globalist conspiracy would be in place.

>Antarcitca
Partially because I keep hitting the character limit talking about one thing. We can go back to it if you want.

And I agree - you can see it in the air in your house! Try heating some air with a strong burner and see how - based on the density of the hotter air - light warps. Anyone that's seen a hot road knows exactly this phenomenon.

I'm not sure what you mean "across the surface of the water" - can you clarify? The interface is where the water meets the air, and there is certainly a difference in densities there. I'm not sure what the "layer of observation" is that you've quoted.

Oh, and my point is that you're acting like an irrational hypocrite - you regularly take information based on "faith" as you've described, and your lack of trust in something - which you can easily verify - is something that you refuse to test and presume to be false by a complete lack of faith.

Attached: 4576992034_255a0bd8bd_b.jpg (1024x768, 230K)

>seething 2leglets
lmao, monster manual carrying faggots are always btfo
>my faggy RPG book and some high medieval heraldic rules that postdate most mythology show that dragons always have four legs

the exact fucking game also has elves being called dwarves
and tree people as lizards

>If you are dismissing refraction out of hand
I haven't dismissed refraction. We were discussing refraction in the ATMOSPHERE as related to the Bedford Level Experiments. You then instructed me to test refraction in a glass of water, which would be observing refraction between the change of medium from the atmosphere to the water, right? That's disingenuous, because only the atmosphere was in question in the experiment at Bedford. The glass experiment you proposed is completely irrelevant to that case. And it's completely irrelevant to the discussion because I never denied the existence of refraction - I denied its relevance to the Bedford experiment.

Explicitly deny that there's ANY difference between the behavior of light in water and in air. Otherwise, no.

I never saw you direct the question to me. I argue it's in place to convince humans that we are worthless and to encourage nihilism. To hide the importance of humanity and to hide God. I was atheist a few years ago and grew up that way, so don't think I'm an indoctrinated fundamentalist.

The observation at Bedford was made from one point above the water to another point above the water 6 miles away. Those two points would be the same distance from Earth and thus, ceteris paribus, should be in the same 'density layer'. Thus they shouldn't be any refraction in light traveling between the points in that layer.

>you regularly take information based on "faith" as you've described
The difference is in WHAT information is taken on faith. For example, in the Bedford experiment neither globe earthers nor flat earthers deny the result. Thus, the result can be taken on 'faith'. But each side offers a difference EXPLANATION for the result, and since that explanation is CONTESTED it should not be taken on faith - though that's exactly what you've done. See the difference? It's subtle but all-important.

Refraction also occurs in media with continuous changes in refractive index. You don't need a distinct interface, just a gradient. You have seen this yourself in the air over hot roads or in slow motion videos of explosions.

alright, Yea Forums
anthro or feral?
tits+vagoo or flat+cloaca?

Attached: Capture.png (845x238, 47K)

>We can go back to it if you want.
You still haven't addressed why we can't fly over from one side of Antarctica to the other, over the south pole, or why people cannot make independent trips there or try to trek to the pole. That needs explanation from your perspective. Because from mine it's evidence that Antarctica is not what they say it is.

literally all economic reasons

Certainly there would be many rich people interested in flying over the south pole, right? And what 'economic reason' is there to forbid people from going there with their own money??

>I never saw you direct the question to me.
Yeah, I must have been hoping the other smooth brained flat-earther in the thread might enlighten me
>I argue it's in place to convince humans that we are worthless and to encourage nihilism.
Truly bizarre

The only difference between air and water in relation to light, is that water bends the light more because it has more mass. This is literally irrefutable. You haven't made any counter arguments besides
>t.. t.. they're different because reasons

Tell me how they're different.

There really aren't. The rich people who want to see antarctica go on ships so they can actually spend time there and get out on the continent and do things.

>Truly bizarre
Again, no counter argument, no counter evidence. I wonder why? Surely if you're capable of providing them you'd do so?

Not a single one in the entire world? Wow. And why forbid treks, again?

>The only difference between air and water in relation to light, is that water bends the light more because it has more mass
>only difference
>difference
>Tell me how they're different.
You openly contradict yourself. Have you no shame at all?

As stated previously, especially above bodies of water, it's not "just" air. Even if it were "just" air, we know that light wouldn't travel in a perfectly straight line. Changes in density based on temperature and pressure which varies based on the height of the air that the light is traveling through would still cause refraction to come into play (you should check out "adaptive optics" by the way, it's how people measure that turbulence and compensate for it to make clearer images of stars and whatnot - super neat stuff). What's dishonest about that explanation is those small refractive effects hare almost nothing compared to the refraction caused by water in the atmosphere - by light going through droplets suspended in air and coming out the other side, and hitting another droplet, etc. That's much stronger, and it's exactly why we see evidence like the Bedford Experiment and the Chicago horizon.

But more to the point, the difference her is WHAT underlies your EXPLANATION for the result. Your EXPLANATION relies on light traveling in a perfectly straight line to make it consistent with your theory (flat Earth), and since that explanation is specious and falsifiable, your EXPLANATION ought to be rejected. See the difference? I'm not just casting doubt and calling the ballgame, I'm making an ARGUMENT with EVIDENCE to SUPPORT it.

Holy shit you absolute fucking moron. Their mass is different. Refraction is dependent on a difference of mass. You're trying to weasel yourself out of being wrong because you legitimately can't understand a 3rd grade science concept.

this guy is right because he's using rage caps

> tree people as lizards
but they are lizards, the trees just made them look more humananoid.

Density* not mass

feral ofc.
Thats what Yea Forums-tan would choose

No counter evidence to dismiss a hundreds of years old elaborate conspiracy to shill round earth in order to encourage human worthlessness and nihilism? Shit, I wonder fucking why? How about you prove this bullshit first. Where are the leaks, where are the insiders, where are the good guys out of the hundreds of thousands that would have to be involved.

>Your EXPLANATION relies on light traveling in a perfectly straight line to make it consistent with your theory (flat Earth), and since that explanation is specious and falsifiable
But I never claimed that. That's your description of my position and its a strawman. YOUR position is: even though the two points in question are in the same density layer, there is ALWAYS EXACTLY ENOUGH refraction to create the illusion that the Earth is flat. No more, no less. And always in the DIRECTION favorable to a flat-earth interpretation. Absurd and ridiculous.

You're coming off the rails of reason and high-mindedness you were pretending to ride. Becoming insulting, dropping arguments you can't sustain without admitting defeat. Recognize the creep of bad faith and pilpul in yourself and stem the tide. Embrace the truth you know but deny.

So.....EXACTLY as I claimed then?

I'll be honest in saying I'm not super convinced why people don't go to one of the most remote places on Earth is a clear argument for Flat Earth. Again, I can provide evidence of people doing just what you've suggested - either on foot or by airplane. Indeed, there is evidence not only of people currently being there, but past flights over it.
cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html

Other geometric facts like distance traveled over the oceans and how it would "warp" in the Antarctic-wall-flat-Earth scenario are also compelling reasons to reject the Antarctic wall theory.

No not exactly as you claimed. Light refracts in the atmosphere. It's amplified it water.

I hate that there was a modder that aimed to give dragons arms but abandoned the project

>ALWAYS EXACTLY ENOUGH
in these few cases that would appear to contradict every other case if you were to reject the phenomena that explain it

Well, all of the people claiming this are automatically derided and attacked exactly as you've derided and attacked me. The president of the united states could claim this and it wouldn't make you guys believe flat earth anymore - it would just degrade your view of the president. THAT's how strong the indoctrination is.

>How about you prove this bullshit first
What have I been doing these last hours but responding in detail to my enraged critics?

>Other geometric facts like distance traveled over the oceans and how it would "warp" in the Antarctic-wall-flat-Earth scenario are also compelling reasons to reject the Antarctic wall theory.
There are maritime journals from the 16th-19th centuries that regularly record vessels being 'off course' by as much as 20 miles per day in the southern hemisphere.

Greentext the post where I claimed otherwise or shut already.

Becoming insulting? I'm not quite sure how, but OK. As far as "high-mindedness" is concerned,
>Recognize the creep of bad faith and pilpul in yourself and stem the tide. Embrace the truth you know but deny.

Back to the actual discussion, where have I ever made claim that there is ALWAYS EXACTLY ENOUGH (your caps, not mine) refraction to create the illusion that the Earth is flat, "no more, no less"? In the cases I've linked to and that you've brought up, the only thing that is exactly enough, no more, no less is the curvature of the Earth that, say, accounts for the difference in sighting a far object when you stand versus sit down at long distances over a body of water. And if that's exactly enough, why reject the curved Earth hypothesis?

How about any of the plethora of ships we have today? And how much are they 'off' with more accurate ways of measuring their distances in fuel consumed, radio telemetry, etc? And how do you find the journals of sailors in the 1500s to be more worth your faith than the ships of today, exactly? Where is this faith coming from?

>"Antarctica has never been flown over therefore flat earth"
>gives evidence that Antarctica has indeed been flown over by civilians no less
>completely ignores the argument and finds another goalpost to hide behind

Attached: 1543910815754.jpg (500x375, 33K)

So you know that when light hits an object it slows down right? You know that atmosphere slows down light right? So you then must realize that light slows down in water more, so it bends it more right? This is called refraction. It can be observed more easily in water because it's the same exact thing using a denser medium.

That has been my whole point. For some reason you think refraction becomes a different thing in water for no apparent reason other than to be a contrarian retard. I'm more and more convinced the Jews are pushing the flat earth idea to make everyone more stupid than they are now.

God, I wish that were me.

>user tries to reason with a flat-earther
Flatearthers exist because they're unreasonable brainlets (worse than creationists, even), user, give it/him up.

Anyway, back on topic:
In the battle of wyverns vs four-legged dragons, who would win, provided their overall size and mass is about the same? (Physical potential only, no fire and / or magic shit)

>where have I ever made claim that there is ALWAYS EXACTLY ENOUGH (your caps, not mine) refraction to create the illusion that the Earth is flat
When you acknowledged the results of the Bedford experiments but rejected a flat earth explanation and chose to champion the refraction explanation. Since the refraction explanation acknowledges that the experiment appears to show no curvature in either direction, accepting that this appearance is an illusion necessarily means that in every case the refraction across that layer is exactly enough to compensate for the curvature and show a 'flat' (neither slightly concave nor slightly convex) surface.

>And if that's exactly enough, why reject the curved Earth hypothesis?
My point is it's NOT exactly enough as you claim. The earth appears flat in these experiments because it is. The refraction explanation fails to account for differences in density that sould produce some amount of apparent curvature (in either direction) in some cases.

>How about any of the plethora of ships we have today? And how much are they 'off' with more accurate ways of measuring their distances in fuel consumed
They don't use the old and more accurate instruments any longer. Now they use tampered-with electronic devices that are built to disguise flat earth. The people aren't taking the measurements themselves.

>And how do you find the journals of sailors in the 1500s to be more worth your faith than the ships of today, exactly? Where is this faith coming from?
I'm not assigning people of old more weight at all. Modern day people make so such observations because they use electronic instruments in lieu of old methods as explained above.

>For some reason you think refraction becomes a different thing in water for no apparent reason other than to be a contrarian retard
You missed the point like 20 posts ago friend. The experiments we were discussing potentially involved SOLELY atmospheric refraction. My opponent then suggested that I observe refraction BETWEEN air and water to somehow validate the refraction-view of those atmosphere experiments. I pointed out that this wasn't relevant. That's all.

>globeearthers exist because they're unreasonable brainlets (worse than scientologists, even), user, give it up

>Now they use tampered-with electronic devices that are built to disguise flat earth

How many people really know about the flat earth then? Do you not realize how many millions of engineers and scientists there are that make this stuff? How is it still a secret?

>They don't use the old and more accurate instruments any longer
>Now they use tampered-with electronic devices that are built to disguise flat earth.
>The people aren't taking the measurements themselves.
And where's your evidence for these claims beyond your faith in their conclusions? Have you examined navigation systems yourself to verify it? Have you read these journals to make sure they actually show that discrepancy in the southern hemisphere? Have you tried to navigate with older equipment and found it somehow more accurate? Where does your faith in these claims come from? Did you read it somewhere?

>Well, all of the people claiming this are automatically derided and attacked exactly as you've derided and attacked me. The president of the united states could claim this and it wouldn't make you guys believe flat earth anymore - it would just degrade your view of the president. THAT's how strong the indoctrination is.
But he hasn't, nor have any major physicists, the only people are internet dwelling loons and dumb fucking rappers. I've got more respect for the Expanding Earth crowd because at least at one point in the recent past it was a viable alternative to continental drift before the evidence stacked up for that.

It is pointless to argue with someone that believes in flat earth. Calling them a moron or idiot does not help. Showing them solid evidence will not help. It is a mindset. They end up believing they know something that only a small amount of people know and for that fact it gives them an endless amount of self gratification. Everytime they are argued with they will blurt out whatever nonsense they heard or read which brought them to this completely insane conclusion. If you disagree with them, they are elated as now there is one less person that knows the "truth". So it acts as a drug of stupidity. You could fly one of these morons up in a shuttle show them the earth, come back down and they will give a hundred reasons why they believe they never left earth, it was a simulation etc etc etc. It is an argument you will never win. The only way to beat them is ignore them, change the subject when they bring it up etc.

If you argue with them you only help cement their belief. If no one gave them the time of day, like we used to. There would be far far far less of them.

>Have you examined navigation systems yourself to verify it?
No. Have you verified their accuracy?
>Have you read these journals to make sure they actually show that discrepancy in the southern hemisphere?
Yes. Have you?
>Have you tried to navigate with older equipment and found it somehow more accurate?
No. Have you made the comparison and found newer stuff more accurate?
>Where does your faith in these claims come from? Did you read it somewhere?
I don't have faith, I have belief after a preponderance of evidence. I still consider globe earth possible but unlikely. Are you willing to consider the possibility of flat earth? If no, then YOU are operating on faith.

Not an argument. Not evidence. You can think whatever you like of me, but you haven't refuted me.

Really enjoying the idea that GPS is both accurate and reliable enough and also false and sinister enough that it can hide the absolutely absurd differences in distance you'd have between a flat and sort of spherical earth. Also that the satellites can stay up but that's a whole nother can of worms.

>No. Have you verified their accuracy?
You're the one who made the claim they're less accurate. Go out and test this and come back with the results, thanks.

I'm not the one making these claims, friend. It seems like you have articles of faith based on what people told you about these systems that are use as evidence for your conclusion. Yet you continue to dismiss other evidence provided because the person saying it is perceived by you to not have personally built up the knowledge themselves. If your evidence and arguments don't pass this standard, how can you support your own conclusions? If your preponderance of evidence is built on similarly shabby evidence as you've admitted here, how am I to believe any of it?

Attached: komodo-dragon-hug-holding-hugs-13831286360.jpg (720x960, 141K)

that's a nice wyvern

>424 posts submitted

Attached: 1547405575419.png (300x250, 80K)

I already explained this a bit earlier. On issues that are uncontested by anyone, that you have no personal knowledge of yourself, it's probably safe to trust the consensus. So the question is: when the issue is disputed, and both sides can explain the evidence you have personally seen, which side do you trust? One possible answer is to look at the behavior and character of the people on each side of the claim. For me, that's a big part of the issue. The Jews and their Shabbos Goyim are not trustworthy to me, and their lack of trustworthiness has been demonstrated 1,000 times over in other arenas. Thus, in any issue of dispute I am unlikely to take their side or to trust them without overwhelming personal evidence/experience.

>I have belief after a preponderance of evidence
have you verified that evidence? how do you know you're not being lied to?
the bible is a preponderance of evidence that god exists to many people

Well, I contest your claims here, namely
>They don't use the old and more accurate instruments any longer
>Now they use tampered-with electronic devices that are built to disguise flat earth.
>The people aren't taking the measurements themselves.

Now that we have that out of the way, I ask again, what evidence do you have that passes your standard? Have you personally seen a Jew tamper with the GPS? Have you seen the Shabbos Goyim preventing people from flying to Antarctica? Have you seen them tampering with how light travels?

finest minds of Yea Forums itt

>Game has top tier dragons

Attached: 1548987822717m.jpg (576x1024, 73K)

Attached: Screenshot_20181124-191054.png (1080x1920, 1.26M)

>(((THEY))) GOT TO HIM
Hold me, user!

Attached: 1512426846894.jpg (1280x720, 60K)

It's not possible to verify everything you've ever seen. That required new observations which then would need verification too. It's endless. A preponderance of evidence is a mind considering everything it's sensed to make a decision on some issue. That's all I've done or claimed to have done. It's not possible to be certain that "you're not being lied to". Literally impossible, for anyone on any issue. Consider it.

You're being a bit ridiculous. I've tested the Antarctica one because no such flights can be booked. Impossible to have seen the GPS one, and I never alleged they tampered with light.

No, user, I'm talking about your distrust in Jews. Because it now seems that your tune has changed, that "there is no way to verify everything you've ever seen" and that, to compensate for this, you think of the motivations behind who you view to be on the other side.

Is your evidence for _that_ based on anything? Have you ever seen a Jew? Have you ever seen them lying about something like optics or geometry? Have you ever had them lie to you about anything? Or is this all also outside of your experience, where you've taken the word of others on faith?

It seems like your argument is collapsing here.

>It's impossible to verify evidence
how convenient for your argument

I'm having a slight issue with your use of "preponderance"
It's almost as if you picked a random word that sounded good and like you thought about it
>Synonyms of Preponderance: prevalence, figure, heaviness, number, power, powerfulness, weightiness
I can only conclude you mean "prevalence" but it sounds iffy most of the time if I think that

>Is your evidence for _that_ based on anything?
Evidence for what exactly? The impossibility of verifying everything you've seen? Or the wisdom of considering the motives of people before trusting them? Neither of those things need evidence - they can be arrived at purely through logic. Evidence helps of course. And of course there's evidence for both. Are you actually denying either of those things?

Yes I've seen and interacted with plenty of Jews. Yes I've been lied to by them in at least two cases that caused great personal harm. No I haven't seen them tamper with geometry but that isn't necessary for general distrust.

So let's recap:

IF you hold your initial position, that you highlighted time and time again, that because a poster had not personally verified each part of the evidence they were using that it was specious and thus their conclusion is wrong, then by your own admission you are using evidence that you've not personally verified your evidence is specious and your conclusion about flat Earth is wrong.

IF you reject your initial position, that indeed we can look at evidence that has not been directly observed by the person in question, then it become an issue of trusting the sources of that information. Because Earth being round is based on a select amount of information that you reject as being from an untrustworthy source, your flat Earth theory is viable because it comes from more trustworthy sources. Your claims, that the information you've gotten is somehow not sourced by a untrustworthy adversary, is without evidence, as is the claim that the people behind the other side are by any comparative degree more untrustworthy. You summarily have no evidence - personal or otherwise - that cannot pass this standard, so it seems like your conclusion can't stand.

Am I missing anything?

dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586

Holy shit dude. "Preponderance of evidence" is an EXTREMELY common legal phrase taught in ALL primary schools. If you're not familiar with my usage it doesn't reflect poorly on my word choice - it reflects poorly on your education.

If you don't like the jews why not go back to the ancient islamic world or india or china or the greeks or anyone else who had bothered doing some geodesy before the jews managed to assemble their sinister stranglehold on the GPS system.

That's a complete and intentional mischaracterization of my position on every level.

>why not go back to the ancient islamic world or india or china or the greeks
Um.....how?

Teaching law in primary schools is quite uncommon, dare I say, incredibly rare or unheard of.
And in highschool? It tends to be an elective in my experience.

Good job acting incredibly snarky though, you seem suited for law.

Do tell exactly how it's a mischaracterization. Might I remind you that your entire argument to this point is available in the posts above this - that's probably pretty reliable evidence.

Attached: dwip.gif (240x180, 938K)

>Teaching law in primary schools is quite uncommon, dare I say, incredibly rare or unheard of.
>And in highschool? It tends to be an elective in my experience.
Are you fucking kidding me? And I thought American education was shit. What shithole are you from?

"Preponderance of evidence" is a standard for evidence that just amounts to "more likely than not". It's often compared to the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" which speaks for itself. I've literally never met anyone unfamiliar with these terms, and we learned them LONG before high school.

You call me snarky, but that's exactly what you were trying to be to me before your ignorance was revealed.

By reading their writings and following their derivations. If you're so focused on falsifying everything yourself then their techniques are pretty easy to replicate given modern transport and tools.

>legal phrase taught in ALL primary schools.

What retarded country teaches legal phrases in primary school??

Games don't call any zombies "zombies."

28 and i've never heard the term "Preponderance of evidence" in my life

I'm not unfamiliar with "more likely than not" nor "beyond reasonable doubt", quite familiar with them actually.
Clearly I was unfamiliar with "preponderance of evidence" though, but not with what its actual meaning was.
Tell me, what country are you in ? What year/age were you taught the phrase in question ? What kind of social affluence was the area ?

You're coming off the rails of reason and high-mindedness you were pretending to ride. Becoming insulting, dropping arguments you can't sustain without admitting defeat.

>IF you hold your initial position, that you highlighted time and time again
Implying my position has changed. It hasn't.

>that because a poster had not personally verified each part of the evidence they were using that it was specious and thus their conclusion is wrong
Never said anything remotely resembling this. If you disagree, greetext it.

Two examples of your kikery are enough. Entire post is a strawman mixed with other intentional fallacies.

Please tell me you're joking. Those two standards are the most common standards of proof for civil and criminal cases respectively. They're taught universally in America. I assume that any civilized country teaches children the comparable basics of its legal system. So...what UNCIVILIZED country do you come from?

Are you America? If yes you're an irredeemable fucktard. If no, the term may be different in your country.

>Tell me, what country are you in ? What year/age were you taught the phrase in question ? What kind of social affluence was the area ?
America. I've known since I was at least....like....8? Middle class.

>game features dryverns
>wall them wagons

>America. I've known since I was at least....like....8? Middle class.
I have some doubt about this, but if that's what you claim so be it. Your experiences aren't necessarily the norm though

>Nature features wyverns
>Call them Pterosaurs

Attached: Dimorphodon2DB.jpg (1986x1327, 692K)

Fine.

>So your position is: ignore how things APPEAR to your eyes in favor of how others tell you they are?

You ARE relying on those calculations about refraction (my mistake) UNTIL you verify them yourself. Have you?

>If I were to do some of the experiments above,
So my point stands: you HAVEN'T done the experiments - you're just accepting the results others told you they obtained on FAITH.

And more circuitously but still on the same vein.
>our programming is faultless and should not be questioned
>if you start to doubt the official narrative, express your doubts to the nearest normie so that they can reinforce your faltering belief
>I don't need to look at the evidence because see point 1
>How old are you? If 25+, there's probably no hope left for you.

>he believes global politics as presented, never questioning whether they're staged for deeper purposes

>They had to make up a bunch of bullshit pseudoscience about light wrapping around the Earth to convince people to disregard the evidence. And, as usual, people who completely lack understanding sided with the people using the biggest words.

And then BAM! As soon as people start trying to apply the standard you're laying out for accepting evidence to your own arguments

It's not possible to verify everything you've ever seen. That required new observations which then would need verification too. It's endless.

Also, I see you've dropped responses about Antarctica. Why?

>I have some doubt about this, but if that's what you claim so be it.
I'm pretty shocked myself. As I said, I've never encountered someone that doesn't know this phrase. In my mind it's as common as "beyond reasonable doubt"

>that because a poster had not personally verified each part of the evidence they were using that it was specious and thus their conclusion is wrong
If you don't see the difference between this absurd strawman and what I said, you're retarded or a liar.

The first example is nothing like your claim. My position there is to trust what you've verified yourself over what others have told you.

The second and third ones were a response to a guy who EXPLICITLY DENIED that he was relying on the words of others. I pointed out that he was relying on it because he EXPLICITLY DENIED it, not because it's "always specious to trust others".

Fucking dishonest faggot weasel.

see

Funnily enough I don't think I've ever heard the phrase in any law-themed TV show (which is where I'd expect to hear it if it was as prevalent and common as you say), unlike "beyond reasonable doubt"
Bit of a conundrum, honestly

Not an argument and not an excuse for lying. You're nothing but an idiot shitfeaster who thinks that 'throwing my words back at me' is the height of argumentation. Probably because you're both a dumb cunt who can't come up with your own words, and because you're a dumb cunt who can't understand context. It's like you're sitting their poring over my statements for ammunition you can't create yourself, looking for the closest possible situation to use them. Trying to suppress the vomit here.

see

Google it, and it should become immediately apparent that it's a common phrase, rather than something I pulled out of my ass. It's the standard generally applied in civil cases where the consequences are far less severe than criminal cases which require "beyond reasonable doubt". Most law-themed shows would focus on criminal cases because they're more dramatic and interesting, and thus you'd be less likely to hear it on TV despite how common it is and its presence in education.

I've heard it mostly from those insufferable dickheads in STEM units who think quoting Feynman makes them seem precocious instead of tedious.

>what is a plane

One of the deepest cringes I've ever experienced.

>America teaches "preponderance of evidence" in ALL primary schools

You're full of shit

>precocious
I don't think that word means what you think it means, just FYI.

A manmade flying vehicle that doesn't have to account for the issues a flying animal of such size would run into. How much food a typical dragon would need to intake (plus viable prey in enough quantity for a creature its size) and the sheer physics of powering muscles and wings of that size. Lift comes from wing area, and must overcome weight. All flying animals on our planet have weak physical mass and are lightweight because otherwise they can't fly.

Attached: are you winning anon.png (1920x1080, 2.39M)

Can we all just remind ourselves that TES lore isn't fucking Medieval Europe lore?

It's on Mundus, not Earth.

The OP's picture, for one.

Honestly can't tell if I'm being messed with or I underestimated how little people pay attention in school. Obviously I haven't been in every America primary school, but it was a part of my basic education in an unimpressive American small town and, as stated, I've never met an America unfamiliar with the term. Maybe there's a different standard in other countries.

Attached: 1542618316505.jpg (2000x1418, 741K)

We're talking first years who are trying to act like they're learned intellectual gentlemen. I know what the word means.

So in conclusion, dragons are not the same as wyverns