• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flat earthers

arthwollipot said:
The point isn't that the non-flat-earthers are actually wrong, it's that we don't know whether they're wrong or not.
Click to expand...

How does that follow? If we have a thread discussing Jainism it's only reasonable if there are Jains in the thread? In the modern world it's possible to learn about topics without actually being there in person. I have read about WWII even though I wasn't involved, but I still trust the facts as they were relayed.

Further I'm actually able to confirm some of the things said in this thread by watching videos or reading material put out by flat earthers.

So yeah, we do know if we are wrong or not.
 
Roboramma said:
How does that follow? If we have a thread discussing Jainism it's only reasonable if there are Jains in the thread? In the modern world it's possible to learn about topics without actually being there in person. I have read about WWII even though I wasn't involved, but I still trust the facts as they were relayed.

Further I'm actually able to confirm some of the things said in this thread by watching videos or reading material put out by flat earthers.

So yeah, we do know if we are wrong or not.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm just suspicious of anyone who says "such-and-such a group of people think that so-and-so is real" when they are not a member of that group of people.

Not saying that you have to be wrong. Just saying that though it's possible to be right in that circumstance, we should be wary about it anyway. Direct reports of primary sources are okay as far as they go, but they still run the risk of incorrect interpretation. Especially when the interpreter is hostile to the group in the first place and may put their own spin on it. Did I say may? Scratch that. Will definitely put their own spin on it.
 
arthwollipot said:
I guess I'm just suspicious of anyone who says "such-and-such a group of people think that so-and-so is real" when they are not a member of that group of people.
Click to expand...
I gave one example where people on the outside gave much more accurate descriptions of a group's beliefs than the people who actually held those beliefs: the intelligent design movement.

You are pretty much throwing away the entire discipline of anthropology here, wherein people who are not of a particular group describe the beliefs of the people in that group.

Not saying that you have to be wrong. Just saying that though it's possible to be right in that circumstance, we should be wary about it anyway.
Click to expand...
Sure, we should be wary in all circumstances. One of the great things about the internet is that you can do your own research. If you find the claims being made here unlikely you can go to the source and actually see what flat earthers are saying.

Direct reports of primary sources are okay as far as they go, but they still run the risk of incorrect interpretation. Especially when the interpreter is hostile to the group in the first place and may put their own spin on it. Did I say may? Scratch that. Will definitely put their own spin on it.
Click to expand...

Here's an example of a primary source that led me to some part of my understanding of their beliefs: I was watching Joe Rogan's podcast and Eddie Bravo was on. I'm a fan of Eddie's (he's been an innovator in BJJ, developed techniques that work very well for me, has some major accomplishments in competition, and has created one of the most exciting BJJ competitions that exists).
Eddie believes in the flat earth.

On the podcast he and Joe get into an hour long argument about the flat earth. Here's that hour long exchange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9pszVRucs

If you think I'm giving biased reporting feel free to look at that original source yourself.
 
arthwollipot said:
Nah, I'll take your word for it. Rogan pisses me the hell off and I can't stand to listen to him.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, there are times when I really enjoy his podcasts, but there are other times when, well... I definitely understand why he would piss you off.
 
deadrose said:
Darn, I read through this whole thread so I could use the cat joke, only to find I'd been ninja'ed by 4 hours.
Click to expand...

And I was ninja'd by 5 days!

UGH

Well here's my contribution anyway.

picture.php
 
theprestige said:
Here's how I explain it: Doesn't matter, don't care, the earth is practically flat.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they would only say that. I mean, that's OK. Believe what you wish, it's a free country. The problem comes with all pseudo-scientific nonsense and silly claims.

Hans
 
The religious core of the human being can be invested in anything, and from that anything, in the long term, it survives what can't be contrasted to reality. Therefore, the fake Moon landing will only survive to the next landing or to a live broadcasting from the historical site of Apollo 11 landing, while "Jesus saves" can go forever because it has nothing to be tested against.

One can say that flat-earthers don't have a leg to stand on, or that they are simply nuts, but that doesn't matter at all. The appeal of this religion-like belief is just being controversial, feisty, defiant, "politically" incorrect; they find pleasure in paddling upstream and scandalizing Joe and Jane Citizen.

I can't care less about flat-earthers, their notions and how they construct and argue them: that's the worst one can do to them.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
Eddie believes in the flat earth.
Click to expand...

It looked to me like he's just learned enough of the shallow repertoire to insult people and get under their skin.

He was a real jerk, and then blames the people he is insulting "what's the big deal, this is just fun..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom