Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt ****/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
You literally have never watched one of the serious debates on the subject... which makes me a lot less likely to put value to your opinion.
Again... I think they're wrong, but you obviously took the meme approach to researching this before you started this thread.
I haven't because it's demonstrably wrong and absurd. Other things I haven't watched a debate on: Can kittens fly? Are apples oranges? Are girls succubi? I don't watch debates on those thing because they're ridiculously dumb questions that don't need answering.
If you can dig up a 'debate' I give you my word I'll watch it with as open a mind as I am capable of on this subject. Don't ask me do it myself because, with all due respect, I consider the matter closed. This isn't something worthy of debate, it's proven science. Flat earth is fantasy. Sorry.
Didn't bill nye's older stuff get edited due some discussion about his take on the differences between boys and girls? Maybe one day this vid needs editing aswell !
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt ****/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
If this is the metric you use to measure whether or not someone has value, I can't help but wonder--because of the limitations of their cognitive function or intelligence, or the illogic (now I want to watch Star Trek, bah) of their beliefs--who else you think has no value. As I said, this is a problem with education--if someone lacks the critical thinking skills to doubt such a vast, inclusive conspiracy spanning decades (though, I suppose they could argue that the system is now self-maintaining and the elites of old pulled the wool over the eyes of those who came after them)--it's not because something is inherently wrong with them, but because our education system (and perhaps our culture) failed them.
I believe in the sense and dignity of the "common" person. I may not always agree with them, and they may not be the smartest person in a room (and if you are the smartest in the room you should perhaps find another room), but there's nothing like good old fashioned--non-buzzword--common sense; trust. Thomas Jefferson once said, and I quote: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
People have the right to an opinion, and to share that opinion with others who will believe and/or agree with them (as well as those who won't); that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended. I'm all for fixing our education system--and for keeping people who can't back up what they have to say with objective facts, or argument a reasonable person (though that would require defining "reasonable person") could understand/entertain out of the education system and away from young, susceptible minds--and for emphasizing, through culture--television, movies, books, etc--that it's cool to learn how to think, understand, observe the world around you.
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt ****/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
If this is the metric you use to measure whether or not someone has value, I can't help but wonder--because of the limitations of their cognitive function or intelligence, or the illogic (now I want to watch Star Trek, bah) of their beliefs--who else you think has no value. As I said, this is a problem with education--if someone lacks the critical thinking skills to doubt such a vast, inclusive conspiracy spanning decades (though, I suppose they could argue that the system is now self-maintaining and the elites of old pulled the wool over the eyes of those who came after them)--it's not because something is inherently wrong with them, but because our education system (and perhaps our culture) failed them.
I believe in the sense and dignity of the "common" person. I may not always agree with them, and they may not be the smartest person in a room (and if you are the smartest in the room you should perhaps find another room), but there's nothing like good old fashioned--non-buzzword--common sense; trust. Thomas Jefferson once said, and I quote: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
People have the right to an opinion, and to share that opinion with others who will believe and/or agree with them (as well as those who won't); that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended. I'm all for fixing our education system--and for keeping people who can't back up what they have to say with objective facts, or argument a reasonable person (though that would require defining "reasonable person") could understand/entertain out of the education system and away from young, susceptible minds--and for emphasizing, through culture--television, movies, books, etc--that it's cool to learn how to think, understand, observe the world around you.
Your problem there is I'm not saying those people don't have value and or I am an elite smartypants picking on Joe common man. The idea of a flat earth has no value, it never will nor will it ever be not dumb. Again sorry.
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt ****/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
If this is the metric you use to measure whether or not someone has value, I can't help but wonder--because of the limitations of their cognitive function or intelligence, or the illogic (now I want to watch Star Trek, bah) of their beliefs--who else you think has no value. As I said, this is a problem with education--if someone lacks the critical thinking skills to doubt such a vast, inclusive conspiracy spanning decades (though, I suppose they could argue that the system is now self-maintaining and the elites of old pulled the wool over the eyes of those who came after them)--it's not because something is inherently wrong with them, but because our education system (and perhaps our culture) failed them.
I believe in the sense and dignity of the "common" person. I may not always agree with them, and they may not be the smartest person in a room (and if you are the smartest in the room you should perhaps find another room), but there's nothing like good old fashioned--non-buzzword--common sense; trust. Thomas Jefferson once said, and I quote: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
People have the right to an opinion, and to share that opinion with others who will believe and/or agree with them (as well as those who won't); that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended. I'm all for fixing our education system--and for keeping people who can't back up what they have to say with objective facts, or argument a reasonable person (though that would require defining "reasonable person") could understand/entertain out of the education system and away from young, susceptible minds--and for emphasizing, through culture--television, movies, books, etc--that it's cool to learn how to think, understand, observe the world around you.
Your problem there is I'm not saying those people don't have value and or I am an elite smartypants picking on Joe common man. The idea of a flat earth has no value, it never will nor will it ever be not dumb. Again sorry.
I have a feeling we're having two different conversations now, oh well.
@catharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
@catharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
Not necessarily.
People hold all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, some of which are silly and laughable (and are, therefore, entertaining), but I generally don't think--or try not to--that makes them lesser. At best they're genuinely misguided, at worst they have some greater agenda at play and are doing it for subversive purposes (and it's the latter I have problems with). If someone is lead astray by a flat earther, are they a victim, or are they simply exercising their free-will in choosing what and whom to believe? Isn't that personal responsibility?
All we can really do--that's sane as far as measures to be taken--to keep people from being taken in by false information as truth/fact is arm future generations, the people we know and care about, to be skeptical, critical thinkers.
@catharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
This. But watch the chemtrails vid again. Their premise is the world's governments spray us with mind control spray/aluminum powder. They then to protect themselves go out in their yard and spray vinegar into the air. I'm a nice guy, I like to think I'm nice to people. But cannot respect that if I tried with every fiber of my being. It's either mental illness (in which case, get help) or dumb as a rock (uh...read a book).
atharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
Not necessarily.
People hold all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, some of which are silly and laughable (and are, therefore, entertaining), but I generally don't think--or try not to--that makes them lesser. At best they're genuinely misguided, at worst they have some greater agenda at play and are doing it for subversive purposes (and it's the latter I have problems with). If someone is lead astray by a flat earther, are they a victim, or are they simply exercising their free-will in choosing what and whom to believe? Isn't that personal responsibility?
All we can really do--that's sane as far as measures to be taken--to keep people from being taken in by false information as truth/fact is arm future generations, the people we know and care about, to be skeptical, critical thinkers.
unfortunately i'm not smart enough to always be a critical thinker. At a certain point i'll just have to trust what people tell me is true because i have no way of veryfying whether what they're saying is true or not. It's still my personal responsibility to choose what i believe, i'm however accountable for what i tell others to be true.
That also means i believe it's the personal responsibility of the person i'm telling that the earth is flat twhether he chooses to believe me or not, but i don't believe that exempts me from accountability.
Obviously there's no real harm in telling, or even convincing, people that the earth is flat other than they might get rediculed or something like that, but that isn't always the case. Then all of a sudden it gets tricky.
atharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
Not necessarily.
People hold all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, some of which are silly and laughable (and are, therefore, entertaining), but I generally don't think--or try not to--that makes them lesser. At best they're genuinely misguided, at worst they have some greater agenda at play and are doing it for subversive purposes (and it's the latter I have problems with). If someone is lead astray by a flat earther, are they a victim, or are they simply exercising their free-will in choosing what and whom to believe? Isn't that personal responsibility?
All we can really do--that's sane as far as measures to be taken--to keep people from being taken in by false information as truth/fact is arm future generations, the people we know and care about, to be skeptical, critical thinkers.
unfortunately i'm not smart enough to always be a critical thinker. At a certain point i'll just have to trust what people tell me is true because i have no way of veryfying whether what they're saying is true or not. It's still my personal responsibility to choose what i believe, i'm however accountable for what i tell others to be true.
That also means i believe it's the personal responsibility of the person i'm telling that the earth is flat twhether he chooses to believe me or not, but i don't believe that exempts me from accountability.
Obviously there's no real harm in telling, or even convincing, people that the earth is flat other than they might get rediculed or something like that, but that isn't always the case. Then all of a sudden it gets tricky.
I'd argue there is long term harm. Ignoring science in one area allows you to do it in other areas. Eventually you harm yourself or others. In this case these are college educated wealthy parents willfully ignoring all science on vaccination, favoring their 'beliefs' instead.
And this is the internet so someone will run in screaming autism is caused by vaccination. No. Just because Jenny McCarthy says something, that doesn't make it true.
With a successful introduction of kangaroos into Wyoming’s ecosystem, WMI will review other opportunities for the state to be home to other marsupial species. A short-list for future proposed introductions include the koala, wallaby and the endangered Tasmanian Devil.
Get a look at the migrations of Wyoming’s other big game species at migrationintiative.org.
APRIL FOOLS!
How long until people are saying, "no really, man! They actually released Kangaroos in Wyoming!"????
Also, I really suck at coding this spoiler right.
Are you crazy? That's exactly how people were made afraid of water.
Hence the tongue-in-cheek joke!
But what if 40 years from now people are forming raiding parties to hunt kangaroo?
I'd be more worried about them forming raiding parties to hunt us.
I forgot flat earthists were a thing. Kind of a mental block I put in place to avoid me having to go on a campaign of genocide.
I assume this rampant **** (as with most things) started over in that USA place as we can't fart in the UK without being arrested.
Flat earthism isn't a genuine belief it's just special snowflake syndrome, "Look I'm different and on my own little podium". Of course normal people know what's up and they fool nobody except other flat earthists and various other cliques of ****.
It was previously suggested that Newtonian physics have been thrown out the window once more accurate science came along via general relativity. While bad or obsolete science is tossed, good science is built upon especially when it still maintains viability.
atharsis478
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
Not necessarily.
People hold all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, some of which are silly and laughable (and are, therefore, entertaining), but I generally don't think--or try not to--that makes them lesser. At best they're genuinely misguided, at worst they have some greater agenda at play and are doing it for subversive purposes (and it's the latter I have problems with). If someone is lead astray by a flat earther, are they a victim, or are they simply exercising their free-will in choosing what and whom to believe? Isn't that personal responsibility?
All we can really do--that's sane as far as measures to be taken--to keep people from being taken in by false information as truth/fact is arm future generations, the people we know and care about, to be skeptical, critical thinkers.
unfortunately i'm not smart enough to always be a critical thinker. At a certain point i'll just have to trust what people tell me is true because i have no way of veryfying whether what they're saying is true or not. It's still my personal responsibility to choose what i believe, i'm however accountable for what i tell others to be true.
That also means i believe it's the personal responsibility of the person i'm telling that the earth is flat twhether he chooses to believe me or not, but i don't believe that exempts me from accountability.
Obviously there's no real harm in telling, or even convincing, people that the earth is flat other than they might get rediculed or something like that, but that isn't always the case. Then all of a sudden it gets tricky.
That's a mistake, everyone is smart enough to always be a critical thinker.
It's possible that in looking this up, I randomly found the silliest debate on this. To me this strengthens my opinion that real science gets drowned out by silliness in a 'debate' on flat earth.
In it there's a guy in a cat suit, a guy who believes we live on the inside of sphere with th sun in the middle, a guy from my south who makes some really silly arguments, and the science guy is accused of being Jewish/a member of an elite wealthy family for owning a book and believing in Columbus. Enjoy?
When you put yourself into a position where you are trying to defend the thinking or stance of a flat Earth believer you are either trying way too hard to play Devil's Advocate or you relate/empathize/correlate with them. Just saying.
The Earth being round is not a theory, it is a fact. There are no alternative facts. Facts are what they are, plain and simple. When people are trying to push information that has no factual basis to it they are indeed bad people who are not doing anything positive for humanity.
Period.
There are not good people on both sides of a debate if one of the sides is the ****. Being a member of the **** immediately removes you from being in the good person pool. Not that I am equating the two belief structures by any means, but you get my point.
When you put yourself into a position where you are trying to defend the thinking or stance of a flat Earth believer you are either trying way too hard to play Devil's Advocate or you relate/empathize/correlate with them. Just saying.
The Earth being round is not a theory, it is a fact. There are no alternative facts. Facts are what they are, plain and simple. When people are trying to push information that has no factual basis to it they are indeed bad people who are not doing anything positive for humanity.
Period.
There are not good people on both sides of a debate if one of the sides is the ****. Being a member of the **** immediately removes you from being in the good person pool. Not that I am equating the two belief structures by any means, but you get my point.
I just like watching the videos. Point well taken though.
With a successful introduction of kangaroos into Wyoming’s ecosystem, WMI will review other opportunities for the state to be home to other marsupial species. A short-list for future proposed introductions include the koala, wallaby and the endangered Tasmanian Devil.
Get a look at the migrations of Wyoming’s other big game species at migrationintiative.org.
APRIL FOOLS!
How long until people are saying, "no really, man! They actually released Kangaroos in Wyoming!"????
Also, I really suck at coding this spoiler right.
Are you crazy? That's exactly how people were made afraid of water.
Hence the tongue-in-cheek joke!
But what if 40 years from now people are forming raiding parties to hunt kangaroo?
I'd be more worried about them forming raiding parties to hunt us.
Australian wildlife has a propensity towards that sort of thing (the next time you come across one, ask him/her about the emu war).
With a successful introduction of kangaroos into Wyoming’s ecosystem, WMI will review other opportunities for the state to be home to other marsupial species. A short-list for future proposed introductions include the koala, wallaby and the endangered Tasmanian Devil.
Get a look at the migrations of Wyoming’s other big game species at migrationintiative.org.
APRIL FOOLS!
How long until people are saying, "no really, man! They actually released Kangaroos in Wyoming!"????
Also, I really suck at coding this spoiler right.
Are you crazy? That's exactly how people were made afraid of water.
Hence the tongue-in-cheek joke!
But what if 40 years from now people are forming raiding parties to hunt kangaroo?
I'd be more worried about them forming raiding parties to hunt us.
Australian wildlife has a propensity towards that sort of thing (the next time you come across one, ask him/her about the emu war).
Replies
I haven't because it's demonstrably wrong and absurd. Other things I haven't watched a debate on: Can kittens fly? Are apples oranges? Are girls succubi? I don't watch debates on those thing because they're ridiculously dumb questions that don't need answering.
If you can dig up a 'debate' I give you my word I'll watch it with as open a mind as I am capable of on this subject. Don't ask me do it myself because, with all due respect, I consider the matter closed. This isn't something worthy of debate, it's proven science. Flat earth is fantasy. Sorry.
Before something, regardless of what it is, can be considered "proven sience", that had to have been a debate. So apparantly it was worthy of debate
Yeah, it was debated and settled, thousands of years ago.
And again, it's not my opinion, nor did I ask anyone to place value on what I said. It's science.
If this is the metric you use to measure whether or not someone has value, I can't help but wonder--because of the limitations of their cognitive function or intelligence, or the illogic (now I want to watch Star Trek, bah) of their beliefs--who else you think has no value. As I said, this is a problem with education--if someone lacks the critical thinking skills to doubt such a vast, inclusive conspiracy spanning decades (though, I suppose they could argue that the system is now self-maintaining and the elites of old pulled the wool over the eyes of those who came after them)--it's not because something is inherently wrong with them, but because our education system (and perhaps our culture) failed them.
I believe in the sense and dignity of the "common" person. I may not always agree with them, and they may not be the smartest person in a room (and if you are the smartest in the room you should perhaps find another room), but there's nothing like good old fashioned--non-buzzword--common sense; trust. Thomas Jefferson once said, and I quote: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
People have the right to an opinion, and to share that opinion with others who will believe and/or agree with them (as well as those who won't); that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended. I'm all for fixing our education system--and for keeping people who can't back up what they have to say with objective facts, or argument a reasonable person (though that would require defining "reasonable person") could understand/entertain out of the education system and away from young, susceptible minds--and for emphasizing, through culture--television, movies, books, etc--that it's cool to learn how to think, understand, observe the world around you.
Your problem there is I'm not saying those people don't have value and or I am an elite smartypants picking on Joe common man. The idea of a flat earth has no value, it never will nor will it ever be not dumb. Again sorry.
I have a feeling we're having two different conversations now, oh well.
(I was this close to kangz posting)
If you're being honest, don't you think less of people who think the earth is flat?
I'm not saying they're bad people per se. However, there is something wrong with spreading false information as truth/fact. I don't acuse them of having ill intent, but imo they are accountable.
Not necessarily.
People hold all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, some of which are silly and laughable (and are, therefore, entertaining), but I generally don't think--or try not to--that makes them lesser. At best they're genuinely misguided, at worst they have some greater agenda at play and are doing it for subversive purposes (and it's the latter I have problems with). If someone is lead astray by a flat earther, are they a victim, or are they simply exercising their free-will in choosing what and whom to believe? Isn't that personal responsibility?
All we can really do--that's sane as far as measures to be taken--to keep people from being taken in by false information as truth/fact is arm future generations, the people we know and care about, to be skeptical, critical thinkers.
This. But watch the chemtrails vid again. Their premise is the world's governments spray us with mind control spray/aluminum powder. They then to protect themselves go out in their yard and spray vinegar into the air. I'm a nice guy, I like to think I'm nice to people. But cannot respect that if I tried with every fiber of my being. It's either mental illness (in which case, get help) or dumb as a rock (uh...read a book).
unfortunately i'm not smart enough to always be a critical thinker. At a certain point i'll just have to trust what people tell me is true because i have no way of veryfying whether what they're saying is true or not. It's still my personal responsibility to choose what i believe, i'm however accountable for what i tell others to be true.
That also means i believe it's the personal responsibility of the person i'm telling that the earth is flat twhether he chooses to believe me or not, but i don't believe that exempts me from accountability.
Obviously there's no real harm in telling, or even convincing, people that the earth is flat other than they might get rediculed or something like that, but that isn't always the case. Then all of a sudden it gets tricky.
I'd argue there is long term harm. Ignoring science in one area allows you to do it in other areas. Eventually you harm yourself or others. In this case these are college educated wealthy parents willfully ignoring all science on vaccination, favoring their 'beliefs' instead.
And this is the internet so someone will run in screaming autism is caused by vaccination. No. Just because Jenny McCarthy says something, that doesn't make it true.
I'd be more worried about them forming raiding parties to hunt us.
I assume this rampant **** (as with most things) started over in that USA place as we can't fart in the UK without being arrested.
Flat earthism isn't a genuine belief it's just special snowflake syndrome, "Look I'm different and on my own little podium". Of course normal people know what's up and they fool nobody except other flat earthists and various other cliques of ****.
That's a mistake, everyone is smart enough to always be a critical thinker.
In it there's a guy in a cat suit, a guy who believes we live on the inside of sphere with th sun in the middle, a guy from my south who makes some really silly arguments, and the science guy is accused of being Jewish/a member of an elite wealthy family for owning a book and believing in Columbus. Enjoy?
Not sure what that should be.
The theory that the earth is round.
The Earth being round is not a theory, it is a fact. There are no alternative facts. Facts are what they are, plain and simple. When people are trying to push information that has no factual basis to it they are indeed bad people who are not doing anything positive for humanity.
Period.
There are not good people on both sides of a debate if one of the sides is the ****. Being a member of the **** immediately removes you from being in the good person pool. Not that I am equating the two belief structures by any means, but you get my point.
I just like watching the videos. Point well taken though.
Edit, more stuff.
Australian wildlife has a propensity towards that sort of thing (the next time you come across one, ask him/her about the emu war).
Oh no! They know! Alert the Grandmaster of the Illuminati! They know!
There was a thing where they imported some kind of frog to eat a certain bug, it didn't but it did reproduce in insane numbers with no predators.
Edit, found it right off.