A discussion on TFES forum

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

There is no need to debate something that has already been disproved by even 1st grade science students.

Just because you learn something in school doesn't necessarily mean it's true. You would think they would only tell us true things, but there are many things that I was taught in school that are false.

"We have five senses." We actually have more than 5 senses.
"Christopher Columbus proved the Earth was round and discovered America."
"We need meat and dairy."
"Pluto is a planet."

Despite the vast majority of stuff learned in school as accurate, there are a few inaccuracies, and these are mainly pushed by inexperienced and uneducated teachers, and not the public school system as a whole. For instance, Pluto WAS a planet until 2006 when it was demoted to a dwarf planet. Before that date the term "planet" didn't have a definition at all. Besides, planetary classification doesn't play a very important role in astronomy, all it shows is that the planet orbits the sun, is round, and doesn't share it's orbit. Whether or not something is classified as a "planet" didn't effect astronomy before 2006, and didn't make it better AFTER 2006, as it's just a vague classification. And one that is so vague it can easily discredit Jupiter as a legitimate planet "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_Belt.jpg"

I was never told in school that Meat and Dairy are required, as we were taught about Lactose Intolerance and Beans. But I can understand why high school teachers don't tell students who don't listen well that a Vegan diet is fine, because Junk Food Veganism or Unplanned Veganism is NOT healthy. Veganism is only healthy when carefully planned so you meet the DRV of all vitamins and minerals most days of the week, as well as understanding protein and it's relation to fiber intake meaning that vegans often need to eat more protein to counteract that lost through extra fiber. It's much easier in a health standpoint to recommend lean meats and lots of vegetables.

And the idea of 5 senses is much better than anything else we can compose due to us not knowing how many senses we have, as that is a hotly debated subject among experts. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/harvard-me ... erceptions again, not something I would try to explain to lazy high school students.

In terms of whether or not the earth is a sphere is not even under debate. It's not a debate topic at all. It's just pure proven unadulterated observable fact.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I am not claiming that the entire scientific community is involved in a conspiracy. I am claiming that they don't check what they are being told by the authorities.

The scientific community IS the authority. Then again, I guess you think you are smarter than they are, that's how I felt when I was a creationist. Then I learned that not everyone is a moron and maybe I'm just the uneducated twat

what's your justification for believing that the Earth is round?

Photographic evidence? Airplanes? Physics? Horizons? Oceans? Plate Tectonics? Oil Drilling? Earthquakes? Earth's Magnetic Field?

If you can explain those things, then I might change my belief. I can't promise, but I want to believe the truth. And it might be very important to know whether the Round Earth Theory accounts for those things.

The earth being round isn't a "Theory" it's a mere fact that was even known by scientists in the time of Columbus, and even the time of Eratosthenes in BCE.

[brimstoneSalad]

OK, so, why is my belief that the Earth is flat irrational?

Not only irrational, but immoral. Your belief makes you appear crazy to others, which harms your ability to advocate for veganism.

If you can explain those things, then I might change my belief.

That's not good enough. If you are an honest person, you must promise to change your belief after everything is explained to you.

I can't promise, but I want to believe the truth.

This is the problem: I don't believe you want to believe the truth. Christians say they want to believe the truth -- but it's only the "truth" of Jesus they want to believe.

I can explain everything in meticulous detail if you will promise to accept it once I've finished. Otherwise, why would I waste my time?

And it might be very important to know whether the Round Earth Theory accounts for those things.

It does. And I will explain how if you promise to accept it after I do.

That's like asking what would it take you to believe in God. I simply don't know. I think I would change my belief if God appeared to me, maybe even if all of my arguments against the existence of God were proven invalid… But I don't know that yet.

This is intellectually dishonest too.
I would believe in god given one single sound argument for it. That's all it takes.

Anything else is irrational and immoral.

[brimstoneSalad]

Photographic evidence?

They think it's photoshopped based on some grand conspiracy to fund NASA (which is beyond absurd, since NASA demonstrably spends all of its money on research and development -- you can follow all of the money since it's public record).
Or, by the atheists and the devil to try to destroy Christianity (which is a more reasonable hypothesis, since it provides a real motivation).

Airplanes?

Many people have never been in an airplane. Also, they try to explain this based on "refraction" of light in the atmosphere like a lens. This is a misunderstanding of how optics work, and I can prove how by explaining how optics work, but most people don't have the knowledge of optics to use that argument.

Physics?

Physics is great to use, but you have to understand why.

The mere observation of "gravity" is inadequate, because the flat Earthers assert that the plane of the Earth is accelerating through space at G.
The same way a torch ship generates "gravity" on board for the people inside it, by accelerating constantly it creates the apparent effect of gravity.

Far beyond a high school knowledge of physics is required; you have to understand why that's physically impossible and would require some supernatural force like a "god" to accomplish, or an inordinate amount of power and reaction mass.

Horizons?

They think this is an optical illusion, as mentioned above (as with airplanes).

Oceans?

They think there's an ice wall around the edge that holds the water in.

Plate Tectonics? Oil Drilling? Earthquakes?

They would have to assert that the ice wall becomes some kind of special un-meltable metal wall underground to hold in the magma. Tungsten and carbon nano-tubes might be strong enough.

Of course, an atheist would have to be a moron to believe that, because such a structure would have to be built by some kind of god. It's much more reasonable for Christians to believe in a Flat Earth for all of the reasons it's physically impossible or implausible, since they already accept such powers exist.

How would such a structure come about originally or be maintained without god-like beings to do so?

Earth's Magnetic Field?

After you assume some kind of godlike power built a giant pan of tungsten and carbon nanotubes to hold in the magma and earth, and a supernatural force that can violate the laws of physics or generate a nearly unlimited amount of power accelerated it, it's pretty trivial to come up with a way to produce a magnetic field. Some kind of giant machine underground at the center, probably.

The only wan an atheist believes the Earth is flat is to believe we're just in a computer simulation where the programmers (god-like beings to us) set it up like this.

It's either proof of a god, or proof that we're all in a computer simulation. There's no natural explanation for something like that.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Sounds like it'd make a good sci-fi book

[RanOverByATrain]

If I didn't say it already: Welcome!

Thank you!

More importantly, religion is seen as normal. FE is not. It's like having a tattoo on your face: Also a bad idea if you want to convince most people to go vegan.

If someone thinks vegans are crazy because a vegan has a tattoo, that's not the vegan's fault and I don't believe we should be blaming the vegan for that. We should be telling the people who believe that that it's illogical and that not all vegans are any one way. They don't think that way about meat eaters with tattoos on their faces.

I have had thin, yellow-ish teeth since I was around 13-14. Technically before that, but that's when I started caring about trying to fix it. I was raised on junk food, liked to eat sweet sugary foods (I still do, but I eat healthier than I used to), and didn't brush my teeth as often as I should have.

When I was 13-14 I started trying to fix it. Whitening, brushing my teeth a lot, chewing sugar free gum, drinking water instead of just juice, milk, and pop, using mouthwash (I found out later you shouldn't use alcohol mouthwashes), things like that. The damage was already done though.
My teeth are probably worse than they were because I'm 24 now, so much time has passed. But my teeth would have looked different either way. At 24, my teeth should be big and bright white, but they aren't. Surprisingly, I've never had a cavity before. I don't know how I haven't. My teeth are translucent a bit on the bottoms of them though.

I've only been vegan for maybe 2 or 3 years and most of the people I talk to I knew before I went vegan, so I don't think anybody is blaming veganism for my teeth yet. I don't think teeth will get that thin 2-3 years, but in 5 or 10 years, if I don't have veneers yet, people I meet might blame the veganism. That would be enough time to where it might look like veganism is unhealthy. "I knew this one vegan and she has bad teeth. I don't know why vegans think they can get calcium on their diet!"

Should I not tell people I'm vegan? What am I supposed to tell them if they ask why I don't want to eat whatever they offer me that's not vegan?

I agree. It's why we need Christian vegans, Muslim vegans, black and white and Asian, Body builders, Artists, Engineers, etc. All important diversity of perspective.

Believing in a Flat Earth is something else, though. There's little to no chance of being seen as anything short of insane by the mainstream.

The problem I have is not with diversity, it's that this is transparently loony to the vast majority of people.

Is your only problem with it being illogical then? If so, why not point out to the nonvegans that not all vegans are the same way because they're being illogical too?

If even 1% of the population thought the Earth was flat, I might agree. It could be something resembling respectable in public perception, like religion. As it stands, this is too far from mainstream to be helpful. How many people do you think actually believe in a Flat Earth?

Less than 1%, like you said, most likely. Enough to have a forum though.

I don't necessarily need to cuss when I stub my toe either, but it's hard to help it. When I'm trying to be nice, I have to re-read and edit my post several times to achieve the effect. I find this is not usually time-effective. I have made a special effort in my discussion with Mr. Purple (currently ongoing). For some others, I don't because I don't believe it's necessary or even helpful.

You're not hurting anyone if you cuss when you stub your toe. If you made a habit out of being nice, you wouldn't have to edit your post several times.

Sardonic wit and sarcasm makes debate more dramatic, and more interesting. Ask why the most popular pundits on TV are assholes, and you'll be on the right track. I've discussed this issue with regard to Gary Yourofsky before too (although he has overdone it a couple times).

Why not make it interesting by talking about interesting things?

I agree that a lot of people want to see it. Some of those people will get offended if you do it to them though.

As for Gary Yourofsky, as far as I know, he just makes generalizations and insults actions. Pointing out how someone isn't reading your posts is a bit different than calling someone stupid for doing something. There's nothing wrong with sticking up for yourself or insulting actions.

I don't see why people get offended by generalizations. To me, there's a difference between saying

"RanOverByATrain, you're a whore."

and

"Women are whores."

Not all women are the same way, so it doesn't make sense and the person wouldn't be specifically calling me a whore. They would be complaining about whores.

Someone saying they hate humans doesn't offend me because you can't hate all humans. Also, if you hate humans, what are you talking to them for? It doesn't make any sense.

I agree that it does work on some people. You scare away others though.

In some cases, however, I am deliberately provocative because it elicits the kind of response I need.

Read this thread, starting here: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =179#p1688
She finally changed her mind when I hit home by calling her a bad mother.

She insulted you first in that thread. That doesn't make it ok, but that's a bit different.

The thing is when you use negative emotions to get people to agree with you, they are only trying to get those negative emotions to go away. They might not actually agree with you and just go back to what they were doing before.

Punishing cats to get them to stop doing something does keep them from doing it...while you're there.

I don't think that it would be an interesting thread because I agree with you that it can work. I just don't think it's ok to insult people in a debate. Just because it can work doesn't make it ok. Insulting actions is ok. You wouldn't be insulting them then and you will have to point out what's wrong with certain actions if you ever expect to stick up for yourself.

Of course, there is a calculus to it, and there is a point at which you can be too mean and aggressive, and lose results. The important thing is to be just mean enough to be interesting, but not so mean that you alienate everybody.

It sounds like what you want is to "win" a debate, more than just discuss things and have other people see your side. I think that may be the difference.

I can see why many vegans want to convert people and it's good that they do, but when I talk about veganism to people, I just want them to see my side and to see it's not crazy and makes sense. One day they might realize they can do it too and become vegan themselves.

I don't insult people if they don't believe me about natural selection and evolution either. If they don't believe me, oh well.

That's not quite what I said, and never how I'd say it. This is a very different issue, and a matter of philosophical consistency -- directly related to moral philosophy and veganism. I can't persuade anybody if I can't use logic.

Sorry. I've thought about it more and just because you think one would be better doesn't mean you would do anything about it. I was trying to say that it wasn't normal. I do agree that it does fit with veganism. It's unusual though. Most would probably rather say that neither 1 person being killed or 1000 people being killed is better because it's not good that anybody is being killed.

If you buy pet rats from a rat mill, you are supporting the cruelty that goes on and making the problem worse. You may be saving those rats, but you are causing others to suffer. It can be tempting because those rats never did anything wrong and you can help those innocent rats, but you aren't helping. It would also apply to buying feeder rats to keep as pets too. You could say that if you don't buy feeder rats, you are causing them to be killed. If you had bought them, they would have not been killed. But you are making the problem worse if you save those ones. The best things to do are to not give them any money and to encourage others not to either.

I hope you can see what I'm saying. I'm not good with words.

I believe that assisted suicide is ok. Most people consider that murder, even though the person wanted to die. Should I not say that to people?

Despite the vast majority of stuff learned in school as accurate, there are a few inaccuracies, and these are mainly pushed by inexperienced and uneducated teachers, and not the public school system as a whole. For instance, Pluto WAS a planet until 2006 when it was demoted to a dwarf planet. Before that date the term "planet" didn't have a definition at all. Besides, planetary classification doesn't play a very important role in astronomy, all it shows is that the planet orbits the sun, is round, and doesn't share it's orbit. Whether or not something is classified as a "planet" didn't effect astronomy before 2006, and didn't make it better AFTER 2006, as it's just a vague classification. And one that is so vague it can easily discredit Jupiter as a legitimate planet "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_Belt.jpg"

I know that Pluto was a planet at the time, but people who don't care about space may not find out later on that it isn't one if they don't talk to people who care about it or look up things related to it. If they just said that Pluto was a planet because they learned it in school, they would be wrong.

I was never told in school that Meat and Dairy are required, as we were taught about Lactose Intolerance and Beans. But I can understand why high school teachers don't tell students who don't listen well that a Vegan diet is fine, because Junk Food Veganism or Unplanned Veganism is NOT healthy. Veganism is only healthy when carefully planned so you meet the DRV of all vitamins and minerals most days of the week, as well as understanding protein and it's relation to fiber intake meaning that vegans often need to eat more protein to counteract that lost through extra fiber. It's much easier in a health standpoint to recommend lean meats and lots of vegetables.

And the idea of 5 senses is much better than anything else we can compose due to us not knowing how many senses we have, as that is a hotly debated subject among experts. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/harvard-me ... erceptions again, not something I would try to explain to lazy high school students.

I understand, but I think they should at least try to educate them on it as much as they can instead of just lying. If they're going to make students go to school and stay there for so long, they should at least tell the truth.

They made me sit there and listen to them explain things that I could just read in the text book and I wasn't allowed to read ahead. I just wanted to read what I needed to learn, do the work, and go home. I was bored a lot in school. I wouldn't have minded them taking longer to teach science more, but I can understand why they wouldn't have wanted to spend more time trying to teach students when many of them were lazy and didn't want to pay attention.

Sorry that I'm quoting without the names. I don't see how to quote with names with posts that are on another page and I don't want to only use one person's name and not the other. I will have to play with it a bit and figure it out.

[teo123]

Also, what if the Earth actually proves to be flat in a few years?

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Also, what if the Earth actually proves to be flat in a few years?

It won't be, but if the sheer possibly that we find out thought empirical evidence and peer reviewed research that the earth really IS just the shaven bum of a floating celestial unicorn, then I will be compelled to follow the evidence. Like Bill Nye, the empirical science directs what my beliefs and knowledge is, not what I would want to be true, but simply what is.

The only way a flat earth can even exist is if we ignore or deny centuries of physics and observational studies (even if the earth is flat all the rest of the planets and stars in the universe are obviously round) and plug our hands in our ears and cover our eyes while going "lalalalalalalalaaaa!"

[EquALLity]

Look, the reason why would someone want us to believe that the Earth is round when it is flat is very obvious. You need to understand that other planets, according to the Flat Earth Theory, are no more than a meter in diameter and are very close (only 3100 miles) to the Earth. That means that there is no need to explore them. On the other hand, if the Earth is round, they are other worlds, just like the Earth is, and they are worth exploring. So, if the Flat Earth Theory is correct, NASA is probably trying to delude us that the Earth is round so that it can collect our money for the space exploration. Then it uses a portion of that money to fake that space exploration, and the majority of the money is still left to those who make the conspiracy.

Oh yes, very obvious. Now it makes sense.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

How are satellites justified by flat earth?
If they are a hoax, then how are the services they provide justified?

If they aren't a hoax, they have to be suspended by a supernatural force, pillars, also be moving with earth, or else they'd come crashing down.

If it is a supernatural entity, what evidence suggests this entity exists? Define its properties if known.

If they are suspended by pillars, why are there no reports of them? Consider that the government doesn't censor other evidence for flat earth, so evidence would need to be provided to justify why they would censor this.

If they are moving with the earth, why does this occur? If I assemble a satellite, will it immediately begin to move at the same rate as the earth? If I gather its components, will it immediately begin to move at the same rate as the earth?