Philosophical Vegan Forum

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

You aren't understanding. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. The bottom line is the consequences: Fewer people will be convinced to go vegan, and more animals will suffer and die. I don't care whose "fault" you want to say it is.

If YOU are vegan, YOU are the one who is aware in this situation, then YOU have a choice of whether to put a tattoo on your face and advocate Flat Earth or not. YOU decide whether you will present yourself with some normalcy, and the consequences follow from that. You can't control how OTHER people will react, so you can only meet them where they are.

Please read this: http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/be-a-bette ... eadvocacy/

RanOverByATrain wrote: We should be telling the people who believe that that it's illogical and that not all vegans are any one way.

You don't have time to do that, they're already not listening to you or considering what you say the moment you walk up to them with a facial tattoo.
And if you don't have a facial tattoo and are normal, do you really want to spend the thirty seconds you have for an elevator pitch telling them that, or are you going to spend it effectively delivering a real vegan message about health, the environment, and animal suffering?
Face time is a limited resource. You're wasting time if you're trying to complicate the issue with more barriers to entry.

RanOverByATrain wrote: They don't think that way about meat eaters with tattoos on their faces.

Sure they do. But they already eat meat. A person with a facial tattoo is only going to change people's minds about which side of the street to walk on, because they're not going to listen to anything that person has to say.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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?

If your teeth are significantly worse than average, then you should fix your teeth if you can. This will improve your job and income prospects, as well as help you with advocacy. Do not put this off.
However, you may just be self conscious. If you PM me with a picture of your smile, I can give you honest feedback as to whether they are bad enough to affect your vegan advocacy, or if you're just being too hard on yourself.

This is an entirely different issue, though.

People CHOOSE to tattoo their faces, and they CHOOSE to publicly advocate Flat Earth. You didn't choose to have bad teeth.

However, if you're passionate about advocating for animals and they really are that bad, then if and as soon as you can fix them you should do so. Particularly if you live in the states (in the UK it's not as big an issue).

RanOverByATrain wrote: Is your only problem with it being illogical then?

No, my problem is the issue of public perception. Religion is illogical too. People don't care much about logic, they care about being normal and listening to other people who seem normal.

I care about the consequences: the net effect that your actions have on animals through influencing others (or failing to influence others because of your behavior).

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

Most active members in those discussions seem to be people who believe in a round Earth who come to try to convince the Flat Earthers.

Neo-nazis have enough to have forums. "Alien abductees" have enough to have forums. The internet has access to the population of the world to draw from.

Anyway, the point is that advocating for a Flat Earth is more likely to harm your credibility than help it in the eyes of those you are trying to convince to go vegan. You shouldn't do it.

If you sincerely believe it, then you should keep it to yourself.

RanOverByATrain wrote: Why not make it interesting by talking about interesting things?

Like what? I'm open to suggestions.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

Right, but there are more witnesses to debate than participants. You're not usually going to convince the person you're arguing with, but instead people who are on the fence and reading.
Look at how well Trump is doing in the primaries. He's a much bigger asshole than I am (he may be overdoing it a bit). The evidence is on the side of the assholes when it comes to public debate and rhetoric.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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."

You're a bit out of touch. The latter can be much more offensive to more people, and reflect more poorly on your personal character to the public.

Telling somebody he or she is an X may be more offensive to that person specifically (though it may not be, some people shrug off personal insults but take insults to others much more seriously), but much less so to all of the others reading. Making a generalization attacks everybody listening/watching/reading.

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

That is close to the ideal situation, but even lacking that it can work.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

I'm not using it to force people to agree, I'm using it to get the person to understand. That's different from superficial agreement.

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

Cats are not humans, and we're not just talking about behavior.

When you're trying to get somebody to understand a logical concept, the thing that's preventing that understanding is the wall of rationalization that person has put up. Once you take down that wall, you need to act quickly to get the person to understand before the wall goes back up, but once you do, that understanding can be much more persistent.

The key is making sure the person understands, and is not just agreeing to avoid criticism. Anyway, even if they do just agree, you can work with that too -- study a little psychology, it can be very helpful to understand cognitive dissonance and how it works in persuasion.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

I'm interested with what works in debate, in my experience, and stops the negative behavior long term to save animals from death and suffering.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

Very often, the win is for the audience, not for the person you're debating. I don't usually expect the people I'm debating on carnism to change their minds (at least not right away). It's a pleasant surprise when they do.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

That's fine, too. And if you don't have an audience, that's actually better. Like one-on-one in person discussion. I never insult people one-on-one in person. It's a different environment which requires different practice for optimal efficacy. The article I linked to above is a good example of one-on-one practice.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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.

It's better to say that both are horrible, but one is more horrible than the other.

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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'm aware of this, but what are you saying this has anything to do with?

RanOverByATrain wrote: 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?

Right, just focus on veganism if that's the case.

If you're talking to a Christian, you can cite Biblical verses.
If you're talking to a Buddhist, cite Buddhist beliefs.

Meet people where they are. Don't distract from the issue with irrelevant topics.
These things often come up for me because I'm using pretty advanced philosophical arguments here, but with most people they never would and I would avoid covering these. The carnists on this forum are more intelligent and educated than the general population, and require a different standard of discourse.

teo123 wrote: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 god, I certainly hope NASA isn't correct, because we would not be able to make bank by selling our branded FES T-shirts and Tote bags (http://www.cafepress.com/theflatearthsociety) and might interfere with the kickstarting of our FES commercial comic book series (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/vi ... arth-comic) BUT NASA MAKES GRANT MONEY TO FURTHER RESEARCH! THEY'RE THE BAD ONES!"

Sounds more like a moronic fear of anything "big," made by a paranoid schizophrenic who refuses to take their meds.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: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?

I don't know. I don't even know how do the satellites work if you assume the Round Earth. So, that's certainly not a justification for believing that the Earth is round. But here are the hypothesizes by the Flat Earthers on the Flat Earth Society forum:
1) The supposed satellites are simply flying up in the sky, but not in the space as we are being told. Some even claim that they are in fact land-based. But I think this would require a massive conspiracy, as it would involve all of those who make, for example, GPS devices (they would actually use the different formulas than those they tell us to). There are way simpler explanations.
2) Satellites are simply natural celestial bodies that just happen to emit information that can be decoded electronically. This one is actually hypothesized by myself. This one requires only those who claim to be sustaining those satellites to be involved in a conspiracy (to collect money). Of course, I have no bright idea how those satellites would work, but GPS devices would still be able to work the exactly the same way they work on the Round Earth.
3)Right above the atmosphere, there is a mysterious gas called aether that pushes moving objects in it upwards exactly the same way the centrifugal force does. Obviously, this supposed gas would have to behave very differently from other fluids. First of all, it should apply equal force upwards regardless of the area of an object (proportionally only to the mass and the square of the velocity) and it also shouldn't apply any pressure to the atmosphere beneath it (it should have no mass). I think that this hypothesis bears the burden of proof, and that my is simpler.
And if you want to learn more (or debate), register to the Flat Earth Society forum and do it there.

The scientific community IS the authority.

Your senses are the only authority.

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.

Most of us explain this as caused by the curvature of the windows of the airplanes.

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

Look, I can't choose what I believe just so that I spread the veganism better. Belief is a result of becoming convinced. And the evidence for the Flat Earth is very convincing to me.

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.

Why wouldn't tectonics work on the Flat Earth exactly the same way they work on the Round Earth?

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.

There are magnets with a pole in their center just inside the speaker of your computer! Why couldn't the Earth be the same?

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

The simplest explanation for the horizon is that apparently large objects hide apparently small (farther) objects. And if, for example, a ship is very far away, only a small wave (and there always are small waves on the sea) could hide it.

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.

The logic of those "proofs" is flawed. Have you even read this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... sy1xOm0JEc

teo123 wrote: Look, I can't choose what I believe just so that I spread the veganism better. Belief is a result of becoming convinced. And the evidence for the Flat Earth is very convincing to me.

Look asshole, you CAN obviously choose what you tell people. Like if you're around Catholics, maybe you don't mention you're an Atheist. I'm not saying you have to lie, but don't bring this shit up to normal people, they're going to (rightly) think you're insane. If they ask you, dodge the question. Keep it to yourself, as I have said multiple times. It's irrelevant what you believe, you don't have to tell people about it.

AND, as I said, if you understand that two ideas are equally possible, obviously you CAN choose to believe whichever one you want (lean toward that one).
As I have explained, it's basically 'impossible' to "disprove" Flat Earth to your satisfaction, because you will keep making shit up to create an ever more convoluted hypothesis that dodges falsifiability. It's like trying to disprove god; people will keep making up excuses like, "Well, he's outside of time", or "Well, he's god, he can violate logic." to try to maintain that their god is still possible. If, however, they are willing to accept the universe without god as long as you show how it's possible, it becomes much easier (you just have to explain the problems that they think god solves).

I can explain how the round Earth works, and put all of your reservations at ease by showing you the science of it.
I can also debunk all of your current beliefs about Flat Earth. The problem is, if you want to continue believing (like a theist) you will just make up new hypotheses (which I can also debunk), and then new ones, and so on. It's a never ending battle when you're set on believing something.

Anyway, as I explained, I will only do that if it's not a waste of my time and you promise to at least tentatively accept it (even if you think flat and round Earth are both "possible") once I explain all of those supposed "problems" you mention. Stop making up new hypotheses to make my job impossible. I'll disprove the ones you have, and show you why and how round Earth works. Then you just accept it for now once I show that it's equally "possible" and stop making stuff up.

This is what I'm asking you to promise to do. If you do, I'll explain it all to you in short order, and then you can go on being sensible (and at worst just believing Flat Earth is possible, but not accepting it by default).

Look, have you ever actually convinced anyone to go vegan or are you just guessing what could convince them?
Also, I only mentioned I am a Flat Earther on that forum while discussing veganism simply because there are a lot of Flat Earthers there. So, even by your own logic, I haven't done anything wrong.
Yet I bet I haven't changed anyones mind!

As for your statement that I shouldn't change a hypothesis when it is proven wrong, imagine the following scenario. There is a Flat Earther who claims that the oxygen is necessary for the fire and a Round Earther who claims that it isn't. Then the Flat Earther proves that by lighting two twigs and putting them under two glass bells, and also putting a leaf under one of them. Of course, one with the leaf continues to burn, but one without stops almost immediately. So, the Flat Earhter proved his hypothesis about oxygen and fire. Did he also prove that the Earth is flat? No. If someone believes that the Earth is round, he should still believe that, regardless of a Flat Earther making a right prediction. He should only change his hypothesis so that oxygen fits in it. So should I also change my hypothesis only to fit, let's say, satellites.
Correct me if I am wrong.

brimstoneSalad wrote: You aren't understanding. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. The bottom line is the consequences: Fewer people will be convinced to go vegan, and more animals will suffer and die. I don't care whose "fault" you want to say it is.

If YOU are vegan, YOU are the one who is aware in this situation, then YOU have a choice of whether to put a tattoo on your face and advocate Flat Earth or not. YOU decide whether you will present yourself with some normalcy, and the consequences follow from that. You can't control how OTHER people will react, so you can only meet them where they are.

Please read this: http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/be-a-bette ... eadvocacy/

First of all, are you saying that these people shouldn't say that they are vegan or talk about it? Or are you saying that they shouldn't be at the "front" of veganism, giving out pamphlets and starting discussions about it? I agree that they shouldn't be at the "front" of it, but I worry that you are saying that vegans who have visible tattoos or who have socially unacceptable pets make veganism look bad by just being a part of it. This goes a bit further.

According to psychology, people like people who are like them. They are also more likely to listen to what they have to say if they are like them. People who have tattoos will be able to convert other people who are also accepting of tattoos, whether they have visible tattoos, hidden tattoos, or none at all. I don't have any tattoos, but I don't care what other people do with their body.

The same with people who have pet rats or any other uncommon pet.

I found out about veganism through people who weren't the "normal" type. I'm not "normal" either.

They don't need to be at the front, no. But they can still encourage people like them to go vegan and that's a good thing.

I only talk about veganism if someone else brings it up or I have to. People are more accepting of it and know that there are good points because of me. I don't try to make anybody change though.

People are also more likely to be accepting of something or even like something if they are exposed to it for a while.

That being said, I see what you mean about not wanting the "woo" or irrational and unusual beliefs associated with us. We should try to stop that from happening, but people who just like unusual things shouldn't be grouped in with that. Having a visible tattoo isn't a good idea for a lot of jobs, but with some jobs it doesn't matter, so it's not always irrational.

BrimstoneSalad wrote:
You don't have time to do that, they're already not listening to you or considering what you say the moment you walk up to them with a facial tattoo.
And if you don't have a facial tattoo and are normal, do you really want to spend the thirty seconds you have for an elevator pitch telling them that, or are you going to spend it effectively delivering a real vegan message about health, the environment, and animal suffering?
Face time is a limited resource. You're wasting time if you're trying to complicate the issue with more barriers to entry.

Not all people will tune you out if you have a visible tattoo. Though if you're arguing that walking up to random people to tell them about veganism will work better with someone who looks and acts "normal", then sure.
You do have the time on forums though. I can tell you spend a lot of time typing your posts. Surely you can spend a minute saying not all vegans are the same and pointing out it's irrational to think so if you feel like it. You point out flaws in logic any other time.

brimstonesalad wrote:
If your teeth are significantly worse than average, then you should fix your teeth if you can. This will improve your job and income prospects, as well as help you with advocacy. Do not put this off.
However, you may just be self conscious. If you PM me with a picture of your smile, I can give you honest feedback as to whether they are bad enough to affect your vegan advocacy, or if you're just being too hard on yourself.

Whenever I have the money to get veneers, I will. If I get cavities first, I will fix those too. I wouldn't let them get bad enough to affect my life, especially if it affected my job or it caused me pain.

brimstonesalad wrote: People CHOOSE to tattoo their faces, and they CHOOSE to publicly advocate Flat Earth. You didn't choose to have bad teeth.

It's not really different. If you are going to say it's not logical to care, but people will, then it won't be seen as different to them because they're not acting rational anyway. Especially if you are going to be saying that they wouldn't listen to me talk. They wouldn't ever hear me say why I have bad teeth.

brimstonesalad wrote:
Most active members in those discussions seem to be people who believe in a round Earth who come to try to convince the Flat Earthers.

Neo-nazis have enough to have forums. "Alien abductees" have enough to have forums. The internet has access to the population of the world to draw from.

Yeah. With the internet around, people don't need to do what the majority of people are doing to fit in or have friends. So the fear of being excluded by people around you doesn't quite matter as much as it used to. I can talk to atheists without being around any, I can talk to vegans without being around any, and so on.

brimstonesalad wrote:
Like what? I'm open to suggestions.

Things that are interesting to me are different view points, things the person likes that aren't common, facts that I didn't know beforehand, and new ideas as long as they are still being logical. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. You're good at talking about interesting things. If you were boring, then maybe you could argue that you have to to be interesting. You don't need to though. I see what you mean about it working though.

brimstonesalad wrote:
Right, but there are more witnesses to debate than participants. You're not usually going to convince the person you're arguing with, but instead people who are on the fence and reading.
Look at how well Trump is doing in the primaries. He's a much bigger asshole than I am (he may be overdoing it a bit). The evidence is on the side of the assholes when it comes to public debate and rhetoric.

I've heard he's doing well. I don't pay attention myself, so I can't say anything about that. But I'm sure that there are people who would like someone who acts like a jerk.

brimstonesalad wrote:
You're a bit out of touch. The latter can be much more offensive to more people, and reflect more poorly on your personal character to the public.

Telling somebody he or she is an X may be more offensive to that person specifically (though it may not be, some people shrug off personal insults but take insults to others much more seriously), but much less so to all of the others reading. Making a generalization attacks everybody listening/watching/reading.

I didn't mean that nobody got offended by it. I know that people do. I don't see why they would be offended though. Whether people are offended more by one or the other depends on the person. You don't know whether the person will be offended until after you say it, unless they told you beforehand. Attacking one person reflects on your personal character too.

brimstonesalad wrote:
Cats are not humans, and we're not just talking about behavior.

Ok, I should have said giving people negative emotions to get information can result in them saying anything just to get you to stop.

brimstonesalad wrote:
The key is making sure the person understands, and is not just agreeing to avoid criticism. Anyway, even if they do just agree, you can work with that too -- study a little psychology, it can be very helpful to understand cognitive dissonance and how it works in persuasion.

You don't know how one way will work until after you do it, unless you already knew the person. Different ways work on different people. Advertisers need to find out who their target demographic is before they start making an ad. Most are really good at knowing what their audience wants. if that's what works the best for you, then go ahead. It sways the people you are trying to sway then. But for others, it won't. That's ok as long as there are others for those other people.

brimstonesalad wrote:
Very often, the win is for the audience, not for the person you're debating. I don't usually expect the people I'm debating on carnism to change their minds (at least not right away). It's a pleasant surprise when they do.

So you're insulting the person to get the audience to pay attention then?

The problem with doing all this for the audience is that you kind of have to know what the audience is like first. Not everybody will be swayed the same way. You will sway the people who get swayed by that though, yes.

If I had thought all vegans weren't accepting of other vegans who they thought would make them look bad when really it's something unrelated to veganism, I wouldn't have been as open to learning about it. We should obviously correct other vegans if they say something wrong. Try to get flatearthers, anti-GMO people, anti-vaccine people to see the truth... but I think this might go a bit further out than that,

brimstonesalad wrote: It's better to say that both are horrible, but one is more horrible than the other.

Yeah, but saying that is just a nicer way of saying one is better.

brimstonesalad wrote:
I'm aware of this, but what are you saying this has anything to do with?

I was saying that would go along with veganism and the whole saving more vs causing one to die sort of thing. However, if you are isaying vegans shouldn't do things that are socially unacceptable because it makes veganism look bad, that wouldn't apply because I shouldn't be having pet rats or trying to help them anyway. Rats still have a bad rep and rat owners are still being judged by a lot of people.

brimstonesalad wrote: Right, just focus on veganism if that's the case.

If you're talking to a Christian, you can cite Biblical verses.
If you're talking to a Buddhist, cite Buddhist beliefs.

Meet people where they are. Don't distract from the issue with irrelevant topics.
These things often come up for me because I'm using pretty advanced philosophical arguments here, but with most people they never would and I would avoid covering these. The carnists on this forum are more intelligent and educated than the general population, and require a different standard of discourse.

Ok, I agree that I shouldn't bring that up in a topic about veganism or bring it up to a random person while in a conversation about veganism. However, if I'm on a forum, I'm not going to only talk about one thing. Maybe one day I want to discuss abortion in a different thread. What do you think I should do then? The posters will see all my posts. Do you think that's ok because it's not in the same thread so it's obvious it's not related to it?

The scientific community IS the authority.

Your senses are the only authority.

Optical Illusions

Why wouldn't tectonics work on the Flat Earth exactly the same way they work on the Round Earth?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Sure, it'd work just like dropping a ceramic plate and watching it smash. Plate Techtonics would make absolutely NO sense on a flat earth, because you boxed yourself in when you made the earth have an edge.

Speaking of the edge, you should go to the edge and tell me what lies on the flip side on the earth. Take an aerial photograph.

There are magnets with a pole in their center just inside the speaker of your computer! Why couldn't the Earth be the same?

Because the Earth wasn't created by the Chinese.

The logic of those "proofs" is flawed. Have you even read this:

[/quote]

Ha... haha... HAHAHAHAHAAAA! I am sorry, but a flat earther talking arguing logic floors me!

teo123 wrote: He should only change his hypothesis so that oxygen fits in it. So should I also change my hypothesis only to fit, let's say, satellites.
Correct me if I am wrong.

No, you should change your argument because your beliefs were made up by desert dwelling doofs who assumed without logic that the earth MUST be flat, because they don't understand how science works.

Might as well believe the Earth is really just the clean-shaven ass of a sparkly pink unicorn.

teo123 wrote:Look, have you ever actually convinced anyone to go vegan or are you just guessing what could convince them?

I have, many times, and to various levels of success. I have 25 years of experience arguing against meat eating. How about you?

teo123 wrote:Also, I only mentioned I am a Flat Earther on that forum while discussing veganism simply because there are a lot of Flat Earthers there. So, even by your own logic, I haven't done anything wrong.

False. You are making vegans look crazy by bringing it up there and being a Flat Earther. There are more people who believe in the conventional round Earth model than a flat one passing through that forum. When they visit there to convince the flat Earthers the Earth is round, they see some Flat Earther going on about veganism, and they think "Of course, I always knew vegans were crazy, this is to be expected."

teo123 wrote:Yet I bet I haven't changed anyones mind!

You probably haven't convinced anybody to go vegan, and may never. However, you are convincing many people that vegans are crazy, and that they never want to go vegan.

With articles like this gem out there people will just say "of course, it all makes sense now": womenshealthmag[dot]com/food/side-effects-of-vegetarianism (which is a dishonest yellow journalism article, but one people believe)

teo123 wrote:So, the Flat Earhter proved his hypothesis about oxygen and fire. Did he also prove that the Earth is flat? No. If someone believes that the Earth is round, he should still believe that, regardless of a Flat Earther making a right prediction.

Oxygen being needed for a fire is not a unique prediction of FE, and round Earth models do not predict that oxygen is unnecessary for fire. This is unrelated to the shape and model of the Earth. Satellites are not unrelated. So, this is not an example.

teo123 wrote:So should I also change my hypothesis only to fit, let's say, satellites. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong, But as I said, I will disprove every current claim you are making in support of Flat Earth over Round Earth, and I will (in addition) debunk your Flat Earth model.
You only have to promise to accept Round Earth once I show that it is at least equally possible, and stop trying to make NEW flat Earth hypotheses that overcome my criticisms.