Philosophical Vegan Forum

teo123 wrote:Why should I bother that nobody feels offended? Come on! They didn't bother for me not to feel offended at all. They called me a moron, an idiot, a psychopath and a fool. Yes, I was a bit rude to them also (used "dishonest rhetorics"), but I think that's exactly what they expected.

Because they were right, and you were wrong. So, in this conflict, the fault was ultimately yours.

I don't think that's that simple. If an atheist is rude to religious people for no reason, he is not doing the right thing, regardless of whether there is a god or not. A vegan who is bad to meat-eaters just because they are meat-eaters is also wrong. And I think they were bad to me just because I was a flat-earther.

teo123 wrote:If an atheist is rude to religious people for no reason, he is not doing the right thing, regardless of whether there is a god or not.

Perhaps, but in this case there was a reason. Note earlier how I explained how inherently insulting Flat Earth is: it's asserting a massive conspiracy, and calling everybody liars and denying something that's common sense to anybody who can do basic math.

teo123 wrote:And I think they were bad to me just because I was a flat-earther.

You should re-read the arguments. You may have been arrogant and insulting without realizing it.

You should re-read the arguments. You may have been arrogant and insulting without realizing it.

Can you give me some examples, please? I mean, I know they are arguments from ignorance. But to someone who knows science they seem silly and not insulting, right?

teo123 wrote:But to someone who knows science they seem silly and not insulting, right?

It depends on the person. I find the arguments pretty insulting. For examples, you can see earlier in this thread when I explain how and why the claims were insulting.

To me, for example, anyone asserting round Earth without evidence, as most of the people I talked to in real life did, was insulting. I thought that they tried to make me believe that all of my senses are constantly lying to me.
To some vegans, all of the meat-eaters are insulting.
To some atheists, all of the religious people are insulting.

And it's not like I was asserting a massive conspiracy. First of all, I had arguments, no matter how fallacious. Secondly, I claimed that only the space agencies are involved in a conspiracy by faking the space travel, and not that everyone is a liar.

To be honest, I still find it very hard to believe in rockets and space stations.
Is it really possible to have all the knowledge needed to make a rocket or a space station in your head?
How come Croatia hasn't made a single space exploration even half a century after the nations enough big to make a conspiracy did?
How come it hasn't become so cheap that almost everyone can do it?
How come have almost all of their photographs proven to be edited if they hadn't been faked in the first place?
To me, saying that people got to the Moon by a rocket sounds very similar to saying that people got to the Moon by dragons. Isn't it using the unknown to explain the unknown?

teo123 wrote:To me, for example, anyone asserting round Earth without evidence, as most of the people I talked to in real life did, was insulting.

And yet they were more right to do so. Remember how I talked about erring on the side of the mainstream opinion?
You should tentatively accept what the vast majority believe unless you have a very sound reason not to, and even then if you're the only one (or among a very small number) you should be very skeptical of your reasons.

Veganism and Atheism are mainstream opinions, and the validity of veganism is even substantiated by large numbers of people who eat meat (like Richard Dawkins, or Hank Green) in the mainstream, including government and NGO authority.

If you think you've figured out something special, and the overwhelming majority of society thinks you're completely crazy, there's a better probability that you're crazy than you've actually had some special insight.

teo123 wrote:I thought that they tried to make me believe that all of my senses are constantly lying to me.

Your senses were lying to you. This is well known; human bias distorts perception.
It's very easy to see things that aren't there when you believe they are, which is why we have to use objective methodology and controls.

I wouldn't trust myself to correctly see a curvature in the horizon, for example, were this against the mainstream scientific consensus; I'd need a photo, and I'd need to measure the pixels and calculate the angles. I'd also need a double blind to make that real science.
You shouldn't trust your senses for such subtle phenomena.

teo123 wrote:To some vegans, all of the meat-eaters are insulting.

Some meat eaters can be insulting, but not all are (as mentioned above, some agree with veganism, but just don't practice it and acknowledge that makes them less good people).

teo123 wrote:To some atheists, all of the religious people are insulting.

Some theists are inherently insulting. Much less so than Flat Earthers, but creationists are insulting (they are also asserting a grand conspiracy).
Those theists who insist everybody who doesn't agree with them is going to hell are also insulting. Or that atheists believe god exists and are just in denial.

teo123 wrote:And it's not like I was asserting a massive conspiracy.

You were, though, you were just too ignorant to realize how massive because you weren't even familiar with the Round Earth model. That was insulting (to assert anything in such ignorance of the opposite argument). All you had to do is read the Wiki pages.

In any endeavor, we should be at least familiar enough with the opposition so that our arguments aren't insulting for sake of that ignorance.
In the case of something like Flat Earth, though, while I am familiar with it, it's understandable that others should not be because it is not a real model, but an ad hoc hypothesis -- it's not something that merits respect or knowledge of.

teo123 wrote:First of all, I had arguments, no matter how fallacious.

Being fallacious matters. A fallacious argument based on ad hoc assertions is itself insulting. This doesn't excuse you, and it's not something to use as a defense. It would have been less offensive if you had just said "I have no argument, but I have faith".

If you actually had drawn diagrams and done the math for your arguments, that would have been a real defense. You just assumed they were true and asserted them. No different from a Christian making ad hoc circular arguments for his or her god.

teo123 wrote:Secondly, I claimed that only the space agencies are involved in a conspiracy by faking the space travel, and not that everyone is a liar.

Again, these claims were based on ignorance, and were insulting claims in themselves. Now that you know how easy it is to substantiate the shape of the Earth for anybody to do at home, you may realize this.
But do you have any idea how many people work with space agencies and satellites who should know intimately whether this is a conspiracy or not?
There would be at least millions of people involved even if we couldn't prove that the Earth is round from our homes.

teo123 wrote:To be honest, I still find it very hard to believe in rockets and space stations.
Is it really possible to have all the knowledge needed to make a rocket or a space station in your head?

Why don't you learn a little about them, then. You know nothing about these things, which is why you are skeptical.
You're making an argument from ignorance.

This is like Christians arguing against evolution from incredulity.

teo123 wrote:How come Croatia hasn't made a single space exploration even half a century after the nations enough big to make a conspiracy did?

It's not useful for Croatia (or really any nation). Space exploration is expensive and not of very much scientific value. It's more rich countries flexing their muscles.

There are reasons to be critical of space exploration, similar to the reasons to be critical of spectator sports or the Olympics: grand expensive entertainment. But a massive conspiracy is not one of those reasons.

teo123 wrote:How come it hasn't become so cheap that almost everyone can do it?

How come there's no crockoduck if evolution is true? If man came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?

These are questions asked in extreme ignorance of how evolution works, and the claims made. The same for your questions about space exploration.

I could teach you rocket science, but it's literally rocket science and that would take considerably more time than explaining how we know the Earth is round. It's one of the most sophisticated fields of practical engineering there are.

Go on a hobbyist rocketry forums, and start learning how to make a small rocket. Learn what reaction mass is.

teo123 wrote:How come have almost all of their photographs proven to be edited if they hadn't been faked in the first place?

Here's you being insulting again. In ignorance. And eating up everything the conspiracy theorists say without any skepticism.

Most of the images are not "fake". You should be able to get the original photos through freedom of information if NASA doesn't publish them too (which they have many times). The original photos, such as from the rovers, are just messy since they're very small images.
Sometimes they are composites or stitched together, or even HDR, but NASA readily admits this. This is basic photography. NASA also releases 3d mock ups sometimes. You can find that they are so if you look for it or ask.
Sometimes people forget to note on images that they are 3d or composites, but this is not comparable to faking something.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... uiT5n195pQ

That one is a composite (as you can see in the next blog, this guy is being sarcastic in that blog).

teo123 wrote:To me, saying that people got to the Moon by a rocket sounds very similar to saying that people got to the Moon by dragons. Isn't it using the unknown to explain the unknown?

It's unknown to you, because you have chosen to be ignorant instead of educating yourself on how these things actually work.
Again, you are being insulting.

People do know how rockets work. I know how rockets work. Are you calling me a liar?
I could easily tell you why dragons couldn't fly to the moon, even if they existed.

If you think you've figured out something special, and the overwhelming majority of society thinks you're completely crazy, there's a better probability that you're crazy than you've actually had some special insight.

Well, here in Croatia, vegans are considered crazy. People believe it's mainstream science that tells us that we have to eat meat to be healthy. And they won't even listen to me because of that.

I wouldn't trust myself to correctly see a curvature in the horizon, for example, were this against the mainstream scientific consensus; I'd need a photo, and I'd need to measure the pixels and calculate the angles. I'd also need a double blind to make that real science.
You shouldn't trust your senses for such subtle phenomena.

Science isn't always right. And even when it is, it can easily be misunderstood.

Creationists are insulting (they are also asserting a grand conspiracy).

I've never heard that they assert a massive conspiracy. I thought they claim that most of the scientists are simply ignorant. Am I wrong about that?

In any endeavor, we should be at least familiar enough with the opposition so that our arguments aren't insulting for sake of that ignorance.
In the case of something like Flat Earth, though, while I am familiar with it, it's understandable that others should not be because it is not a real model, but an ad hoc hypothesis -- it's not something that merits respect or knowledge of.

Aha, so, we should learn all the theology before debating with theists?

A fallacious argument based on ad hoc assertions is itself insulting.

Well, the fact that the horizon seems to be rising with us is not ad hoc assertion. So isn't the fact that the tops of the clouds seem to be illuminated during what I thought was sunset. Or maybe I just don't know what an ad-hoc assertion means.

Why don't you learn a little about them, then. You know nothing about these things, which is why you are skeptical.
You're making an argument from ignorance

But you really do need an incredible amount of knowledge to engineer a rocket. You need to know physics, chemistry, biology, informatics…
Come on! It is arrogant to say that you can learn all of that. Why it wouldn't be arrogant to say that someone else can?

Here's you being insulting again. In ignorance. And eating up everything the conspiracy theorists say without any skepticism.

Well, they have an explanation for how you can fake any of those photographs. And, to me, those explanations seem far more likely than the explanation that NASA has been on the Moon.

I could easily tell you why dragons couldn't fly to the moon, even if they existed.

And you would be making unjustified assumptions. I guess that you would say they wouldn't be able to fly in the space if they used wings. But maybe they would use something else. I guess that you would say that they couldn't breathe in a vacuum, when maybe they can survive without oxygen for a long time. And here we go! If I ask you how exactly would they turn urine back into water on a space station when you need gravity for that you would say that they use centrifugal force instead. If I ask you how those space suits wouldn't break because of the difference in pressure inside and outside when the plastic a balloon is made of does break when you accidentally vacuum it, you would say that they use different plastic than one that we use to make a balloon, probably without a proof that the plastic you would name then even exists. And so on.
So, how aren't the rockets and space stations ad-hoc hypothesizes? Maybe I am missing something, but I just can't think of what would would it take to make this argument invalid.

teo123 wrote:Well, here in Croatia, vegans are considered crazy. People believe it's mainstream science that tells us that we have to eat meat to be healthy. And they won't even listen to me because of that.

Croatia is of course a backwards country, in many ways stuck in the middle ages in terms of mentality.

Veganism is mainstream in the world, and you can confirm that through the claims of many governments and NGOs.

ADA wrote:It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

This is mainstream authority.

teo123 wrote:Science isn't always right.

You misunderstand what science is; it is empirical and provisional, as such of course it is "always right", because it talks about observations within the context of the limitations of the time, and observations are confirmed by multiple people in multiple ways. There are always limits to the observations, which is why the field of statistics exists in science.
Newtonian physics, one of the most famous examples, is still right within its limitations of energy and velocity.

teo123 wrote:And even when it is, it can easily be misunderstood.

This is why, instead of interpreting it yourself in ignorance of the data, you should tentatively rely on scientific experts to explain it to you and trust what they say unless and until you learn enough to make your own decisions.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ

teo123 wrote:I've never heard that they assert a massive conspiracy. I thought they claim that most of the scientists are simply ignorant. Am I wrong about that?

They also claim that scientists are lying, and in league with the devil to trick people away from god.
There are many topics of scientific explanation it's impossible to simply be ignorant about.

teo123 wrote:Aha, so, we should learn all the theology before debating with theists?

Basically, yes. If you don't know anything about the position you're arguing with, you should stop and learn first.
Most atheists don't even know what a theodicy is, which is inexcusable ignorance when they're debating with theists.

teo123 wrote:Well, the fact that the horizon seems to be rising with us is not ad hoc assertion. So isn't the fact that the tops of the clouds seem to be illuminated during what I thought was sunset. Or maybe I just don't know what an ad-hoc assertion means.

Those aren't ad hoc assertions, those are just insultingly ignorant of the round Earth model, and extremely unscientific casual "observations".

teo123 wrote:But you really do need an incredible amount of knowledge to engineer a rocket.

You don't need to engineer a rocket, you just need to know some of the basics so you won't be as ignorant.
If you are unwilling or unable to learn those things (stop insulting others by saying that nobody can), then you should trust the authority since you are too ignorant to think for yourself on these matters.

teo123 wrote:You need to know physics, chemistry, biology, informatics…

Which is why teams of people usually work together to make these rockets. Each person has different expertise to solve different problems. Do you have any idea how many scientists and engineers NASA employs? They create technologies that ultimately find consumer applications and that we use every day -- new kinds of plastics and materials, for example.

teo123 wrote:Come on! It is arrogant to say that you can learn all of that. Why it wouldn't be arrogant to say that someone else can?

I'm telling you to join an amateur rocket forum or something to learn about basic rocketry. You can learn a little bit of all of those things and build smaller rockets, then you will begin to understand how the larger ones work.
It's arrogant of you to say people can't learn and understand these things, and profoundly insulting.

teo123 wrote:Well, they have an explanation for how you can fake any of those photographs. And, to me, those explanations seem far more likely than the explanation that NASA has been on the Moon.

They have ad hoc explainations, yes. Stop believing ad hoc nonsense.
I don't care what you think is "more likely", you are too ignorant to evaluate such claims so you need to shut up until you learn more and just trust people who are smarter than you are in the mean time.

Even if somebody said they did fly a dragon to the moon, you should shut the hell up because you know nothing about it, rather than rejecting it because you're ignorant.
I can explain why that's not a credible claim, but you can not.
If you spend a few hours learning how rockets work somewhere other than conspiracy theorist sites, you will at least have something to go on.

Again: What is reaction mass?
Shut the fuck up until you can answer basic questions like that.

It's like you're claiming that birds can't fly, and yet you can't even tell me what a wing is. Meanwhile everybody else is saying of course birds can fly, and there are piles of text books explaining how birds fly that you completely ignore and can't be bothered to learn because it's too hard.

If you can't realize how insulting that is, you may be beyond hope. You don't care that we've spent hundreds of years as a society learning and exploring these things, you're just going to arrogantly assert that it doesn't make sense to you, not bother to learn about it, and say you prefer some bullshit conspiracy theory instead.

teo123 wrote:And you would be making unjustified assumptions.

No, I would not. You don't know enough about the subject to make claims like that. All you're doing is pulling things out of your ass and constructing new ad hoc hypotheses.

teo123 wrote:So, how aren't the rockets and space stations ad-hoc hypothesizes? Maybe I am missing something, but I just can't think of what would would it take to make this argument invalid.

They aren't ad hoc hypotheses, it's engineering. They're not even 'hypotheses' at all, they're just facts, and they don't change (the technology is improved every year, but how it worked in 2010 is how it will always have worked in 2010. This is history.).
It works how it works, there's no moving goal post. All of this equipment has design flaws and limitations, which is also why there are disasters sometimes. You can find out exactly how any of these things work. You can even go to space museums and see some of the technology demonstrated. All of this is public information. You could build some of this stuff at home and order some of the space aged materials online if you wanted to in order to test it (if you dedicated your life to it, for example, you could build a space suit at home and a vacuum chamber to test in).

The demo of the insulating ceramic is really fun: You can put your hand on one side of a thin ceramic plate while a blow torch heats up the other side, and it still feels cool.

These things were hard to build, so people spent a lot of time and money developing new materials and methods for doing things so they would work. You can also trace where ALL of the money paid to NASA actually goes -- it goes to the teams developing this technology, and into building things.
Again, you're insulting all of the hard work people put in for decades by just dismissing the possibility that these things can work without even bothering to learn about them or test them: it's incredibly arrogant on your part.

First of all, how am I supposed to know who is to be trusted? To me it seems like that mainstream science is one that is making exceptional claims of space exploration and providing no evidence of it. I might be wrong. There might be some evidence, just like there might be some evidence of God I am unaware of. But for now, I don't believe that.
And can you finally explain why are dragons not a credible claim according to you?
Hey, it's not like I had no idea about round-earthism and space exploration, I had used to believe in it myself. But you are the only one I've ever talked to about this that actually defends their position with some arguments. Until now, it seemed to me that only conspiracy theorists are showing any arguments for their positions.