Flat earth conspiracy spreads globally

JoeMorgue said:
We can have intellectual standards without jackbooted thugs kicked your door in at the middle of the night and dragging your kids off to camps to be re-educated.

There's no law that says saying, thinking, promoting, or walking outside picketing with a sign that says "2+2=5" is illegal. You can't be arrested for it, you can't be jailed for it, you won't be deported for it.

But you just wouldn't function in society for long with that opinion because nobody would be making excuses for you or making you being wrong easier on you.

That's all we need to do.

Being wrong shouldn't be illegal. What it should be is difficult.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's absolutely intellectual totalitarianism you're advocating. That scares the bejezzus out of me.
 
bruto said:
Obviously (or so I'd thought) the kind of consequences differ. Flat earth belief hurts no-one as long as it does not result in stupid policies or practices that do hurt someone.
Click to expand...

I really think y'all are hurting people. YOU. You act in abusive ways towards them and it's just going to make them weirder. You're advocating objectively anti-social behavior.
 
kellyb said:
Yeah, that's absolutely intellectual totalitarianism you're advocating. That scares the bejezzus out of me.
Click to expand...

"Intellectual totalitarianism." Is that what we're calling anti-intellectualism these days?

And this is why Flat Eartherism exist. Because people see some stupid, "Lookit at me go against the grain, swimming up stream, dancing to my own drum" value in being wrong as if factual correctness is a form of Fascism.

This isn't intellectual freedom it's childish "You can't tell me what to do"ism. This is poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick just to take that uppity person who said "Poking yourself in the eye with a sharp" down a notch because who the hell does he think he is to tell you what to do...
 
kellyb said:
I really think y'all are hurting people. YOU. You act in abusive ways towards them and it's just going to make them weirder. You're advocating objectively anti-social behavior.
Click to expand...

Only if you live in a naive dreamworld where being factually wrong has no consequences.

Civility stopped being a thing when people decided being civil removed any onus on them to be right.

Since it's the comparison you've landed on, that is why every 3 second we have a Trumper demanding we a "civil discussion with them" about something that's already been settled.

The idea that anyone could look at our current landscape and argue that "too much intellectual standards" is the problem we are having is insane.
 
Do you ever wonder if maybe you're being a little sociopathic?
 
kellyb said:
Honestly, even calling him names is counterproductive. That's how you get Trump supporters.

Do you think parents should be prohibited from teaching their kids their religion, or should we move to the Chinese system?
Click to expand...

I never said that people should be prohibited from teaching their kids their religion, and don't believe so, nor should we butt into people's lives and tell them their ideas are wrong when they're minding their own business. But I do believe we should reserve the right to oppose them when they're minding ours.

We seem to be in a double bind, where it's outré to criticize those who make it their business to criticize us. To pretend that plain error renders fact controversial, to let crackpots pollute our world, marginalize our friends, threaten epidemics, endanger the world itself, through their ideas.

Sure flat-earthers are basically harmless kooks and fools, but all those I've seen have also relied for their arguments on conspiracies that require the explicit and vociferous bad-mouthing of those who disagree with them. They call us fools, sheep, dupes. And it seems we, to stay pure, must respond with, "well, I respectfully disagree."
 
kellyb said:
Do you ever wonder if maybe you're being a little sociopathic?
Click to expand...

Listen. I'm 40 years old. I've heard every possible version, of every possible argument form every possible angle from people making a new variation on trying to get "Telling people they are wrong is mean" to stick.

You ain't going to be the one.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I can't see how this is any sort of totalitarianism, either.

To extend Joe's example, If you believe 2+2=5, great, that's fine. But if you try to pay for your $5 happy meal with 2 $2 bills, I'm going to have you charged with theft when you walk out of the restaurant, belief not-withstanding.

A belief, no matter how sincere, doesn't free you from any potential consequences of having that wrong belief, and no one is obligated to protect you from the consequences. Arguing that is just...insane.
 
What do you call this bullying behavior? You you call it "education" or something?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Listen. I'm 40 years old. I've heard every possible version, of every possible argument form every possible angle from people making a new variation on trying to get "Telling people they are wrong is mean" to stick.

You ain't going to be the one.
Click to expand...

At no point did I say disagreeing with people was wrong. What you're doing is purely motivated by sadism, though.
 
And that's what I mean when I call Flat Eartherism an anti-intellectual performance piece.

That's why I didn't get engaged in the "Do they literally, intellectually, honestly believe it is true or not?" question. Because I think not only is that not the question we should be asking but it doesn't even apply, not really anyway. Because the factual accuracy of the statement isn't important to them, it's holding opinion that other people disagree with.

Look how strongly, almost violently people react to other people telling them they are wrong. It transcends the actual wrongness and becomes some personal affront, this "How dare this person tell me what to think?" rage affect.

See? We're one page in and the screaming already has nothing to do with the fact that the shape of the Earth is not up for debate in any way, shape or form.

It's not opinion. Those are intellectual. It's a persona.
 
kellyb said:
At no point did I say disagreeing with people was wrong. What you're doing is purely motivated by sadism, though.
Click to expand...

Okay... I'm not doing your game. Believe whatever you want. That is, it seems for you, the point.

All you're doing is proving my point.
 
bruto said:
I never said that people should be prohibited from teaching their kids their religion, and don't believe so, nor should we butt into people's lives and tell them their ideas are wrong when they're minding their own business. But I do believe we should reserve the right to oppose them when they're minding ours.

We seem to be in a double bind, where it's outré to criticize those who make it their business to criticize us. To pretend that plain error renders fact controversial, to let crackpots pollute our world, marginalize our friends, threaten epidemics, endanger the world itself, through their ideas.

Sure flat-earthers are basically harmless kooks and fools, but all those I've seen have also relied for their arguments on conspiracies that require the explicit and vociferous bad-mouthing of those who disagree with them. They call us fools, sheep, dupes. And it seems we, to stay pure, must respond with, "well, I respectfully disagree."
Click to expand...

I know you can come up with excuses for feeling entitled to be the WrongThink police, but it's just that. Excuses. There is no justification for this.
 
How did y'all come across the word "skepticism" to describe yourselves?

You know Carl Sagan would be horrified by you, right? But Sagan's skepticism is for pussies or something?
 
Where did y'all organize out of? How did you get from whatever you were doing before being buttholes to believers, to here?
 
kellyb said:
Where did y'all organize out of?
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

This isn't the first discussion where you seem incapable of or unwilling to argue against an individual and instead demand they tell what group they belong to so instead you can argue against that.
 
kellyb said:
When did you realize you were a "skeptic", Joe? How did you land in this forum?
Click to expand...

Again I'm not interested in yet another of your multi-page attempts to argue the semantics of what group someone belongs to instead of making an adult, rational argument.

Play your games with someone else.
 
JoeMorgue said:
What does that even mean?

This isn't the first discussion where you seem incapable of or unwilling to argue against an individual and instead demand they tell what group they belong to so instead you can argue against that.
Click to expand...

How do you justify what you do as "skepticism"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom