I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence. Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.
...It's also how debates work. If a FEer tried to convince you by appealing to laevorotatory subquarks without providing any reason to accept them, would that contribute anything to a discussion?
If you think something should be accepted as evidence, like space travel, which FEers object to, don't just assert that it's accurate. Give some actual reason for it, and bonus points if it's not the same basic things from the same discussion that's been rehashed a hundred times.
You are the one who chooses to argue against it. You don't have to do that. No one has to. If you want to reject FET, and justify your rejection, all you need to do is point to the lack of supporting evidence. That's
it. When you decide that's not enough, when you decide that actually you want to go further and show that it can't function (something which most of science just doesn't bother with, for the record) then yes, you have to engage with FET on its terms, not on yours. Otherwise you aren't showing anything about FET, you're just saying that it's incompatible with RET. That's not news.
You don't have to ignore science, you don't have to change your point of view... You just need to learn how science actually works, and how dependent on context and underpinning theory it is. Science isn't a list of facts, science is a process by which we determine those facts. The process is what matters, not the conclusion. That's what I mean when I talk about religiously clinging to something; if all you care about is the statements of fact, that's when it becomes religion. Science is the means by which we actually find out the truth. Expecting you to actually be able to justify your claims
is science.
Object FEers don't justify theirs all you want, that's fine, but that's also no excuse for you to not do the same when
you are the one who starts making claims. Again, reject FET based on lack of evidence, sure, but that is not the same as taking the utterly unnecessary step of choosing to argue against it. All you do when you refuse to do that, especially when you have centuries of knowledge to draw upon just a google away, is give the impression REers need to lie and use cheap tactics to defend their position. Nothing I say is for the benefit of FET, it's for the benefit of your bloody credibility. Don't blame me for the fact you apparently don't care about that.
Why do you bother?
Because this is a forum with other people on. It should be vaguely enjoyable rather than any remotely interesting discussion getting steamrollered by users that just come across as mind-numbingly insecure and utterly tedious.
And that's the issue - FET isn't a scientific theory, it's a conspriacy theory.
If you believe that, start objecting to the users that try to engage with it on scientific grounds. No one makes them except them. If they've decided that's the path they want to take, it shouldn't be controversial to expect them to actually use science.
If you want to reject it as a conspiracy theory, by all means. I've said words to that effect several times over. My issue is with the people that aren't content with that, and decide to go a step further while providing nothing significant beyond insistence. All that does is encourage the impression that RET only exists because we're brainwashed. If anything,
that's what I dislike. I'm not 'white-knighting,' I'm scrabbling desperately and apparently futilely to try and point out that the fact that the Earth is round and the supporting evidence for that is solid enough that you don't need this sheer, ridiculous level of defensiveness at the most minor slight.