WHY would the government trick us?

If not to worry about the priests 10000000pg 2ndary book of torah laws, why then do you promote authoritarian maga christian rule that cites said above book?

No, like a typical brainwashed globalist secularist puppet, you're mistaking end result for purpose. Let's do word roots...

No, I'm not.
The purpose of religion was to control people and try to explain the inexplicable to pretend to know things that they had no idea about.
It was not about connecting people, which is why there have been so many conflicts where people from one religion kill those from another, the heretics they would call them.

Your etymology is also just made up BS.

It comes from the Latin religare, which means to bind.

If you want to frame it in the idea of connecting, it would be connecting to "god" and obeying it.

This is the goal that God planned for it

You mean this is what you or other people claim, to pretend religion is good, rather than religion repeatedly doing the things you accuse government and science of doing.

just as science is "to know" and is to follow knowledge about the physical world wherever it leads, even if it proves the existence of God. Yet here as there, the end result is dictated by the subversion of purpose by those in leadership.

No, it isn't. The corruption is primarily done in fields focusing on controversial topics like race and transgenderism, where they more bow to social pressure than anyone in leadership.
You are just upset that it doesn't show what you want so you pretend it is corrupted.

Here's a word that has not been corrupted.
Govern: "to rule with authority"
ment: "the act of"
The act or condition of ruling over others with authority. The purpose of government is to control people.

No, it is to rule based upon the authority you have.
It is NOT complete control.
At least not for modern governments which get that authority from the people.

The older governments that claimed to get that authority from god had that greater control.

A man died on the cross

And Harry Potter died so that people wouldn't have to suffer from Voldemort.

In the same way, instead of allowing the scientific method to be the guide, the leadership tries to get new students to believe the same way. You're a flat Earther? Don't tell your science teacher that, or he'll try to fail you.

No, Science is built upon the existing knowledge we have to improve it.
If you cling to outdated BS which has been refuted countless times, then you are failing to grasp that existing knowledge and should fail.

Actually, I use this website

https://www.etymonline.com/word/government
https://www.etymonline.com/word/science

Making up things? Look for yourself.

But then we get to this:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

Modern revisionism.

They first claim it's legere rather than ligare ("read" vs "connect"), and then they try to shift re to rely ("again" to "tightly").

Fuck that.
https://medium.com/catholic-way-home/the-real-meaning-of-religion-a-binding-relationship-reconnecting-e46b73aa6f3e

Religion is re-connection, not obligation. "Religion" that controls people is actually government in disguise. When priests told people they had to wear masks, I refused. They were government puppets, not holy people.

No, Science is built upon the existing knowledge we have to improve it.

God, you're gullible. No wonder you buy into nonsense about religion controlling people, when for years, the only religions doing that were Islam and maybe Hinduism or something. Meanwhile, every year, the government tries  to make you pay taxes on earnings. You don't have to go to church. But see what not paying taxes gets most people.

Science built on someone else's knowledge or observations violates the basic principle of the scientific method, that is to test theories. You cannot prove anything by taking another person's word for it. It could be a hoax or sham. "Unless I see the marks on his hand and his side" is the byword of scientific study. You need a foundation built on your own observations. Not what others told you. Not even  observed experiments that have carefully been set up. From start to finish, you have to be sure there are no tricks, by looking at the procedure step by step.

Actually, I use this website
...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion
Modern revisionism.
...
Fuck that.

i.e. you use that site until it shows you are wrong, at which point you decide fuck that and go look for something that backs you up.

Even your own source shows you are wrong.
It is not about connecting.
It says it is about rereading, with an alternative about binding.

It is NOT connecting.
Religion has never been about that. It is about controlling.

God, you're gullible.

No, I'm not, which is why I don't buy your dishonest BS.

the only religions doing that were Islam and maybe Hinduism or something.

Or Christianity, or Judaism, and so on.
Even now in America, Christians try to force the bits they accept onto others.

Science built on someone else's knowledge or observations violates the basic principle of the scientific method

No, it doesn't. As the scientific method does not demand you start from scratch.
If you are building upon theories you will inevitably test them, and some aspects have become such a key part of modern life, that they are effectively tested all the time.

Religion has never been about that. It is about controlling.

This sounds like a "you" problem.

Were you molested by priests as a child? Were you in a bad cult?

Meanwhile, if I want to sleep in, instead of going to church, if I want to not tithe, if I want to ignore the sermon, they can't actually stop me.

Meanwhile. You, personally, are proving that government literally won't let people believe the Earth is whatever shape they want. I have 32 pages of proof that you are hoping to control what I think and feel.

I was in a cult for about three days. Better people than you have tried to push me, to cut off my options, to trick me, or to tell me what I can or can't do.

This sounds like a "you" problem.

How is your own sources showing you are wrong a me problem?

Meanwhile, if I want to sleep in, instead of going to church, if I want to not tithe, if I want to ignore the sermon, they can't actually stop me.

Yet if you were born not to long ago and where gay you could have been sterilised because of it, or even earlier put to death.
If you didn't follow the right religion, you would be put to death.

Religion has lost its control in the civilised world, but it still tries, with varying degrees of success from different religions.

Meanwhile. You, personally, are proving that government literally won't let people believe the Earth is whatever shape they want. I have 32 pages of proof that you are hoping to control what I think and feel.

No, that is just your paranoid BS.
You are free to believe whatever dishonest, delusional BS you want, and I am free to call you out on it.
You have more dishonest BS to claim I am hoping to control what you think and feel, but no proof of it. Just like you have proof of pretty much nothign that you claim.

God, you're gullible. No wonder you buy into nonsense about religion controlling people, when for years, the only religions doing that were Islam and maybe Hinduism or something. Meanwhile, every year, the government tries  to make you pay taxes on earnings. You don't have to go to church. But see what not paying taxes gets most people.

Science built on someone else's knowledge or observations violates the basic principle of the scientific method, that is to test theories. You cannot prove anything by taking another person's word for it. It could be a hoax or sham. "Unless I see the marks on his hand and his side" is the byword of scientific study. You need a foundation built on your own observations. Not what others told you. Not even  observed experiments that have carefully been set up. From start to finish, you have to be sure there are no tricks, by looking at the procedure step by step.

You really must be an amazing person.  You know better than the rest of the world about everything.

You are right that science is done by testing theories, and all the things you reject have been thoroughly tested over and over through careful obvseration and experiement.  Millions of scientists and engineers learned the physics that people try to explain to you, and use it to build all the technology the modern world relies on (and has done since the industrial revolution), but you have you own special explanation for everything.  From the laws of motion to how light works to basic geometry.

You don't test anything, you don't learn anything.   But you think know better than everyone who does, all magically gifted to you by the power of your



While I think there's a good chance you just trolling this lot, because it's hard to see how someone could fail to understand so much basic stuff, if you're not the sheer arrogance is just astounding.

No, that is just your paranoid BS.

I'm sure that's it.

You really must be an amazing person.  You know better than the rest of the world about everything.

You two really do not understand me. One of you thinks me arrogant, when I openly admit I was wrong about round Earth. When I openly admit I've been wrong before, and would happily reconsider FE if your arguments made good sense, and didn't feel like when Twelve Tribes cult was telling me that we have marriage "pre-enactments" based on what the elders want, or how we need to remove attachments with our family. Yes, RE is a cult, and having lost one of the members (me!) you aggressively try to convince them to come back. No thanks.
The other thinks I am paranoid, when no actually from 2020 to nearly 2022, the government wanted to shove everyone into a closet. Going to church? Forbidden even when wearing a mask. This right had to be fought for. No, I didn't imagine this.

Am I deeply cynical? Yes. Am I very shy to the point of being borderline agoraphobic? Hells yes (though I've been to Florida an Texas, been on planes, been across the country, it just exhausts me emotionally). Am I paranoid? Not really. I trust people. What I do not trust is "facts." No, a fact is not a fact because someone in a costume says it is.

 And no, it does not matter to be whether it is a scientist, Mariah Carey, the Pope, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or even an angel. If you cannot show me proof that I can touch myself, get outta here.

Show me. Stop telling me.

Here's what I see.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4XRgmUpvThgf
I toss a globed object in a sink and water sticks to it not at all. What kind of science is it that you can't see anything demonstrate what you suggest but you tell people it must be so, from the 8 inch curvature to the sticking of water to large round objects. Meanwhile, the things that I can see, you tell me aren't so. When I can see everywhere around me that mom and pop stores are closing, while supermarket chains like Food Lion do not have to obey the same rules, or how brothels and alcohol stores are essential but being able to worship God and talk to other human beings is nonessential, or or how a man can canoe alone off the coast of Florida without a mask and be arrested for not obeying COVID "guidelines" but Antifa or BLM can crowd far closer than 6 ft while committing violence or vandalism... yeah, you know it's easier to say that you're full of crap.

You two really do not understand me. One of you thinks me arrogant, when I openly admit I was wrong about round Earth. When I openly admit I've been wrong before, and would happily reconsider FE if your arguments made good sense, and didn't feel like when Twelve Tribes cult was telling me that we have marriage "pre-enactments" based on what the elders want, or how we need to remove attachments with our family. Yes, RE is a cult, and having lost one of the members (me!) you aggressively try to convince them to come back. No thanks.

Ha! Your “admission” is just saying that you have realised “da troof” that everyone who actually does something useful with scientific knowledge is too thick to realise.

Whatever pops into your head, inspired by dreams and comic books is better than hundreds of years of rigorous experiment and detailed observations by countless people. 

The modern world is built on an understanding of science including the device you are using now.  Flat earthers have achieved precisely nothing with their rejection of science.  Just a load of waffle.

I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, it’s pointless.  If you wanted to understand how shit works, you could find out for yourself.

But I will laugh at the absurdity of being patronized by someone who apparently can’t get their head around why water doesn’t fall off the earth like it does a beach ball.  Anoungst other hilarities.

I'm sure that's it.

That or something along the lines of it.
To pretend your delusional fantasy is valid, you pretend anyone who is actively objecting is either a complete imbecile or a paid shill.
You couldn't possibly accept that there might be intelligent people that can object to your BS because it is BS.

You two really do not understand me. One of you thinks me arrogant, when I openly admit I was wrong about round Earth.

I don't really care if in the past you decided to reject reality. That doesn't mean you aren't arrogant.
Look at how you are behaving now, with such arrogance.
You refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and instead repeatedly spout pure BS and ignore things which show your fantasy is wrong.

would happily reconsider FE if your arguments made good sense

Pure BS. e.g. from another thread:

Not in your fake questions, nor in joining RE mindset, nor anything else you have to offer.

I'm good, thanks.

You are happing living your delusion, and have no interest in reality; or in arguments which make good sense.
You are far too arrogant for that, and far too far gone.
You have your delusional fantasy and will continue to repeat the same refuted BS to pretend reality is wrong, and ignore any refutation of your BS.

Yes, RE is a cult

No, it isn't.
It is reality.

I'm not trying to convince you to come back, I'm calling out your BS.
You are clearly too far gone to come back to sanity.

The other thinks I am paranoid

Again, based upon your actions and your claims.

Am I paranoid? Not really. I trust people.

Only when it matches your delusional fantasy.
When it doesn't, or you don't like what they are saying, you don't trust it and dismiss it as fake.

And no, it does not matter to be whether it is a scientist, Mariah Carey, the Pope, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or even an angel. If you cannot show me proof that I can touch myself, get outta here.

i.e. you will happily reject the vast majority of reality.

I toss a globed object in a sink

And you see exactly what you expect for the RE model. The much larger gravitational attraction to Earth pulls the water away form your tiny balls.
You have this explained to you repeatedly, yet you keep on repeating the same pathetic BS.
Yet you claim you are are happy to reconsider and aren't arrogant so would admit you were wrong?

If you were honest you would admit that test of yours is pure BS.
No more valid than holding a plate sideways and watching the water pour off.

You might even try a more valid experiment like the Cavendish experiment.
But why would you want that when it would show you are wrong?
You love your fantasy and don't want anything to challenge it.

What kind of science is it that you can't see anything demonstrate what you suggest but you tell people it must be so

Your pathetic strawman.
You can test gravity for yourself.
You have been told of simple experiments.
So simple, plenty of high school kids do it.

Likewise, you have been told plenty of ways to measure the curve, but ignore it as well.

You are not interested in doing experiments that show you are wrong.

Meanwhile, the things that I can see, you tell me aren't so.

You mean the things you baseless assert which you cannot justify?

When I can see everywhere around me that mom and pop stores are closing, while supermarket chains like Food Lion do not have to obey the same rules

Where I was, the rules were more relaxed for small stores.

being able to worship God and talk to other human beings is nonessential

No, that wasn't it at all.
Notice what you are saying?
Worship God and talk to other human beings.
That wasn't prohibited at all.
You were free to do that.
What was prohibited was large gatherings of people.
Nothing stopped you worshipping your favourite imaginary fiend in your own home. Nothing stopped you from using zoom to do so.

Do you know something I would say is far more important that was cancelled? In person classes, with education moved online. That works for some things, but not others.

Do you know something which wasn't which should have been? Press conferences.

Actually, I use this website

https://www.etymonline.com/word/government
https://www.etymonline.com/word/science

Making up things? Look for yourself.

But then we get to this:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

Quote

This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

Modern revisionism.

They first claim it's legere rather than ligare ("read" vs "connect"), and then they try to shift re to rely ("again" to "tightly").

Fuck that.
https://medium.com/catholic-way-home/the-real-meaning-of-religion-a-binding-relationship-reconnecting-e46b73aa6f3e

Religion is re-connection, not obligation. "Religion" that controls people is actually government in disguise. When priests told people they had to wear masks, I refused. They were government puppets, not holy people.

Quote

No, Science is built upon the existing knowledge we have to improve it.

God, you're gullible. No wonder you buy into nonsense about religion controlling people, when for years, the only religions doing that were Islam and maybe Hinduism or something. Meanwhile, every year, the government tries  to make you pay taxes on earnings. You don't have to go to church. But see what not paying taxes gets most people.

Science built on someone else's knowledge or observations violates the basic principle of the scientific method, that is to test theories. You cannot prove anything by taking another person's word for it. It could be a hoax or sham. "Unless I see the marks on his hand and his side" is the byword of scientific study. You need a foundation built on your own observations. Not what others told you. Not even  observed experiments that have carefully been set up. From start to finish, you have to be sure there are no tricks, by looking at the procedure step by step.

what were your observation of the Southern cross from South Africa ; and sun rise from your left as you faced the equator.

   

Quote

Yes, RE is a cult

No, it isn't.
It is reality.

Which is exactly what cult members say.

I have a film in our collection called City of Ember. The town is underground, and surrounded by darkness for miles. They sing "This is all we know, Ember is forever..." shortly before the town browns out for one of the last times. Turns out, they were never intended to be there as a permanent measure, and above ground is an entirely different world.

Cults keep their villagers in the dark. They feed them crap and expect them to like it. They dictate what is and isn't reality to their followers, and don't allow dissent or divergent opinions. More importantly, I am willing to be that if you looked at your current situation, you economically dependent in one or more ways. Face it, you're not only a cultist, you're probably enslaved (or economically abused at the very least).

what were your observation of the Southern cross from South Africa ; and sun rise from your left as you faced the equator.

Unfortunately, I have I do not have the luxury of disposable income. My parents are middle class and thrifty, I'm working class. I have not stayed for an extended period at the equator (except to cross it), and probably won't. And I missed my chance to see the Southern Cross. However, from my experience in general being north and south of the equator, this is why I believe what I believe. To put it simply, the sky appears to be a screen. Lemme put it this way. On the ground, if you plop three people in front of a tree facing directly at and to the left at right, they will see the tree from the front, left, and right POV. In midair, the same is true of birds or helicopters. But when something touches the horizon (tall objects in the distance, stars, sun, and the moon), the front or side does not seem to change perspective, it is pasted on as a flat image. More importantly, in three time zones, the sun might be rising, noon, and setting. Even with a hill-like perspective of RE, that doesn't really make sense. If I am able to see a helicopter from the bottom of a hill, top of a hill, and the other side, again, I should be seeing different POV, not the sun in the middle of different states.   

Which is exactly what cult members say.

The distinction are the mountains of evidence showing it is true, and the ability to address alleged problems.
Compare that to your cult, where you continually flee from simple questions which expose you.

On the ground, if you plop three people in front of a tree facing directly at and to the left at right, they will see the tree from the front, left, and right POV. In midair, the same is true of birds or helicopters.

Now try this with a simple screen, with a simple shape drawn on it, like a square.
Not the person directly in front sees it as a square, but the person to the left or right instead sees it as a rectangle.

So a screen doesn't work either.

What this shows is that these objects are very far away.

So to get a better idea, go get a cylinder, and then look at a far away mountain (or any object realy) from different points on it.
For someone on a direct line between the cylinder and tree, the mountain looks like it is directly opposite the cylinder, equivalent to the sun being high in the sky.
For someone on the other side, the cylinder blocks the view, equivalent to night.
And for those on the side, they see the mountain in a position equivalent to sunrise and sunset.

Yet all three who can see the mountain are viewing it from basically the same view, and so they see the same thing.

Again, what this is actually demonstrating is that these objects are VERY far away, and Earth is round.

The fact that you see basically the same view from these different positions mean that they are very far away compared to the distance between the positions.
And that means they are being viewed from roughly the same direction.
And that means the apparent difference in direction, the reference (i.e. Earth's surface) is in a different orientation, i.e. Earth is round.

Even with a hill-like perspective of RE, that doesn't really make sense. If I am able to see a helicopter from the bottom of a hill, top of a hill, and the other side, again, I should be seeing different POV, not the sun in the middle of different states.

Now try it honestly, with an appropriate scale. Again, all this shows is that the helicopter is too close, you need it much further away.

If you want to compare it to the moon, then you have a distance of (being generous to you) 350 000 km to the moon vs 13 000 km wide Earth. (and the distance is actually large enough to see slightly different portions of the moon)
That is a ratio of roughly 1 to 27.

So just how wide is this hill and how high is the helicopter?

If the helicopter is flying at 1000 ft, that would require the hill to be a mere 37 ft wide.

For the sun, it is much worse, as the distance is closer to 150 000 000 km, giving you a ratio of roughly 11 500.
So if the helicopter was flying at 100 000 ft the hill needs to be a mere 9 ft wide.

You are not even coming close to the scales required.
Instead you are pedalling dishonest BS, just like a cult would.

The distinction are the mountains of evidence showing it is true, and the ability to address alleged problems.

You're misunderstanding the "mountains of evidence" idea.

This is is a legal term to mean that means "this, this, and this" evidence are all true, and we have stacked them up against the opponent's mountain of evidence. The judge looks at the bigger pile.

For instance,
Defense: There was a toeprint from a high heel on the scene but the accused was male, the accused was 350 lb but the point of entry was a small ventilation shaft, and The suspect was in another town, having taken a cruise to Bora Bora.
Prosecution: The accused was the last possible person to see the victim, we have them on a camera looking over the body and holding their neck, the victim's blood is on their hands, and the got their blood on their shoes.

It does not mean stacking a bunch of failed arguments together, calling them evidence, and taking my refusal to answer rehashed arguments as proof. Yes, I looked at these. I at least answered each of them. I suppose I could look at them again.

But more importantly, the mere fact of having a bunch of supposed evidences is not necessarily conclusive. you can poke holes in each point, or even show that one of these premises is very very wrong. For example,
Defense: Actually, the entire scene of the crime isn't the scene of the crime. The man killed the victim, and kept them on ice, strapping them to drop from the ceiling. The single evidence of finding rope near massive amounts of water is all we need to understand this as a delayed  murder at another location ( but there are also drag marks on the body, and mud from the same place on body the body and the shoes of the person who was supposed not to be at the murder)
Prosecution: Except the murder weapon has someone else's prints on it entirely. The accused was just checking for pulse when the police walked in on them.

Which is why I said that I only need to disprove the one premise. If the question of "why can't this work" is addressed, then nothing else matters.

You're misunderstanding the "mountains of evidence" idea.

No, I fully understand it.
There are mountains of evidence which clearly demonstrate Earth is round including plenty you can test yourself.

It does not merely refer to the quantity but also to the value of it, such that overwhelming and pretty much impossible to dispute (honestly and rationally).

It does not mean stacking a bunch of failed arguments together, calling them evidence, and taking my refusal to answer rehashed arguments as proof. Yes, I looked at these. I at least answered each of them. I suppose I could look at them again.

So it is not what you are doing? Where you repeatedly spout the same failed arguments, entirely ignoring the refutation of them.

But more importantly, the mere fact of having a bunch of supposed evidences is not necessarily conclusive. you can poke holes in each point, or even show that one of these premises is very very wrong.

But you can't.
If you could, you would stop making the same pathetic claims.

The best you have is dismissing the photos and videos and data from others as fake, which just means you need to get it yourself.

Which is why I said that I only need to disprove the one premise. If the question of "why can't this work" is addressed, then nothing else matters.

And that is all that is needed to destroy the FE.
Yet you keep fleeing from it.

But if you want to say Earth is flat, you need more than just "there is this problem with the RE". You need to show how the FE addresses that problem, and doesn't its own problems with the RE explains much better.

Quote

The distinction are the mountains of evidence showing it is true, and the ability to address alleged problems.

You're misunderstanding the "mountains of evidence" idea.

This is is a legal term to mean that means "this, this, and this" evidence are all true, and we have stacked them up against the opponent's mountain of evidence. The judge looks at the bigger pile.

For instance,
Defense: There was a toeprint from a high heel on the scene but the accused was male, the accused was 350 lb but the point of entry was a small ventilation shaft, and The suspect was in another town, having taken a cruise to Bora Bora.
Prosecution: The accused was the last possible person to see the victim, we have them on a camera looking over the body and holding their neck, the victim's blood is on their hands, and the got their blood on their shoes.

It does not mean stacking a bunch of failed arguments together, calling them evidence, and taking my refusal to answer rehashed arguments as proof. Yes, I looked at these. I at least answered each of them. I suppose I could look at them again.

But more importantly, the mere fact of having a bunch of supposed evidences is not necessarily conclusive. you can poke holes in each point, or even show that one of these premises is very very wrong. For example,
Defense: Actually, the entire scene of the crime isn't the scene of the crime. The man killed the victim, and kept them on ice, strapping them to drop from the ceiling. The single evidence of finding rope near massive amounts of water is all we need to understand this as a delayed  murder at another location ( but there are also drag marks on the body, and mud from the same place on body the body and the shoes of the person who was supposed not to be at the murder)
Prosecution: Except the murder weapon has someone else's prints on it entirely. The accused was just checking for pulse when the police walked in on them.

Which is why I said that I only need to disprove the one premise. If the question of "why can't this work" is addressed, then nothing else matters.

Do you listen to your president?

Donald Trump was keen to get to the bottom of a few conspiracy theories like 9/11, and maybe even the assassination of JFK, a few years ago. It appears he's no longer interested, and was set straight.

Have you ever heard your president question the shape of the Earth? Neither have I.

If there really ever was a conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth from the masses, Donald Trump would use every American resource at his disposal to expose it, instead of laughing at the idea.

Let that sink in.

I have a film in our collection called City of Ember.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty that it isn't a documentary, so I wouldn't draw any real world conclusions from it.

Do you listen to your president?

Donald Trump was keen to get to the bottom of a few conspiracy theories like 9/11, and maybe even the assassination of JFK, a few years ago. It appears he's no longer interested, and was set straight.

Have you ever heard your president question the shape of the Earth? Neither have I.

I believe I already told you this.

And no, it does not matter to be whether it is a scientist, Mariah Carey, the Pope, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or even an angel.

Donald Trump is a lot more my president than that old fool in 2020. But not anyone can tell me what to believe. Our beliefs, our values, and our concept of how we present ourselves are our possessions no less than anything we own. None of us have the right to steal that against our permission. Not if they are rich, powerful, virtuous, nothing.

When Donald Trump said he was going to put an end to transgender surgery, I nonetheless continued to wear dresses and makeup. He is right to forbid the surgery (that interferes with reproduction) but he is wrong if he wants to prevent free expression with regard to clothing.

Jesus died on a cross so that we be set free, not to fall into illusions or addictions, but so we understand that true freedom demands self-discipline and a strong will that utterly rejects appeal to authority as a philosophy.

So no, I take what Trump says as advice, sometimes even good advice. I similarly take what flat Earth videos say under advisement, adjusting as needed. Just as I listen to my parents when it doesn't feel like I'm getting crap from them. But if anyone tries to force me to believe something,  being my father or my president will not convince me.
#NoKingButKingJesus

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty that it isn't a documentary, so I wouldn't draw any real world conclusions from it.

When I was in college, I had a course called "The Quest For Meaning." My final paper, we were assigned to find a source of meaning. I learned from this class that information doesn't just come from accredited sources, you can learn anything from anywhere.

 You can learn a great deal about government mismanagement from City of Ember's mayor (Bill Murray, btw) and a very great deal about sheeplike behavior and the tendency to ascribe the idea of reality to one's circumstance.
 Guess what though? Those investing enormous amounts into the stock market just before the crash suddenly realized that having an idea of what reality is and it actually being reality are two different things.

Speaking of which, to all those convinced that the final experiment is real, type in ILM Volume Stagecraft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft


Unlike green screen (notice they made a point of showing off that this wasn't green screen), and asked the audience to talk to ppl about green screen (with the idea that they'd learn you can't do these things), Stagecraft is a fully functional video optic wall and ceiling, alllowing realistic scenes that actors can use stage direction in. Ambient light can also be controlled.

You who continue to believe in RE, you can ask a green screen guy, but you should also ask George Lucas's group about The Volume, as it's called.

But if anyone tries to force me to believe something,  being my father or my president will not convince me.
#NoKingButKingJesus

So what if "God"/"Jesus" does?

Speaking of which, to all those convinced that the final experiment is real, type in ILM Volume Stagecraft.

i.e. you are so desperate for it to be fake, you will come with any excuse for it to be fake.
Not because there is a reason to suspect it to be fake, but because it conflicts with your fantasy.

How about instead of focusing on that useless experiment, you instead focus on what you provided before.
How this clearly demonstrate the sun, the moon and the stars are all extremely far away, and the reason they appear at different locations relative to Earth, is because Earth's surface is at a different orientation in different locations, i.e. Earth is round?

So what if "God"/"Jesus" does?

Well, let's put it this way.

I believe that garden of Eden was a setup. God wanted us to make choices, but you can't force humans to have free will. It's an informed consent procedure. The separation from God was a result, and because God us, he sent himself as Jesus.
I believe that Jesus died and came again already, and is with us always. So an entire book of Revelation plus any text that talks about some future return of Jesus is distorting the message of the resurrection. So this person you're talking to was fully willing to make their own Bible.

But while we're on that topic, God nor Jesus nor anyone pretending to be them wouldn't say otherwise. This is the biblical account of how the world appears.

you are so desperate for it to be fake, you will come with any excuse for it to be fake.

No, but it is fake, I am gonna talk about it.

Let's talk about how from moment one, he tries to breathe out, and show us that there's actually cold air. But he doesn't do a good job of it, even with a vape, so he mentions dry air. Then he has a can of chips, and picks up snow. And flies a drone out of sight.

When a magician mentions nothing up their sleeve, little children decide the magician must be honest, as they've never been tricked before. I who was a dopey kid who got tricked all the time and badly, immediately look at his pants, behind his arm, near his waist, and up his sleeve anyway. The mere fact that someone mentions there isn't a trick here is enough to convince me there is a trick. Just as during ISS videos, they fidget with balls and try to control their motion. The ball floating in the air is a prop to sell the illusion of zero gravity, just as the drone and greenish red can of potato chips that he got out (not really to eat, but to show us that it wasn't a green screen).  If something is real, you don't need to sell it. Like, I can take a picture out my back window, and yes it's obvious that's my back window. But if I digitally add leprechauns, you probably won't believe that. Doubling down on it and getting several people to confirm they see leprechauns is just sad.

But had you watched the video, you'd discover that this is a tested technology for creating lifelike backgrounds, and instead of advertising honestly (hey, I appreciate a good sales pitch), they repeatedly say stuff like, "That mountain looks right over there :awkward_smirk: but it's miles in the distance." They use props in a very heavyhanded way to push how real this is.

Shilling is the worst sort of persuasion. It doesn't allow the person to decide on their own, it involves exploiting gullibility.

All the same, the forced and awkward nature of this video makes it all to clear that something isn't right with the picture. The man isn't wearing a hat or gloves in 23 degree  weather (that's the highs in Antarctica during summer, the lows are very awful). That's below freezing. He can't bend down and scoop up snow, he has to fetch his gloves (which aren't in his pocket, as they would be were it actually cold) and then go off to a section to fetch snow. The other guys stand at a distance to show off that there's alot of background honest. But the drone they shoot off behind them only goes backward, and you can look at the guys behind them as a ruler (nice job screwing things up, guys, you made it possible to check depth perception) and realize that the drone disappears far too quickly.

If that's enough to convince you, suit yourself. But know that round Earthers are laughing at how easily you were fooled.

There is plenty of reason to believe this is fake, starting with their horrible acting, and patronizing speech. Keep in mind this was someone who insisted he was a flat Earth, then jumped at the chance of proving something on round Earthers' terms, then turns around and tells everyone "They were right guys."

How this clearly demonstrate the sun, the moon and the stars are all extremely far away, and the reason they appear at different locations relative to Earth, is because Earth's surface is at a different orientation in different locations, i.e. Earth is round?

 But they aren't far away.

Let's talk about the stars. The nearest star group is Alpha Centauri, 4.2 light years (one light year is 5.8 trillion miles, though I could have sworn they previously made it in the billions).
I am near-sighted, and thanks to high blood sugar, my eyesight is gradually worsening. I can't see the words of a book from 15 feet away without my glasses. So if I can see stars, they sure as hell aren't trillions of miles away. To say nothing of the fact that on a clear day, you can see up to 11 miles away, and altitude extends this to at most like 300 miles (that's the longest line of sight on Earth, and it requires perfect conditions).
The reason we can see stars, moon, and sun are that they are projected images.

Yes, like that. You see, same as me, a sky that domes around you like a planetarium. Instead of understanding the sky is different from the ground, you conflate the two and say that the ground is curved.

The sun can be seen from multiple locations at different states because we are seeing an image of the sun, not the real sun. If the sun were seen as a real object, if the moon were seen as a real object, a casual observer ought to be able to see the side or back of such objects. You can only think that the reason they don't is they are very far away. But this explanation doesn't pan out when looking ahead on level ground, I can see clearly maybe 500 feet. Trillions of miles away? Really?!??

Quote

So what if "God"/"Jesus" does?

Well, let's put it this way.

Or how about you put it in a simple, direct way where you answer the question?
Or is that too much to ask?

No, but it is fake, I am gonna talk about it.

No, there is no reason to suspect it is fake.
You are grasping at straws.

I who was a dopey kid who got tricked all the time and badly

And now you dismiss anything that doesn't match your fantasy as fake.

But had you watched the video

And if you bothered reading what I said, you would see that is just more desperation from you.
You aren't watching the video to see if it is fake.
You have already decided it is fake, and are now looking for whatever excuse you can find to say it is.

If that's enough to convince you, suit yourself. But know that round Earthers are laughing at how easily you were fooled.

Says the one who has been fooled so many times it isn't funny, who can't defend their BS, and needs to continually flee from trivial questions which expose your BS.

Why would someone who can handle the cold and your vague baseless claims be enough to convince any sane person?

Keep in mind this was someone who insisted he was a flat Earth

And unlike you they engaged in an experiment to test it, and found it was wrong.
Someone with enough humility to admit they were wrong.
As opposed to you.
Someone so arrogant they refuse to accept any possibility they are wrong, and who flees from trivial questions which show you are wrong.

Quote

How this clearly demonstrate the sun, the moon and the stars are all extremely far away, and the reason they appear at different locations relative to Earth, is because Earth's surface is at a different orientation in different locations, i.e. Earth is round?

But they aren't far away.

That is your entirely baseless claim.

They evidence demonstrates they are.
Your argument demonstrates they are.

If everyone is seeing the same view, it shows they are seeing it from the same angle, so the distance to it must be many times the distance separating the observers.
That is what the evidence demonstrates.

I am near-sighted

Which means you are unable to resolve objects.
It doesn't mean they magically vanish.

To say nothing of the fact that on a clear day, you can see up to 11 miles away, and altitude extends this to at most like 300 miles

Because Earth blocks the view, and the higher ones requires both a tall mountain to view and a tall mountain to view from.

Again, this is NOT demonstrating a magical limit to your view.
If it was a magical limit, then it would stay at those 5 km we have at around sea level, and you would never be able to see further.
The fact that going higher lets you see further clearly demonstrates that Earth is round, because the low distance is from Earth blocking the view, not a magical distance limit.

The reason we can see stars, moon, and sun are that they are projected images.

Or, the far simpler option which doesn't involve loads and loads of pure magic:
They are far away and emitting light which we see.

Yes, like that. You see, same as me, a sky that domes around you like a planetarium.

No, it doesn't.
Because if I walk around a planetarium, the view gets distorted. You need to be at the centre for the view to be correct.

But the same doesn't happen looking at the sky.

So even if it is a dome, you still need it to be extremely far away.
It doesn't save you.

Instead of understanding the sky is different from the ground, you conflate the two and say that the ground is curved.

No, I don't. I have already explained why I know the ground is curved. But as usual, you just lie to everyone.

The sun can be seen from multiple locations at different states because we are seeing an image of the sun, not the real sun.

Based on what?
How does this magical image work?
You have no answer.
You just spout vague crap to pretend your fantasy can work.

If the sun were seen as a real object, if the moon were seen as a real object, a casual observer ought to be able to see the side or back of such objects.

WHY?
Again, you just assert the same for no reason.
We KNOW it must be far away because we can't see the side and the view isn't distorted.

Even if it was projected, you would see it distorted.

You need a magical screen where each individual person gets their own magical screen which magically only they can magically see, where the sun and stars and moon magically project to magically produce the results directly expected for the RE model.

So again, we have a simple coherent RE model which directly explains what is observed, and your pure magic which you can't explain at all.

But this explanation doesn't pan out when looking ahead on level ground, I can see clearly maybe 500 feet.

Until the curvature blocks your view.
Looking elsewhere you can clearly see further, clearly demonstrating it isn't a magical limit to your vision.
You know this, but you keep repeating this same dishonest BS to pretend your fantasy is true, because you know the far simpler option destroys your fantasy.

Quote

So what if "God"/"Jesus" does?

Well, let's put it this way.

I believe that garden of Eden was a setup. God wanted us to make choices, but you can't force humans to have free will. It's an informed consent procedure. The separation from God was a result, and because God us, he sent himself as Jesus.
I believe that Jesus died and came again already, and is with us always. So an entire book of Revelation plus any text that talks about some future return of Jesus is distorting the message of the resurrection. So this person you're talking to was fully willing to make their own Bible.

But while we're on that topic, God nor Jesus nor anyone pretending to be them wouldn't say otherwise. This is the biblical account of how the world appears.

Quote

you are so desperate for it to be fake, you will come with any excuse for it to be fake.

No, but it is fake, I am gonna talk about it.

Let's talk about how from moment one, he tries to breathe out, and show us that there's actually cold air. But he doesn't do a good job of it, even with a vape, so he mentions dry air. Then he has a can of chips, and picks up snow. And flies a drone out of sight.

When a magician mentions nothing up their sleeve, little children decide the magician must be honest, as they've never been tricked before. I who was a dopey kid who got tricked all the time and badly, immediately look at his pants, behind his arm, near his waist, and up his sleeve anyway. The mere fact that someone mentions there isn't a trick here is enough to convince me there is a trick. Just as during ISS videos, they fidget with balls and try to control their motion. The ball floating in the air is a prop to sell the illusion of zero gravity, just as the drone and greenish red can of potato chips that he got out (not really to eat, but to show us that it wasn't a green screen).  If something is real, you don't need to sell it. Like, I can take a picture out my back window, and yes it's obvious that's my back window. But if I digitally add leprechauns, you probably won't believe that. Doubling down on it and getting several people to confirm they see leprechauns is just sad.

But had you watched the video, you'd discover that this is a tested technology for creating lifelike backgrounds, and instead of advertising honestly (hey, I appreciate a good sales pitch), they repeatedly say stuff like, "That mountain looks right over there :awkward_smirk: but it's miles in the distance." They use props in a very heavyhanded way to push how real this is.

Shilling is the worst sort of persuasion. It doesn't allow the person to decide on their own, it involves exploiting gullibility.

All the same, the forced and awkward nature of this video makes it all to clear that something isn't right with the picture. The man isn't wearing a hat or gloves in 23 degree  weather (that's the highs in Antarctica during summer, the lows are very awful). That's below freezing. He can't bend down and scoop up snow, he has to fetch his gloves (which aren't in his pocket, as they would be were it actually cold) and then go off to a section to fetch snow. The other guys stand at a distance to show off that there's alot of background honest. But the drone they shoot off behind them only goes backward, and you can look at the guys behind them as a ruler (nice job screwing things up, guys, you made it possible to check depth perception) and realize that the drone disappears far too quickly.

If that's enough to convince you, suit yourself. But know that round Earthers are laughing at how easily you were fooled.

There is plenty of reason to believe this is fake, starting with their horrible acting, and patronizing speech. Keep in mind this was someone who insisted he was a flat Earth, then jumped at the chance of proving something on round Earthers' terms, then turns around and tells everyone "They were right guys."

Quote

How this clearly demonstrate the sun, the moon and the stars are all extremely far away, and the reason they appear at different locations relative to Earth, is because Earth's surface is at a different orientation in different locations, i.e. Earth is round?

 But they aren't far away.

Let's talk about the stars. The nearest star group is Alpha Centauri, 4.2 light years (one light year is 5.8 trillion miles, though I could have sworn they previously made it in the billions).
I am near-sighted, and thanks to high blood sugar, my eyesight is gradually worsening. I can't see the words of a book from 15 feet away without my glasses. So if I can see stars, they sure as hell aren't trillions of miles away. To say nothing of the fact that on a clear day, you can see up to 11 miles away, and altitude extends this to at most like 300 miles (that's the longest line of sight on Earth, and it requires perfect conditions).
The reason we can see stars, moon, and sun are that they are projected images.

Yes, like that. You see, same as me, a sky that domes around you like a planetarium. Instead of understanding the sky is different from the ground, you conflate the two and say that the ground is curved.

The sun can be seen from multiple locations at different states because we are seeing an image of the sun, not the real sun. If the sun were seen as a real object, if the moon were seen as a real object, a casual observer ought to be able to see the side or back of such objects. You can only think that the reason they don't is they are very far away. But this explanation doesn't pan out when looking ahead on level ground, I can see clearly maybe 500 feet. Trillions of miles away? Really?!??

I find it interesting you are so much into your bible, yet casually, no, candidly, reveal to us all you are a man who likes to dress in drag.

What does your precious bible say about cross dressing?

Yeah, an image of the sun, just a plain old image as you say, which keeps all life on Earth literally alive. An image, like a photograph sitting on your bookshelf, of the sun. An image which not only produces light, but produces heat. Put your hand out in sunlight, Bulma, and feel the heat from the sun. So, it's not just an image, is it?

You really are an expert aren't you?

Quote

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty that it isn't a documentary, so I wouldn't draw any real world conclusions from it.

You can learn a great deal about government mismanagement from City of Ember's mayor (Bill Murray, btw) and a very great deal about sheeplike behavior and the tendency to ascribe the idea of reality to one's circumstance.

The thing about fiction is that you can have your characters react to situations how you want them to act, not necessarily like real would react to the same situations.

Speaking of which, to all those convinced that the final experiment is real, type in ILM Volume Stagecraft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft

Don't you think that the FE'ers on the trip would be the first ones to call out if the trip wasn't real?  Or are they in on the charade as well?  If so, then it would make one wonder if any FE'er is being honest about their FE beliefs.

The thing about fiction is that you can have your characters react to situations how you want them to act, not necessarily like real would react to the same situations.

Good fiction doesn't put words into people's mouths. It grow organically out of what we know of a character or type. A small town politician, when there is a food shortage might indeed scheme to solve it for themselves and forget everyone else. Or pretend that the random hat picking of occupations is somehow a sacred thing that happens by design rather than chance. Or try to suppress the only solution the people have for survival. 

Politicians in the real world act like Bill Murray did in the movie. They make grand sounding speeches, they pretend to be paragons of society. They are actually more like the Pharisees that Jesus spoke about, "wanting to be greeted in the marketplace" and doing good deeds to be seen, while in private having unseemly affairs and occasionally killing off their opponents (not simply discrediting, but in the case of Clintons, sometimes people they didn't like were actually killed).

Don't you think that the FE'ers on the trip would be the first ones to call out if the trip wasn't real?  Or are they in on the charade as well?  If so, then it would make one wonder if any FE'er is being honest about their FE beliefs.

Since I didn't know any of the flat Earthers in question, I honestly couldn't tell the difference. This was the level of shills they were. It was clear that anyone seriously following them should feel betrayed. But I doubt those following them would be convinced. There was entirely too much awkward acting. ":exhale: :exhale: Look at my breathing." Really?!? From the message to "other" flat Earthers, to his not wearing enough cold weather gear, what he said and did either felt forced or lacked details that there should have been.

As Professor Dave mentions in his video, most Flat Earthers are fleeing the chance for a free trip to Antarctica.  Uhhhh, yeah, how often do you accept a free invite to a reunion party with the girl who bullied you all through college? Or go to church with people who are related to the ones bulldozed your home? Or how about attending a wedding with the guy who drove your mother to suicide as the groom.
Given a free invitation where you will be the butt of a joke the entire time, most people say "I've got to do my nails that day." These people aren't brave flat Earthers willing to admit they are wrong. They are at best duped and brainwashed by being subjected to 24 straight hours awake, and at worst, the sort of people who would defraud their followers for months or years. I saw not flat Earthers there.

How about I invite you to the largest summit of flat Earthers :smirk: around the world. Also, there will be a Texas NRA convention there, and everyone will be armed. What's that? You're afraid to go? You coward.

Good fiction doesn't put words into people's mouths. It grow organically out of what we know of a character or type.

And yet we end up with drastically different good fiction for the same time period. Some being a utopia, some being a dystopia.

A small town politician, when there is a food shortage might indeed scheme to solve it for themselves and forget everyone else.

Or they might do whatever they can to ensure everyone gets enough food to survive.
Or they might decide to draw straws to decide who gets to live and die.
You could have loads of different things happen.

As if you can have them do whatever your story needs.

Since I didn't know any of the flat Earthers in question, I honestly couldn't tell the difference. This was the level of shills they were.

And so many other alleged FEers could say the same about you. Especially with how much nonsense you spout.

It was clear that anyone seriously following them should feel betrayed.

Why?
For them agreeing to go and test their beliefs?
For them admitting they were wrong when reality shows they were wrong?

The only reason they should feel betrayed was from them ever suggesting Earth was flat.
But that is common for all FE youtubers and the like; you should likewise feel betrayed for Eric telling you Earth is flat when it is not.

But I doubt those following them would be convinced.

Of course not.
Because the vast majority will be like you.
They have made up their mind and will reject anything that goes against it, looking for whatever BS you can to pretend it can't possibly be real.

Uhhhh, yeah, how often do you accept a free invite to a reunion party with the girl who bullied you

How often do you get a free invite to test your beliefs?
Never.
But again, you need to twist it to pretend the reasonable thing to do is not go.

Do you know the kind of FEers who wouldn't go?
Those who know it will expose them as the lying POS they are.

Given a free invitation where you will be the butt of a joke the entire time

i.e. getting a free invitation to a situation which will show you are a lying POS.
If Earth really was flat, and Antarctica really was a magical ice wall, they wouldn't be the butt of the joke, the REers would be.

So here you are basically admitting you know Antarctica is real and would have a 24 hour sun, so you would be the butt of the joke.

These people aren't brave flat Earthers willing to admit they are wrong. They are at best duped and brainwashed by being subjected to 24 straight hours awake, and at worst, the sort of people who would defraud their followers for months or years.

No, the ones willing to defraud their followers for months or years and not willing to admit they are wrong are those refusing to go, those who know it will show them as the liars they are.

The brave ones, who want to be honest with their followers are the ones who would go. Who would take the chance to put their beliefs to the test and show the world either that they were right and Earth is flat, or that they were wrong.

But perhaps most importantly, nothing has stopped FEers from doing this already, without mean REers getting involved, except the fact that it will show they are wrong.

How about I invite you to the largest summit of flat Earthers :smirk: around the world. Also, there will be a Texas NRA convention there, and everyone will be armed. What's that? You're afraid to go? You coward.

For what purpose?
Notice how your invite is nothing like the final experiment?
You have basically invited us to get shot.
No indication of any testing of beliefs at all.
Yet again, you need to spout dishonest crap to pretend your position is justified.

Quote

The thing about fiction is that you can have your characters react to situations how you want them to act, not necessarily like real would react to the same situations.

Good fiction doesn't put words into people's mouths. It grow organically out of what we know of a character or type.

What we "know" of characters or types usually from stereotypes.  Real people don't always behave like their expected stereotype.

Quote

Don't you think that the FE'ers on the trip would be the first ones to call out if the trip wasn't real?  Or are they in on the charade as well?  If so, then it would make one wonder if any FE'er is being honest about their FE beliefs.

Since I didn't know any of the flat Earthers in question, I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

Perhaps you should consider learning who the players are so that you can figure out who are the true believers and who are the shills.  After all, these YouTubers get a lot more attention and have a lot more influence than this piddling little site.

Given a free invitation where you will be the butt of a joke the entire time, most people say "I've got to do my nails that day." These people aren't brave flat Earthers willing to admit they are wrong. They are at best duped and brainwashed by being subjected to 24 straight hours awake, and at worst, the sort of people who would defraud their followers for months or years. I saw not flat Earthers there.

I thought that you didn't know any of these people, so how can you make those sort of judgements?  Relying on stereotypes?

How about I invite you to the largest summit of flat Earthers :smirk: around the world. Also, there will be a Texas NRA convention there, and everyone will be armed. What's that? You're afraid to go? You coward.

Are you going to pay my way?  And why should I be afraid of a bunch of law abiding gun enthusiasts?

BTW, the joke's on you, there have already been several FE conventions over the years.
https://theconversation.com/i-watched-an-entire-flat-earth-convention-for-my-research-heres-what-i-learnt-95887

Notice how your invite is nothing like the final experiment?
You have basically invited us to get shot.

Exactly.

If you knew anything about the real Antarctic Treaty, you would understand that there are teams of ships, that there is a no fly zone, that any REAL flat Earthers will be shot on sight.

On the other hand, what you said speaks volumes about your mentality.
1. "People from Texas are dangerous."
2. "Guns kill people."
3. "I would do that, so of course they'd do it to me."

Sorry, but having been to Texas, they are no better or worse than any other people. A gun sitting untouched does not tend to kill people unless the powder explodes or something. And as to the third point, you are safer among armed Flat Earthers than unarmed round Earthers.

Why do I say this? Well, it's simple. On average, flat Earthers have to defend their ideas often, as basically everyone and their grandma thinks they are wrong and stupid. Which is more dangerous? A narcissist whose idea of reality comes crashing down? Or someone who has built up an extremely thick skin having been critiqued all the time?

So, first of all, these people do not have the authority to send me to real Antarctica. Trying to visit Antarctica would get me locked away at best, and at worst, those involved will simply shoot me for betraying internationally protected zones, just as if I tried to waltz in to a US army base.

And second of all, the area they called "Antarctica", I am welcome only as long as I play by their rules. Submit to jeering and insults, don't say or do anything that gives the game away. If, for instance, I punch the wall, shattering the illusion, at best I am liable for a multi-million dollar piece of equipment, which would economically ruin me. At worst, they stop the tape, don't tell the public I was even involved, and I am beaten to death in this isolated set. My body would never be found.

So yes, it's quite a bit like the final experiment. It is called the final experiment, because you get discredited or killed if you accept the free trip, and told you're frightened of the truth if you refuse. Sorry, but what I'm maybe frightened of is a gang of round Earthers trapping me in a room and beating me to death.   

Some being a utopia, some being a dystopia.

Utopia doesn't exist. The word literally comes from a word meaning "nowhere." Any utopia you build will be a utopia only for a few, and dystopia for everyone else.

Or they might do whatever they can to ensure everyone gets enough food to survive.
Or they might decide to draw straws to decide who gets to live and die.
You could have loads of different things happen.

Yes, you could write an idealized unbelievable story with unbelievable characters. But flaws are part of characterization. Idealizing governments or people just makes you hopeless.

Mayor Cole (found out his name) is a classic "do as I say, not as I do" leader.

As for why they should feel betrayed, for the same reason if I had grown up as a childhood friend of you, we played together and so on, and suddenly I start espousing flat Earth ideas. "I thought you were one of us!" No, people have the right to their decisions. But the flat Earthers who see these videos walk away with the sense that their heroes sold out on them.

No, I am not. I am admitting that I am afraid I will be led into a trap. Just as I wouldn't go back to a boss who abused me, I don't feel comfortable going to a strange place with people I do not trust. If I were to pay to a trip to visit southern hemisphere glaciers that would be one thing, but the market skeptic in me also doesn't trust free cars or phones to replace the old ones. Keep in mind that I didn't get Windows 10 or 11 computers, despite them offering to upgrade without cost.

So, if I said that you could get a free trip to the equator, and something about the equator proves FE supposedly, and I tell you that you're afraid to go visit the equator so that must mean it is true, is that really a sound argument? No. There are plenty of reasons for not taking a free offer:
1. Not having the interest or the time.
2. Worry about the people offering the trip.
3. Not liking the weather in the area.
4. Wondering about the "fine print" so to speak.
5. Having seen films like Manchurian Candidate where people are brainwashed. Also having seen cult movies (Split Image is fucking scary).
6. Assuming they are right, having to put up with pricks rubbing it in your face. I get enough of that online.
7. Assuming they are wrong, you have wasted a trip on nonsense. And you can't even get these insufferable assholes to admit it.
8. Distrusting something specifically because it is free.

But yes, feel free to tell me how that is the only reason you wouldn't go on a free trip. Year after year, I refuse to go on vacations with my family. It must be because I'm afraid New Jersey or Bahamas don't exist.

Markjo, I have more respect for you than Jack Black. He thinks that law-abiding citizens will kill him.

And yes, I've read one of these articles. They say some pretty weird things tho. If I remember correctly, they think that all flat Earthers also don't believe in Australia. Sounds to me like some dumbass mixed up continents beginning with the letter A.

If you knew anything about the real Antarctic Treaty, you would understand that there are teams of ships, that there is a no fly zone, that any REAL flat Earthers will be shot on sight.

You mean your delusional fantasy?
Yet again you spout pure BS with no justification at all.
All to pretend your rejection is justified.

It isn't. You are just making up pathetic excuses. Just like your cult leader Eric.

On the other hand, what you said speaks volumes about your mentality.

Yes, that I see through your dishonest BS.

It is quite clear what your implication was.
And as already pointed out, it is incredibly dishonest.

On average, flat Earthers have to defend their ideas often, as basically everyone and their grandma thinks they are wrong and stupid.

Because they are.

Which is more dangerous? A narcissist whose idea of reality comes crashing down? Or someone who has built up an extremely thick skin having been critiqued all the time?

Where is the question, you have just provided FEers.

So yes, it's quite a bit like the final experiment.

No, it is nothing like it.
It might be like your delusional fantasy, but nothing like the final experiment.

Utopia doesn't exist. The word literally comes from a word meaning "nowhere." Any utopia you build will be a utopia only for a few, and dystopia for everyone else.

If I had control it would only be a dystopia for people like you and trump.

Yes, you could write an idealized unbelievable story with unbelievable characters.

No, you can write a believable story.
Not everyone is a selfish POS like you.
Some people care about others.

As for why they should feel betrayed, for the same reason if I had grown up as a childhood friend of you, we played together and so on, and suddenly I start espousing flat Earth ideas. "I thought you were one of us!"

Yet again appealing to fantasy.
I would probably call you an idiot for doing so, but I wouldn't feel betrayed.

What you are really saying is that FEers do not give a damn about the truth at all. They are a religious cult with the most important belief being that Earth is flat which they must never reject, even if they see plentiful evidence showing it is wrong; and that accepting reality would be betrayal.

As opposed to what you previously said, where lying POS like Eric Dubay continually lie to their audiences to fool them.

the flat Earthers who see these videos walk away with the sense that their heroes sold out on them.

Sold out to reality. Something they just can't handle.
The only ones who feel like that are the ones that do not give a damn about the truth.

No, I am not. I am admitting that I am afraid I will be led into a trap.

No, you are making up a delusional fantasy to avoid going on a trip that will show your fantasy is wrong.
Again, FEers could do this themselves if they were honest.
So I guess that rules you out.

So, if I said that you could get a free trip to the equator, and something about the equator proves FE supposedly

Firstly, just what is this that I am meant to see and how does it show Earth is flat?
Secondly, far more importantly, is there are already ample evidence of this online which I am rejecting as fake like you do?

Because that is the position you are currently in.
The 24 hour sun in Antarctica, like many things, clearly demonstrates your FE fantasy is pure garbage.
There are countless examples of videos showing this, but dishonest POS like you dismiss them as fake.
So the only way for you to trust that evidence is if you go.

6. Assuming they are right, having to put up with pricks rubbing it in your face. I get enough of that online.

There is an easy fix for that, stop spouting delusional BS.


And I see you are using this yet again as an excuse to deflect from your own claims which show Earth isn't flat.

Care to address the fact that celestial objects are very far away?

Going to be honest for once in your life?

Let's use an analogy.

Pigs are offered a free trip to the slaughterhouse. They are told it is part of a final adventure.

Jews are given a shower as part of a final solution.

When asked why it is that they balk, oh I dunno, could it have something to do with the word final in the title?

You can keep your criticism to yourself. No matter how free something is, I was always taught to distrust free things. As a result of free food from my parents, I struggle with diabetes. That's reason enough. My parents I trust to do certain things, at least. Random strangers could do

Only idiots with a deathwish and people who have some kind of macho need to prove things to others would take you up on that. You must think me some kind of fool.

Hell, I know our government thinks we are fools. They spend a small fortune of our tax money trying to control us with "reasonable" candidates, who have nothing to say, who act like puppets.

Here's another option besides "I am afraid Antarctica exists." I look at the horizon, I already know it is a flat circle in all directions. I look at this forum, I know nothing I say will ever convince people like you. I want to enjoy what is left of my life, contrary to what Jesus says about people who keep their life will lose it, my life is built on risk avoidance.

But since we're on that subject...

Why won't you go to my final summit meeting in Texas, Jack? It's free.

Not going means you admit flat Earthers are right and you haven't the guts to face them.

You ask me to be honest for once. But I have never been anything but honest to you. But from day one, despite the fact that I know that you actually do know that Earth is flat and are working for people who want to keep the public unaware, you have done nothing but lie and call whatever I say delusional BS. It could even be on points that are obvious or public knowledge. Like that it is an accepted fact by all accredited historians that Jesus died on the cross.

There is nothing honest about your ideas. Meanwhile, I who hate risk, nonetheless risk being doxxed and having people find out through internet stuff that people in my address maybe don't accept the globalist version of how things are. I everyday risk my time and I daresay sanity arguing with people who ignore my posts. Why do it? Do you even understand?

Why don't you be honest for once? You admitted you would never go to such a summit, because they have guns. But you expect people to think like you wouldn't, because you haven't the decency to bother to understand your opposition.