Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

What you need to understand is that this isn't merely about OPINION.
You made factual statements that were wrong.
That is not merely being wrong in my opinion. That is you being objectively wrong.

What you need to understand is that you call objectively wrong is objective to you, and since it is not objective to me, it is actually subjective. In reality, there is no such thing as objectively wrong or right. Everything in the world is subjective and relative.

When you say something is wrong, it is wrong just for you.

Even if you don't accept this situation, in your opinion, what you argue is objectively true and therefore anything else contradict it to say is BS. I think the same thing about your ideas, so what is the solution?

The solution is to admit that you are a fascist and fight against it. I don't have any expertise in solving people's personality problems, I would help you if I did.

Quote from: wise on December 03, 2024, 05:14:46 AM

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

I won't answer, but I will ask back as a tribute, since you are articulate and level headed to a degree and identify as an FEer.

My question is, why are Flat Earthers not interested in disproving the globe?

I guess this is irrelevant the issue. I will still respond. I don't know why others behave the way they do. I only represent myself. In recent time, I do not spend much time on flat earth and sphere discussions, and I wrote the reasons for this above. Apart from this, what I can say is that the sphere model has already been refuted sufficiently and we have thousands of publications on this subject. Is there any need to republish these and watch the same chorus of denial call these studies BS over and over again? If something new happens, we already share it.

Good days.

Apart from this, what I can say is that the sphere model has already been refuted sufficiently and we have thousands of publications on this subject.

Excuse me?

How exactly can the shape of the Earth be established by writing words on a page?

It would be good if Jack Black could agree to disagree with you, shake your hand, and not fight against you tooth and nail, but a leopard cannot change it's spots and a zebra cannot change it's stripes.

Agreeing to disagree is an implication that both sides have merit. Why would I agree to disagree when that isn't the case?

What you need to understand is that you call objectively wrong is objective to you

No, it isn't.
It is objective, meaning not based upon anyone.
You might subjectively reject it, but that does not change the objective nature of it.

You are objectively wrong, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

In reality, there is no such thing as objectively wrong or right. Everything in the world is subjective and relative.
When you say something is wrong, it is wrong just for you.

In reality (actual reality, not your delusional fantasy) there is plenty that is objectively right or wrong. Not everything is subjective.
When I say something is objectively wrong, that means either that thing is objectively wrong, or I am objectively wrong for saying it.
You refusing to accept that doesn't change that.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not make those parts of reality subjective.

The solution is to admit that you are a fascist and fight against it. I don't have any expertise in solving people's personality problems, I would help you if I did.

Why would I admit such utter BS?

As a reminder, the one acting most like a fascist here is YOU!
You are the one who seems to want to silence anyone who objects to your BS, as if they don't have the right to object, all while complaining about your right to freedom of thought and expression.

Apart from this, what I can say is that the sphere model has already been refuted sufficiently and we have thousands of publications on this subject. Is there any need to republish these and watch the same chorus of denial call these studies BS over and over again?

How about some honesty?
How about admitting you haven't refuted it, and that these publications you appeal to have been refuted?
How about dealing with those refutations with more than dismissal?

Quote from: wise on December 03, 2024, 10:19:54 PM

Apart from this, what I can say is that the sphere model has already been refuted sufficiently and we have thousands of publications on this subject.

Excuse me?

How exactly can the shape of the Earth be established by writing words on a page?

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject. If you read and understand all of these, you can see that I am talking about thousands of evidence. With this statement, I see that you are one of the denial chorus. There are many like you here and your childish attitude is a clear proof of why we don't bother to prove it. Take a look at yourself. Is it really worth proving anything to you?

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject. If you read and understand all of these, you can see that I am talking about thousands of evidence. With this statement, I see that you are one of the denial chorus. There are many like you here and your childish attitude is a clear proof of why we don't bother to prove it. Take a look at yourself. Is it really worth proving anything to you?

 If this evidence existed which you speak of, and you knew and understood it, you could have provided a substantive answer to my question.

I am the most fascist ever.

You haven't proven anything objectively.

Nothing has been objectively proven.

Nothing can be proven objectively. Because the object is not real.

Remember the double slit experiment. Everything is a wave until you observe it, and the moment you observe it, it turns into matter.

I also explained visual examples of this. If you look at the train track from the opposite side and look to the right out of the corner of your eye, both the opposite side of the train track and the right side are flat. But if you turn to the right and look across from the corner of your eye, you will see both sides expanding.

All this shows that worldly life is an illusion. You haven't been able to provide a single piece of objective evidence yet. Every BS you put forward was objected to and you failed to meet those objections. Because for every effort there is a counter effort. The opposite is also true. Because in this world it is not possible to prove anything or disprove anything. By not accepting this, you claim that the illusion you believe in in your own narrow world covers the whole world. However, these are literally nothing but BS.

We each have different realities, you have to start by accepting that. I accept that your subjective, biased, narrow-minded perspective is your reality. You should do this at least as a minimum. When you do this, you will learn how huge pyramids were built by the order of the Pharaohs 5000 years ago, when Elon Musk intervened in space that never existed with satellites he never produced and turned you into a digital slave using 5G technology, by directly working in their construction. This great reset for you will have no effect on us as we are aware of its danger and protect ourselves from their lies. Because we live in different realities. And you will soon find out. But I realize your situation is unsalvageable. You are drowning in an ocean of lies and there is no hope for you.

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 02:19:13 AM

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject. If you read and understand all of these, you can see that I am talking about thousands of evidence. With this statement, I see that you are one of the denial chorus. There are many like you here and your childish attitude is a clear proof of why we don't bother to prove it. Take a look at yourself. Is it really worth proving anything to you?

 If this evidence existed which you speak of, and you knew and understood it, you could have provided a substantive answer to my question.

Instead of asking me, why don't you search the site and read my work, Sandokhan's work, Tom Bishop's work, and John Davis' work? Let me ask you a question. Which work of mine do you know? And how far did you read and learn? We research the flat world and transfer it here. Isn't it a waste of time to repeat about things we've already posted many times? You should first read the studies mentioned by the person you are talking to. Then you can talk about some specific problems of these studies. However, in this case, it seems like you didn't ask anything at all.

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject. If you read and understand all of these, you can see that I am talking about thousands of evidence. With this statement, I see that you are one of the denial chorus. There are many like you here and your childish attitude is a clear proof of why we don't bother to prove it. Take a look at yourself. Is it really worth proving anything to you?

Most authors don't have a problem with discussing their work. Why is that a problem to you? Why do you resort to personal denigration?

Since you mention Tom Bishop, he did post an article here recently that was supposed to be convincing. I read it, found out that it contained no substance, and told him so. He ran away and hasn't been seen since.



 If this evidence existed which you speak of, and you knew and understood it, you could have provided a substantive answer to my question.
[/quote]
Instead of asking me, why don't you search the site and read my work, Sandokhan's work, Tom Bishop's work, and John Davis' work? Let me ask you a question. Which work of mine do you know? And how far did you read and learn? We research the flat world and transfer it here. Isn't it a waste of time to repeat about things we've already posted many times? You should first read the studies mentioned by the person you are talking to. Then you can talk about some specific problems of these studies. However, in this case, it seems like you didn't ask anything at all.
[/quote]

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 02:37:56 AM

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject. If you read and understand all of these, you can see that I am talking about thousands of evidence. With this statement, I see that you are one of the denial chorus. There are many like you here and your childish attitude is a clear proof of why we don't bother to prove it. Take a look at yourself. Is it really worth proving anything to you?

Most authors don't have a problem with discussing their work. Why is that a problem to you? Why do you resort to personal denigration?

Since you mention Tom Bishop, he did post an article here recently that was supposed to be convincing. I read it, found out that it contained no substance, and told him so. He ran away and hasn't been seen since.



 If this evidence existed which you speak of, and you knew and understood it, you could have provided a substantive answer to my question.

How other writers behave is their own business, not mine. If you quote a work of mine and ask a question, we can talk about it. What's your problem with reading my work?

How other writers behave is their own business, not mine. If you quote a work of mine and ask a question, we can talk about it. What's your problem with reading my work?

I asked a simple question: How can the shape of the Earth be established by putting words on a page? Can we discuss that subject or can't we? Must I provide a quote of your own work as a requisite for discussing this particular topic?

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 03:40:16 AM

How other writers behave is their own business, not mine. If you quote a work of mine and ask a question, we can talk about it. What's your problem with reading my work?

I asked a simple question: How can the shape of the Earth be established by putting words on a page? Can we discuss that subject or can't we? Must I provide a quote of your own work as a requisite for discussing this particular topic?

If the question is simple why you ask? Answer your childish qustions yourself. This is not an environment where you can make word games. You are not smart enough to do this either. If you were, you'd be a flat earther.

Ask me questions about my work. This is not a playground that we deal with childish questions or be the subject of your ridiculous analysis. Will you quote my work and ask questions? Otherwise, I'm not interested in what you write here. I'm not asking you anything, I'm not interested in your opinions. If you are going to ask me something, it may be related to my works, or you should stop making childish tests by asking very simple questions like this. You have to grow up first. I've been following your talks  and wondering when you'll act like an adult. So far, negative.

If the question is simple why you ask? Answer your childish qustions yourself. This is not an environment where you can make word games. You are not smart enough to do this either. If you were, you'd be a flat earther.

Ask me questions about my work. This is not a playground that we deal with childish questions or be the subject of your ridiculous analysis. Will you quote my work and ask questions? Otherwise, I'm not interested in what you write here. I'm not asking you anything, I'm not interested in your opinions. If you are going to ask me something, it may be related to my works, or you should stop making childish tests by asking very simple questions like this. You have to grow up first. I've been following your talks  and wondering when you'll act like an adult. So far, negative.

Now I have to ask a different question again, which you didn't answer the first time: Why do you resort to personal denigration?

But to the matter at hand,

How can the shape of the earth be established by putting words on a page. You claim that this is what your work in fact does, so the question must be related to your work.

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 04:36:25 AM

If the question is simple why you ask? Answer your childish qustions yourself. This is not an environment where you can make word games. You are not smart enough to do this either. If you were, you'd be a flat earther.

Ask me questions about my work. This is not a playground that we deal with childish questions or be the subject of your ridiculous analysis. Will you quote my work and ask questions? Otherwise, I'm not interested in what you write here. I'm not asking you anything, I'm not interested in your opinions. If you are going to ask me something, it may be related to my works, or you should stop making childish tests by asking very simple questions like this. You have to grow up first. I've been following your talks  and wondering when you'll act like an adult. So far, negative.

Now I have to ask a different question again, which you didn't answer the first time: Why do you resort to personal denigration?

But to the matter at hand,

How can the shape of the earth be established by putting words on a page. You claim that this is what your work in fact does, so the question must be related to your work.

I'm too old to solve puzzles. You go play with your toys.

I'm too old to solve puzzles. You go play with your toys.

Then you must be too old to solve the shape of the earth.

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 05:15:56 AM

I'm too old to solve puzzles. You go play with your toys.

Then you must be too old to solve the shape of the earth.

You’re not asking about the shape of the Earth. You’re trying to mock flat earthers by asking a puzzle-like question that includes the shape of the Earth. With this attitude, it’s no surprise that they don’t take your childish questions seriously. Don’t expect me to act like someone your age, like a 6-year-old, which is seemingly your age.

You’re not asking about the shape of the Earth. You’re trying to mock flat earthers by asking a puzzle-like question that includes the shape of the Earth. With this attitude, it’s no surprise that they don’t take your childish questions seriously. Don’t expect me to act like someone your age, like a 6-year-old, which is seemingly your age.

Why do you resort to personal denigration?

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 06:32:46 AM

You’re not asking about the shape of the Earth. You’re trying to mock flat earthers by asking a puzzle-like question that includes the shape of the Earth. With this attitude, it’s no surprise that they don’t take your childish questions seriously. Don’t expect me to act like someone your age, like a 6-year-old, which is seemingly your age.

Why do you resort to personal denigration?

Ask yourself this question by looking in the mirror and answer it.

The ordinary reader sees how we, as flat earthers, deal with problematic people. This is enough to understand why we stay away from general discussions.

Clearly the globalists here are not mature enough to debate. This situation may cause us to have a prejudice against globalists in general. Maybe there are sane globalists out there, but they probably don't meet us.

Anyway that's all I write in this topic.

Ask yourself this question by looking in the mirror and answer it.

The ordinary reader sees how we, as flat earthers, deal with problematic people. This is enough to understand why we stay away from general discussions.

Clearly the globalists here are not mature enough to debate. This situation may cause us to have a prejudice against globalists in general. Maybe there are sane globalists out there, but they probably don't meet us.

Amway that's all I write in this issue.

It is interesting to note that globe earth scientists, i.e. real scientists, do not behave in this way when people ask them questions about their area of specialty.

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 07:20:10 AM

Ask yourself this question by looking in the mirror and answer it.

The ordinary reader sees how we, as flat earthers, deal with problematic people. This is enough to understand why we stay away from general discussions.

Clearly the globalists here are not mature enough to debate. This situation may cause us to have a prejudice against globalists in general. Maybe there are sane globalists out there, but they probably don't meet us.

Amway that's all I write in this issue.

It is interesting to note that globe earth scientists, i.e. real scientists, do not behave in this way when people ask them questions about their area of specialty.

Sen alanımla ilgili soru sormuyorsun. Alanımla ilgili soru sorman için yaptığım çalışmalarından birinden alıntı yapman gerekir. Ben senden bunu yapmanı istedim ama sen hala alay etmeye devam ediyorsun. Bir fizikçiye veya matematikciye tek bir soru tipinde dünyanın küre olduğunu kağıt üzerinde ispatla diyebilir misin? Ya da dersen alacağın yanıt ya bunun gibi bir tepki veya saçma bir yanıt olacaktır. Sözlükle ve aiyle uğraşmayacağim. Kendin cevir.

Remind me again, which one of us is being childish?

The question "Show on paper that the world is flat" is a childish question. We clearly do not have such a duty. It's not anyone's field to do that here. maybe john davis.

I gave you an example. When you talk to a physicist, you speak the language of physics and you need to ask him questions about his work in order to discuss or get information. You wouldn't ask a physicist if the earth is a sphere on paper, that would be a stupid question, wouldn't it?

The flat earth scientists here also have different studies in different branches. To summarize them quickly, we can summarize them as pressure, weight, light, history, ether, religion, map. There is an expert here who knows each of these. You should talk to an expert in his field and it would be right to talk about his work. This is a scientific way of working that also deserves mutual respect.

Some of these are my area of ​​expertise. But when you don't know anything about flat earthers, asking any of them about the shape of the world on paper would be either a stupid or a childish question. If you asked a globalist physicist to prove on a map that the earth is a sphere, he would curse you. I still acted maturely and said that his attitude was childish.

Now grow up and ask me questions about my field, or get out of my around.

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject.

And importantly, don't just do it in isolation.
Look at it in the debate section, where you can see it refuted repeatedly, with you (and them) then abandoning it because you (and they) can't defend it.

Then look at how even after it is refuted, with clear explanations of why it doesn't support your claims, see that it is still posted elsewhere again.

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 02:32:40 AM

I am the most fascist ever.

You haven't proven anything objectively.

I see the fascist is talking to itself, and even admitting it is a fascist.

And yes, YOU Haven't proven anything objectively.

Conversely, I have.
Plenty.

Remember the double slit experiment.

Which shows the wave nature of particles.
That does NOTHING to indicate it isn't real.

I also explained visual examples of this. If you look at the train track from the opposite side and look to the right out of the corner of your eye, both the opposite side of the train track and the right side are flat. But if you turn to the right and look across from the corner of your eye, you will see both sides expanding.

What?
Try explaining that again, with pictures.
Because if I look at a train track, it doesn't magically expand.

All this shows that worldly life is an illusion. You haven't been able to provide a single piece of objective evidence yet.

Sure I did, which you then systematically denied.

Because in this world it is not possible to prove anything or disprove anything. By not accepting this

Prove it.
Until you do, why would I accept it?

We each have different realities, you have to start by accepting that.

No, I don't.
I can accept that you hate reality and try to escape from it into your delusional fantasy with so much paranoid BS. But that fantasy is not reality.

The ordinary reader sees how we, as flat earthers, deal with problematic people. This is enough to understand why we stay away from general discussions.

Yes, "problematic people", i.e. those who show you are spouting BS or ask questions you can't answer.
You insult them or ignore them, because you believe a lie that you cannot defend.

You stay away from "general discussions" because you can't discuss it. You can only preach to those not smart enough to see through your lies.

This is a scientific way of working that also deserves mutual respect.

What you are doing is not scientific at all, and I would say not worthy of any respect.
Look at your map garbage.
You started with the baseless that Earth is flat, and then rejected any result which didn't fit. Even jumping to insane ideas of airlines committing mass murder.
There is nothing scientific about that.

You started with your conclusion and only accepted that which fit. Science at best starts with an idea to test and if that fails, they recognise that.

If you were doing it scientifically your map would show Earth is not flat.

But you don't care about science. You care about preaching.

I am a shit

First of all, I need to make this determination that only some of the quotes you made was the answer given to you. The others were answers given to someone else, but since you see that you are being addressed less, you act as if you were being addressed by responding to someone else's issue. This situation shows that you do not respect not only flat earthers, but also globalists like yourself.

Now.

According to your logic, you are always the winner of all debates because you always write last.

In reality, the reason you write last is that people don't want to be a part of the forum filth you create.

Here, both I and other scientists have personal lives, and we have to work to earn a living. We all have professional lives in our respective fields. That's why we are online here for a limited time, and to get maximum efficiency during that time, we either publish our work or write on topics we consider important.

You apparently spend all seven days here and argue nearly all day long. Considering you're not a flat earther, it’s clear that you didn’t come here as a hobby, and you haven't stayed away long enough from your professional work. Your only job, or the most important thing in your life, is clearly writing here.

When we argue with you, in the first few comments, both sides' arguments are roughly understood. After that, you start quoting and repeating similar arguments over and over again, using a strategy of tiring and annoying the other side. If we look at your message above and similar ones, you often use the phrase "I repeat."

When people see that you keep repeating these parrot-like invalid BS arguments, they ignore your comment and stop writing on that topic in order not to lower themselves to your level.

This doesn't mean that you won the debate.

The number of debates you’ve won against any scientist here so far: 0

The number of arguments you've disproven so far: 0

The number of proofs you've made on any topic so far: 0

"I have a quota for everyone here, and it is limited by the number of characters in the question you ask or the comment where you target me. You have currently used up your quota for one month and 10 days. If I don't do this, I will be spending time responding to your unimportant comments, and in doing so, I might miss more valuable questions from other people. Do you understand this?" I take your response as yes.

Now I am ignoring you because you will continue repeating the same things like a parrot and stealing time from my professional life. Unlike you, I am not unemployed, and I don't support myself with blood money from terrorism.

Therefore, I am ignoring you now once again. Grow up!

Quote from: wise on December 04, 2024, 10:43:27 PM

I am a shit

Wow, telling everyone that you are shit. Quite bold of you.

First of all, I need to make this determination that only some of the quotes you made was the answer given to you.

On an open forum, where anyone can respond.

According to your logic, you are always the winner of all debates because you always write last.

No, if anything, I would be the winner of a debate because I can support my position with logical arguments and explain why the opposition is wrong.

Here, both I and other scientists have personal lives

You are not a scientist. Don't pretend.
You outright reject science.
You directly defy the scientific method.

When we argue with you, in the first few comments, both sides' arguments are roughly understood.

After that you just keep repeating the same BS while ignoring the refutation of it, and start throwing in insults and fabricating quotes.
Like trying to call someone a fascist for objecting to your BS.

If you responded to my arguments, I wouldn't need to repeat them.

When people see that you keep repeating these parrot-like invalid BS arguments

If they were invalid BS arguments, you would be able to refute them rather than just repeating what they were in response to.

This doesn't mean that you won the debate.

Your inability to refute the arguments made does.

The number of debates you’ve won against any scientist here so far

What scientists have I been debating against?

The number of arguments you've disproven so far: 0
The number of proofs you've made on any topic so far: 0

Lying to everyone wont help you.

If I don't do this, I will be spending time responding to your unimportant comments, and in doing so, I might miss more valuable questions from other people.

Then perhaps you should stop wasting your time repeating the same refuted BS and instead try responding to what I have said?
Perhaps you should also stop wasting your time entirely fabricating quotes to respond to, and stop wasting your time with insults?

You certainly seem to have lots of time to do nothing productive.

Now I am ignoring you because you will continue repeating the same things

Which you cannot refute and need to hide from.

Quote from: wise on December 03, 2024, 05:14:46 AM

Quote from: A FASCIST on December 02, 2024, 11:20:32 PM

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion. You don't understand this and you don't want to understand it. It's your thoughts that are BS. But I don't care whether you defend it or not. Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion. On your part, when your views are respected, this is a weakness of the other side and what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

The answer to the question of how a fascist is, is you.

Wise, you are entitled to your opinion about the shape of the Earth. You have your reasons for having that opinion and sharing it. It is my opinion, your opinion helps you feel a greater spiritual closeness to your belief in a higher being - your creator - the maker of the matrix simulation.

It would be good if Jack Black could agree to disagree with you, shake your hand, and not fight against you tooth and nail, but a leopard cannot change it's spots and a zebra cannot change it's stripes.

Aside from flat earthers, one has to wonder what other social intolerances he has?

But just remember a famous saying: Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one.

Apologies for forgetting to respond among the forum clutter.

It’s important for everyone to understand that ideas are personal, and there are various reasons why people form their beliefs. However, not everyone shares this level of intellectual maturity.

I’m not advocating that everyone must accept the flat Earth theory. In fact, I’m not even concerned with what others believe or don’t believe. What I’m trying to do is present my beliefs, along with the evidence and arguments that support them, and introduce myself authentically to others.

When it comes to themselves, people are very sensitive about tolerance and expect everyone to approach them with understanding. Jack Black is one of these people. Even though he’s a globalist, he feels entitled to spread his globalist ideas and fight against flat-earthers, while demanding tolerance for himself. The management has already shown him this tolerance to an excessive degree. But when it comes to us explaining the foundations of our flat Earth belief, he feels the need to attack every argument with zero tolerance. He even has an issue with my name being "Wise." If he could, he would probably argue with God about why He created me. Fortunately, since he doesn’t believe in God, that’s not a problem.

People like him thrive on intolerance, and their material resources support these intolerant groups. This is clear.

In today’s world, freedom of thought is often perceived as the freedom to spread the ideas of the ruling class. Whether it’s on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook, you can express your views as long as they align with the platform’s owner’s views, but once you challenge those ideas, you’re restricted. However, the environment here is freer than those platforms, and people are able to express themselves freely regardless of their views.

In such a harsh and savage environment, in order to roam freely like a gazelle without being harassed by hyenas, you need to run fast and stay alert. I guess I’m one of those who does.

I’m not advocating that everyone must accept the flat Earth theory. In fact, I’m not even concerned with what others believe or don’t believe. What I’m trying to do is present my beliefs, along with the evidence and arguments that support them, and introduce myself authentically to others.

When it comes to themselves, people are very sensitive about tolerance and expect everyone to approach them with understanding. Jack Black is one of these people. Even though he’s a globalist, he feels entitled to spread his globalist ideas and fight against flat-earthers, while demanding tolerance for himself. The management has already shown him this tolerance to an excessive degree. But when it comes to us explaining the foundations of our flat Earth belief, he feels the need to attack every argument with zero tolerance. He even has an issue with my name being "Wise." If he could, he would probably argue with God about why He created me. Fortunately, since he doesn’t believe in God, that’s not a problem.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between tolerating people's opinions about subjective things, and tolerating people outright lying about the world. Especially when those people doing so use whatever dishonest tactics they can.

Again, freedom of thought and tolerance of other ideas goes both ways. That means while you are allowed to say your beliefs and present arguments you think support it; other people are allowed to object to that and say why they think it is wrong.

Why are you so against the idea of people objecting to your claims?
Why do you seem to want to silence them?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 03, 2024, 03:37:38 PM

Quote from: wise on December 03, 2024, 05:14:46 AM

Quote from: A FASCIST on December 02, 2024, 11:20:32 PM

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion. You don't understand this and you don't want to understand it. It's your thoughts that are BS. But I don't care whether you defend it or not. Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion. On your part, when your views are respected, this is a weakness of the other side and what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

The answer to the question of how a fascist is, is you.

Wise, you are entitled to your opinion about the shape of the Earth. You have your reasons for having that opinion and sharing it. It is my opinion, your opinion helps you feel a greater spiritual closeness to your belief in a higher being - your creator - the maker of the matrix simulation.

It would be good if Jack Black could agree to disagree with you, shake your hand, and not fight against you tooth and nail, but a leopard cannot change it's spots and a zebra cannot change it's stripes.

Aside from flat earthers, one has to wonder what other social intolerances he has?

But just remember a famous saying: Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one.

Apologies for forgetting to respond among the forum clutter.

It’s important for everyone to understand that ideas are personal, and there are various reasons why people form their beliefs. However, not everyone shares this level of intellectual maturity.

I’m not advocating that everyone must accept the flat Earth theory. In fact, I’m not even concerned with what others believe or don’t believe. What I’m trying to do is present my beliefs, along with the evidence and arguments that support them, and introduce myself authentically to others.

When it comes to themselves, people are very sensitive about tolerance and expect everyone to approach them with understanding. Jack Black is one of these people. Even though he’s a globalist, he feels entitled to spread his globalist ideas and fight against flat-earthers, while demanding tolerance for himself. The management has already shown him this tolerance to an excessive degree. But when it comes to us explaining the foundations of our flat Earth belief, he feels the need to attack every argument with zero tolerance. He even has an issue with my name being "Wise." If he could, he would probably argue with God about why He created me. Fortunately, since he doesn’t believe in God, that’s not a problem.

People like him thrive on intolerance, and their material resources support these intolerant groups. This is clear.

In today’s world, freedom of thought is often perceived as the freedom to spread the ideas of the ruling class. Whether it’s on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook, you can express your views as long as they align with the platform’s owner’s views, but once you challenge those ideas, you’re restricted. However, the environment here is freer than those platforms, and people are able to express themselves freely regardless of their views.

In such a harsh and savage environment, in order to roam freely like a gazelle without being harassed by hyenas, you need to run fast and stay alert. I guess I’m one of those who does.

You hit the nail on the head with one word.

"Entitlement"

Those who think they are entitled, are amongst the most unsavoury human beings out there. I think entitlement is closely linked with ego, and gets people into trouble all the time.

"Karens" tend to be entitled females, and here on this forum we have have our very own "Karen", in the form of a male - a very very entitled male.

Entitlement is as much a worldwide problem as glamour is.

You hit the nail on the head with one word.

"Entitlement"

Those who think they are entitled, are amongst the most unsavoury human beings out there. I think entitlement is closely linked with ego, and gets people into trouble all the time.

"Karens" tend to be entitled females, and here on this forum we have have our very own "Karen", in the form of a male - a very very entitled male.

Entitlement is as much a worldwide problem as glamour is.

You are on to something there, mr. Machine.

A type of entitlement found with FEers is that they want their "work" to be taken seriously without doing actual science, like testing their own hypotheses.