Where do you draw the line?

i'm curious as to what you think is believable and what's too far-fetched to even give the light of day.

if you're already rejecting the idea of a spherical earth, do you believe in other conspiracies and theories? do you believe in alternative universes? quantum immortality? irl occlusion culling/hidden-surface determination maybe? why or why not? what makes a theory fit for you to believe and what makes you dismiss it completely?

thank you!

First, let me make this observation: In my opinion, your other topic should have been here as well, not in the Q&A forum. In fact, it might have been better in the debate forum, because here the globalist troll like Dataoverflow, and other parasites automatically fires lies at everyone who approaches, and frankly, that's annoying.

Now you're asking the question to believers like us, and even when not asked, they try to answer every question with an arrogant attitude. This habit of answering is proof of their effort to conceal the truth. They cannot allow a free discussion or dialogue to develop on its own. If they don't manipulate, they fear the truth will emerge. And this constantly recurring situation is one of the main pieces of evidence that the globalism they serve is a lie:

If the world is a globe, why don't you allow different views to be discussed freely (without your manipulation) — is it to prevent the truth from coming out?

Anyway. Back to your question; I want you to know that we have neither believed in nor rejected a model. Essentially, people who are flat earth believers have generally fully studied the global model and, finding it absurd, have sought alternatives — and the flat earth idea, being the most immediate possibility, is appealing to them.

From my perspective, any theory that does not support terrorism is welcome.

Because NASA uses its dirty money to finance terrorist organizations in other countries (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.), funds genocide, and allocates resources to dirty operations such as coups, chemtrails, etc. — we know what it is NOT: THE EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.

You can find my views on simulation and singularity in the Believers section.

If the world is a globe, why don't you allow different views to be discussed freely (without your manipulation) — is it to prevent the truth from coming out?

Of course you’re free to discuss different views.  But if the world is a globe, then the truth of the world being a globe has already come out, hasn’t it?

Quote from: wise on Today at 06:29:12 AM

If the world is a globe, why don't you allow different views to be discussed freely (without your manipulation) — is it to prevent the truth from coming out?

Of course you’re free to discuss different views.  But if the world is a globe, then the truth of the world being a globe has already come out, hasn’t it?

What you just did is exactly what I meant. Whether the world is a globe or not is not the issue here. Even if the world really were a globe (which it isn't) — even if that were the case, that's not the point here. You don't need to post here. Don't you understand that? I tried to explain this to Jack for months, maybe years, and he didn't get it. You either don't understand, or you're forced not to understand because of your role. Because what I'm saying is actually very simple to grasp.

I'm writing this again, so clearly that everyone should understand without hesitation: Please read carefully and understand what the person who comes to ask a question or seek information actually wants. If you're not the intended respondent, you don't have to write.

Someone comes and asks, "What do flat earthers think about ... (a certain topic)?"
A flat earther comes and writes their opinion. That written opinion is the exact answer to the question — it is a 100% accurate answer to that question. Because the question is not "what is the truth." If it were, you could also state your own truth, or correct the flat earther's view with your own truth (or what your science considers true). But that's not the question. The question is what flat earthers think. And we write that.

Then when you say "but what is said here is false," that doesn't make what is said false. Even if it's internally inconsistent, it doesn't need to be corrected — because what is being asked is that person's view.

So, excuse me, but there is a problem with understanding in people who, even after years and hundreds of repetitions, still cannot grasp such an obvious issue.

Someone comes and asks, "What do flat earthers think about ... (a certain topic)?"
A flat earther comes and writes their opinion. That written opinion is the exact answer to the question — it is a 100% accurate answer to that question. Because the question is not "what is the truth." If it were, you could also state your own truth, or correct the flat earther's view with your own truth (or what your science considers true). But that's not the question. The question is what flat earthers think. And we write that.

But the OP didn’t ask about the shape of the earth or your feelings about NASA terrorist plots to suppress the truth.  The OP asked what conspiracy theories are too wild for even an FE’er to believe.  From the way you responded, I’m not sure that there are any.

I’d guess most flat earthers would find hollow earth quite preposterous?

But you never know, there might be the odd one.

I'm writing this again, so clearly that everyone should understand without hesitation: Please read carefully and understand what the person who comes to ask a question or seek information actually wants. If you're not the intended respondent, you don't have to write.

Someone comes and asks, "What do flat earthers think about ... (a certain topic)?"
A flat earther comes and writes their opinion. That written opinion is the exact answer to the question — it is a 100% accurate answer to that question. Because the question is not "what is the truth." If it were, you could also state your own truth, or correct the flat earther's view with your own truth (or what your science considers true). But that's not the question. The question is what flat earthers think. And we write that.

Then when you say "but what is said here is false," that doesn't make what is said false. Even if it's internally inconsistent, it doesn't need to be corrected — because what is being asked is that person's view.

So, excuse me, but there is a problem with understanding in people who, even after years and hundreds of repetitions, still cannot grasp such an obvious issue.

This and, come to think of it, the entire line of questioning is like "What other stuff do you believe in so we can mock you."

Not that I care about people mocking me, so whatever.

No, outside of writing scifi/fantasy or making RPGs, multiverse theory seems too much like MCU.
Yes, quantum immortality is consistent with conservation of matter, so it is at least somewhat plausible.
Dunno what occlusion culling/hidden-surface determination is. So no.
Don't believe in UFOs or aliens. The FE theory seems to negate the idea of outer space.
Might be convinced to believe supernatural intelligent life (elves, gnomes, mermaids, etc).
Probably don't believe in Sasquatch, Bigfoot, or Yeti. Forestry services generally do a good job at weeding out natural creatures, while a gumiho can likely pretend to be human thanks to supernatural ability.
Probably believe in less bogus crap than you.

So let's turn this question around.

What makes a theory fit for you to believe and what makes you dismiss it completely?

Why do you get to decide that flat Earthers are false? And why are you trying to lump it with "other nonsense"?