Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/so-apparently-shaquille-oneal-is-a-flat-earther-too-035813782.html

So....apparently a number of players and ex players in the NBA are now subscribing to the theory that the earth is flat, including Shaq. NASA photos are faked.

It is always "fun" making a list of who would have to be "in on" the Globe Earth conspiracy.

The glory of being in the land of the free is you are free to be as dumb as you see fit.

I think Shaq is just screwing with people to be honest. He has a PhD in Education and says things like going up and down in a "360 degree angle"? 360 degrees isn't angle it is a circle. There does seem to be some foolishness in a few members of the NBA about this at the moment but I'm pretty sure that Shaq, big educated goof that he is, is messing with everyone.

Steelmage99 wrote:

It is always "fun" making a list of who would have to be "in on" the Globe Earth conspiracy.

No kidding, the level and length of continual international cooperation that would be needed for a conspiracy of this size is insane.

GoatboyBeta wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

It is always "fun" making a list of who would have to be "in on" the Globe Earth conspiracy.

No kidding, the level and length of continual international cooperation that would be needed for a conspiracy of this size is insane.

Only if you keep on getting spoon fed by the GCHQ and Obama led fake news networks.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think Shaq is just screwing with people to be honest. He has a PhD in Education and says things like going up and down in a "360 degree angle"? 360 degrees isn't angle it is a circle. There does seem to be some foolishness in a few members of the NBA about this at the moment but I'm pretty sure that Shaq, big educated goof that he is, is messing with everyone.

Just to clarify, Shaq does not have a Ph.D.. He has an Ed.D. in Human Resource Development.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think Shaq is just screwing with people to be honest. He has a PhD in Education and says things like going up and down in a "360 degree angle"? 360 degrees isn't angle it is a circle. There does seem to be some foolishness in a few members of the NBA about this at the moment but I'm pretty sure that Shaq, big educated goof that he is, is messing with everyone.

Just to clarify, Shaq does not have a Ph.D.. He has an Ed.D. in Human Resource Development.

You are correct I was typing to fast and not thinking, though I didn't know it was Human Resource Development. Either way still pretty sure he is just trolling us. He may not be but his statement seems suspicious.

What's wrong with Flat Earth?

New account, only post, questionable flag...

And like all 'good' conspiracy theories, it singularly fails to answer the simple of question of 'but.....why??'

That would be the ... conspiracy of people who've never looked out to sea?

Well, someone should notify all of the airlines and shipping companies.

You know, just in case...

But they're all in on it too.

I mean, the Flat Earthers can't really say why, but anyone who benefits from the world actually being round, on account it's round, is in on it, because reasons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And like all 'good' conspiracy theories, it singularly fails to answer the simple of question of 'but.....why??'

Flat Earthism has several reasons why.

Two things to clear up before you can understand Flat Earth. First it doesn't work on the internet, or at least it isn't intended to as Flat Earth is an educated mans counter culture popularised in prestigious universities in the UK, it isn't a vessel for morons and scientific illiterates In fact people shouldnt be exposed to Flat Earthism prior to undergraduate study, it's not meant for kids, or even teens. Those who are in with Flat Earth shouldnt explain the 'joke', its a bit like a mime act who talks while wearing their masque. A couple of arts professors and coterie of postgraduate students who profess to be Flat Earthers don't need to be second checked to see if they are idiots, something is evidently up. However with an internet group you can't be sure.
Second, because of the nature of the internet just about anyone can claim to be a Flat Earther or set up a Flat Earth website, so enough crazies do and they become Flat Earth society 'leaders'. Some are just trolling, but some are conspiracy theory nuts. Most sites however claim some form of authority which is there mainly to stroke the egos of the local webmaster. After all how many people can claim to be the leader of the Flat Earth society? There is a different air to the culture, some are serious, some are just intentionally offensive or devisive, others are just mind bogglingly ignorant, Flat Earthism is not intended to be any of those things.

Why flat Earth.

Taking the modern internet explosion of nutcase Flat Earthers aside, and those who just want a 'troll site' there are plenty of reasons to Flat Earth.

1. Poke fun at the scientific community. Any arts lecturer will tell you that the scientific community practices the art of science. What I mean by this is that the complete level headedness and open mindedness of science are laudable goals, not actual standpoints. If somone has a new theory is it looked at dispassionately? Seldom so, as scientists as much as anyone else have pet theories and egos. Sometimes new science has to take a backseat because its proponent is of an ethnicity of geder that isnt taken seriously, and yes this still happens. Even when the person is respected the new theorem might not if people are comfortable with earlier thinking.
This was noticed at places like Oxford University where a movement of arts intelligentsia put together a spoof scientific debate group, and chose the flat earth as their modus.

2. Its good debating. The Flat Earth vs Round Earth debate was a staple at Oxford university debating, and other similar places, the idea here is that in a debate you have to act respectfully towards the opponent and win the argument. All too often in life an argument is weighted on presentation not merit, lawyers and politicians do this all the time. For example if you want to get off a murder charge, hire a good lawyer to dazzle the court as to how it wasn't your fault you were caught with a bloodied knife on the night of the crime, it might be well worth not going with the free public defender. How do silver tongued lawyers get their skills, by defending hopeless cases with aplomb. With regards to debate skill there is a lot you can glean from a good flat earth vs round earth debate, its a traditional theme and at least was entirely harmess and acceptable. Less so now as most UK universities student unions take themselves way too seriously, and are too tied in with 'safe space' culture to make proper use of this type of debate anymore.

3. Its fun debating. One of the fun parts of a Flat Earth debate is that the round earth advocate (who is obviously just a stooge for the scientific conspiracy that plagues the earth from corner to corner), cannot at any time just claim that Flat Earthism is ridiculous, he or she has to say why with scientific proofs, most of which are dry as toast. The (fearless defender of truth) flat earth advocate has a far more fun job, as they are expected to be more creative than researched in their argument, and are allowed to take their lines down broad political levels. (The round earth lie is after all a political rather than a scientific issue.)

4. It's skill building. Flat Earthism and equivalents was popular for those who are entering the Foreign Office as a career, those who can defend the flat earth with a straight face are better placed to explain to a foreign government that the build up of tanks on their border is nothing to worry over. Of course with a Flat Earth debate, nobody has to say anything that would be culturally seen as a lie. Flat faced denial of the near entirity of scientific thinking (yes, the hold of the conspiracy goes that deep) needed to support Flat Earth doesn't require further investigation

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And like all 'good' conspiracy theories, it singularly fails to answer the simple of question of 'but.....why??'

Flat Earthism has several reasons why.

Two things to clear up before you can understand Flat Earth. First it doesn't work on the internet, or at least it isn't intended to as Flat Earth is an educated mans counter culture popularised in prestigious universities in the UK, it isn't a vessel for morons and scientific illiterates In fact people shouldnt be exposed to Flat Earthism prior to undergraduate study, it's not meant for kids, or even teens. Those who are in with Flat Earth shouldnt explain the 'joke', its a bit like a mime act who talks while wearing their masque. A couple of arts professors and coterie of postgraduate students who profess to be Flat Earthers don't need to be second checked to see if they are idiots, something is evidently up. However with an internet group you can't be sure.
Second, because of the nature of the internet just about anyone can claim to be a Flat Earther or set up a Flat Earth website, so enough crazies do and they become Flat Earth society 'leaders'. Most are just trolling, but some are conspiracy theory nuts. There is a different air to the culture, some are serious, some are just intentionally offensive or devisive, others are just mind bogglingly ignorant, Flat Earrthism is not intended to be any of those things.

Why flat Earth.

Taking the modern internet explosion of nutcase Flat Earthers aside, and those who just want a 'troll site' there are plenty of reasons to Flat Earth.

1. Poke fun at the scientific community. Any arts lecturer will tell you that the scientific community practices the art of science. What I mean by this is that the complete level headedness and open mindedness of science are laudable goals, not actual standpoints. If somone has a new theory is it looked at dispassionately? Seldom so, as scientists as much as anyone else have pet theories and egos. Sometimes new science has to take a backseat because its proponent is of an ethnicity of geder that isnt taken seriously, and yes this still happens. Even when the person is respected the new theorem might not if people are comfortable with earlier thinking.
This was noticed at places like Oxford University where a movement of arts intelligentsia put together a spoof scientific debate group, and chose the flat earth as their modus.

2. Its good debating. The Flat Earth vs Round Earth debate was a staple at Oxford university debating, and other similar places, the idea here is that in a debate you have to act respectfully towards the opponent and win the argument. All too often in life an argument is weighted on presentation not merit, lawyers and politicians do this all the time. For example if you want to get off a murder charge, hire a good lawyer to dazzle the court as to how it wasn't your fault you were caught with a bloodied knife on the night of the crime, it might be well worth not going with the free public defender. How do silver tongued lawyers get their skills, by defending hopeless cases with aplomb. With regards to debate skill there is a lot you can glean from a good flat earth vs round earth debate, its a traditional theme and at least was entirely harmess and acceptable. Less so now as most UK universities student unions take themselves way too seriously, and are too tied in with 'safe space' culture to make proper use of this type of debate anymore.

3. Its fun debating. One of the fun parts of a Flat Earth debate is that the round earth advocate (who is obviously just a stooge for the scientific conspiracy that plagues the earth from corner to corner), cannot at any time just claim that Flat Earthism is ridiculous, he or she has to say why with scientific proofs, most of which are dry as toast. The (fearless defender of truth) flat earth advocate has a far more fun job, as they are expected to be more creative than researched in their argument, and are allowed to take their lines down broad political levels. (The round earth lie is after all a political rather than a scientific issue.)

4. It's skill building. Flat Earthism and equivalents was popular for those who are entering the Foreign Office as a career, those who can defend the flat earth with a straight face are better placed to explain to a foreign government that the build up of tanks on their border is nothing to worry over. Of course with a Flat Earth debate, nobody has to say anything that would be culturally seen as a lie. Flat faced denial of the near entirity of scientific thinking (yes, the hold of the conspiracy goes that deep) needed to support Flat Earth doesn't require further investigation

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

1) This seems about as intelligent as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Farside Comics, but sure, why not.
2) Is it? I can think of at least 10 different subjects I would argue are more worthy of debate than this.
3) That sounds as much fun as watching paint dry.
4) Debatable. It's about as skill building as arguing that gravity isn't real and we're all being weighed down by negative emotions.

If this is really a society, it's something I'd never want to be a part of. It's about as intellectually stimulating as Scientology.

There's something slightly ... sinister about the idea of debating something you don't believe in - or actively disagree with - as an abstract exercise. I can't help feeling that it's behind the distrust of politicians and the "ruling classes", and breeds the sort of doublethink required to agree with any old nonsense as long as it'll get you elected. The ability to flat-out lie to your audience and get away with it may be useful in your point 4, but it's dangerous when it comes to those seeking election, as we're finding out to our cost now.

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

 jreilly89 wrote:

1) This seems about as intelligent as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Farside Comics, but sure, why not.

The cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a strongly politically motivated movement, entirely different. Flat Earthism is not intended to fill or exploit any legislative gap.

 jreilly89 wrote:

2) Is it? I can think of at least 10 different subjects I would argue are more worthy of debate than this.

It's a traditional, abstract and light hearted debate. Other test debates are more likely to be heated, also. The fact thats its a traditional debate gave it extra standing.

 jreilly89 wrote:

3) That sounds as much fun as watching paint dry.

All debate is unless you are into it. Flat earth vs round earth has all the markers for a really exciting debate as it involves real science, counter culture and spin all at once, there is a lot of room for debating techniques to be used. Remember dabate is about wit and showmanship, like with poker the stronger hand doesnt always win.

 jreilly89 wrote:

4) Debatable. It's about as skill building as arguing that gravity isn't real and we're all being weighed down by negative emotions.

Running with that a moment. As people feel light on their feet while happy, why not, now we need an explanation as to what happens to inanimate objects. This is where is falls down (sic). Flat earth doesn't directly contradict the immediate observable environment, to the point where people actually did think the world was flat prior to the age of scientific discovery

If this is really a society, it's something I'd never want to be a part of. It's about as intellectually stimulating as Scientology.

I think we're mixing two things.

1. The act of debating something you don't actually believe in.
2. Telling a journalist something you don't actually believe in.



1. There is nothing wrong with debating something you don't believe in. Whether you are just sharpening your rhetorical skills, trying to put yourself in the other person's shoes so that you can debate what you actually believe better, or just enjoy playing devil's advocate. These are practical and important skills for some people and professions.

2. Just being a troll for the LOLs.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
There's something slightly ... sinister about the idea of debating something you don't believe in - or actively disagree with - as an abstract exercise. I can't help feeling that it's behind the distrust of politicians and the "ruling classes", and breeds the sort of doublethink required to agree with any old nonsense as long as it'll get you elected. The ability to flat-out lie to your audience and get away with it may be useful in your point 4, but it's dangerous when it comes to those seeking election, as we're finding out to our cost now.

Fair point, but these skills are needed in diplomacy, hence using this application in point 4.
Pointing out in point 2 how even an honest lawyer will present the info they have with maximum effectiveness in order to best serve their client.

As for politicians lying, they need no encouragement here, and it's nothing new either. In fact how to lie convincingly is part of the basic training for most politicians in most countries. It is essential skill to best serve your country internationally. Furthermore one of the ironies of politics is that those politicans who are actually honest, and there are a fair few, often look less honest than the crooked because they don't seek to master the techniques of spin. Those that survive learn.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out. My core issue is that, even if done in jest, arguing in favor something that was previously believed by humans could unintentionally promote people to believe in said thing, even though it's been scientifically proven wrong.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out.

Au contraire, its dying out is a sign that this type of deep thinking is also dying out. The culture of the UK is devolving rapidly.

 jreilly89 wrote:

My core issue is that, even if done in jest, arguing in favor something that was previously believed by humans could unintentionally promote people to believe in said thing, even though it's been scientifically proven wrong.

Its not 'in jest' as there is no 'jest' about it. The society is in-character and behaves as if serious, in a milieu where independent free thought is not discouraged.
As for the unintentions, you miss point 1, even in scientific circles theorems are continued for reasons of ego past the point where they have been discredited. Scientific fields have peer pressure, because they are filled with the same type of ape as the rest of society. The p

I'm pretty sure none of these people actually believe that the Earth is flat. Other than selling merch, I'm not sure why people would join any fringe type element like this.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out.

Au contraire, its dying out is a sign that this type of deep thinking is also dying out. The culture of the UK is devolving rapidly.

Deep thinking? The ability to debate a pointless argument, or to delude yourself into thinking something that is unequivocally not true? That deep thinking?

 jreilly89 wrote:

My core issue is that, even if done in jest, arguing in favor something that was previously believed by humans could unintentionally promote people to believe in said thing, even though it's been scientifically proven wrong.

Its not 'in jest' as there is no 'jest' about it. The society is in-character and behaves as if serious, in a milieu where independent free thought is not discouraged.
As for the unintentions, you miss point 1, even in scientific circles theorems are continued for reasons of ego past the point where they have been discredited. Scientific fields have peer pressure, because they are filled with the same type of ape as the rest of society. The p

So, it's not done in jest, but it pokes fun at the scientific community, by taking itself seriously about a ridiculous subject? Wow, sure sounds like the sort of high class deep thinking society that rivals the ancient philosophers of Greece also, theorems are continued for a multitude of reasons besides go, including trying to get more funding for their own individual research.

For someone who praises deep thinking, you sure have a negative view of science

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out.

Au contraire, its dying out is a sign that this type of deep thinking is also dying out. The culture of the UK is devolving rapidly.

Deep thinking? The ability to debate a pointless argument, or to delude yourself into thinking something that is unequivocally not true? That deep thinking?

Pretty much the main objective of any debate competition at any academic level since the beginning of debate competitions.

Also, the ability to argue a contrarian belief you don't hold is an excellent practice in rhetoric, a skill needed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and YMDC posters.

 d-usa wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out.

Au contraire, its dying out is a sign that this type of deep thinking is also dying out. The culture of the UK is devolving rapidly.

Deep thinking? The ability to debate a pointless argument, or to delude yourself into thinking something that is unequivocally not true? That deep thinking?

Pretty much the main objective of any debate competition at any academic level since the beginning of debate competitions.

Except once the debate ends, they go back to their normal way of thinking. The way Orlanth explains it is that this a high society of people who believe and espouse the Flat Earth idea.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

None of those are really good answers for Doc's question: "But...why?".

I explained why, but you didnt understand. Thats ok, its a very British way of thinking, and doesn't translate. It fact its old school thinking of a kind which is dying out over here, hence why Flat Earthism has lost its core roots. In any event not intended for public exposure below university level because it's rather subtle. It was a bad faux pas to teach Flat Earth mentality openly if you are actually a member.

If that's the case, it sounds like something that's probably for the better that it's dying out.

Au contraire, its dying out is a sign that this type of deep thinking is also dying out. The culture of the UK is devolving rapidly.

Deep thinking? The ability to debate a pointless argument, or to delude yourself into thinking something that is unequivocally not true? That deep thinking?

Pretty much the main objective of any debate competition at any academic level since the beginning of debate competitions.

Except once the debate ends, they go back to their normal way of thinking. The way Orlanth explains it is that this a high society of people who believe and espouse the Flat Earth idea.

Sorry, if you think this you didn't read my posts properly. The old Flat Earth society was made up of post grad students supporting professors in 'ivy league' level universities. Its not exactly high society, but its a cutting intellectual edge, they aren't generally guilty of skewed thinking or delusion.

Again this is why Flat Earth doesn't translate properly onto the internet.

 kronk wrote:
Also, the ability to argue a contrarian belief you don't hold is an excellent practice in rhetoric, a skill needed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and YMDC posters.

Here is someone who understands that debate is shaded in grey, not black and white.

Is it possible that Orlanth's explanation....

fell FLAT?!

 whitedragon wrote:
Is it possible that Orlanth's explanation....

fell FLAT?!

Possibly, but then you are yet to provide a well rounded argument.