Greentext

7371 readers

488 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

528

Anon sees through the lies (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

95 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Well it does. Here's the logic, with proof by negation:

Earth is round (assertion to disprove)
Water flows around round objects
Water doesn't flow on the earth, it stays put, therefore the earth is not round

That's as far as it goes.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Step 2 seems like a big leap. Either with or without gravity, im not sure anyone had made the case that water flows around round objects. Unless youre talking about the cowanda effect, which i doubt flat earthers are aware of.

I want to be clear, im not ridiculing you or in any way attenpting to be disrespectful, i just dont think a group that prides themselves on not having logical consistency should be considered seriously because by engaging in intellectualism with flat earthers or seriously attempting to debunk them, you are adding to their legitmacy.

Youre effectively saying "this needs to be disproved" when instead the onus should be on them to prove it, and until they are serious with their arguments they shouldnt be taken as anything more than a meme.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm just saying that's the general level of proof they have. They ignore important effects and focus purely on observations. Basically, the only way to really disprove them is to take them to space, and that's obviously not happening.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I dont think taking them to space would prove anything. For the vast majority of them theyre willfully ignorant. Its not about whether what theyre saying is true or not, the just enjoy the story.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Most of them, sure, I'm talking about the ones who actually believe it.

[–] _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

water doesn't flow aslong as you ignore all the flowing water

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The topic is puddles/lakes, not rivers.

[–] _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and why do rivers flow?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago

Altitude change.