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.
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.
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.
Well it does. Here’s the logic, with proof by negation:
That’s as far as it goes.
water doesn’t flow aslong as you ignore all the flowing water
The topic is puddles/lakes, not rivers.
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.
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.
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.
Most of them, sure, I’m talking about the ones who actually believe it.