[Humble B]

Honestly, if people want to allow themselves to be so easily mislead, that is their problem and I doubt most would take them seriously anyway. At that point, you can't really convince someone to be smarter or be more intuitive. They will just be blind because that is what they want.

My point is; no one with any common sense left is mislead by this single Mt Everest picture, because we all, FE'ers & BE'ers including all journo's, know very well that this picture doesn't show the earth as observed from that altitude. The only ones misleading themselves here are those who make themselves believe that publishing this picture was an attempt to debunk FET, and then wrongfully accused the alleged 'debunkers' of lack of critical thinking.

And no Pete, I'm not changing my argument entirely. The articles are not jokes, neither an attempt to defend the globe. They are just articles written by potboilers mentioning the existence of a flat earth community, using that Reddit picture as a coat hanger to start with. But what still is a joke is the picture itself and the claim that it would debunk flat-earth. That was just joking and nothing to be presented in a court of law, because humour is not a misdemeanour in journalism.

But like all jokes, this joke will become a prank when taken too seriously.

[Pete Svarrior]

You have yet to demonstrate that the journalists in question were joking. Given their other failures, this seems extremely unlikely.

You have also now introduced three different arguments, each ridiculously flawed in its one way. Can you please pick one so that at least we know what we're dismantling?

Also, your claims about "anyone with common sense" are irrelevant. We already know that there are numerous individuals vehemently demanding an explanation for this - you pretending not to know this is not a counter-argument.

[Humble B]

Pete, if you really want to believe there is a conspiracy in which media need ridiculous unrealistic pictures to defend the globe,
I rest my case and wish you luck fighting your windmills.

[stack]

Also, your claims about "anyone with common sense" are irrelevant. We already know that there are numerous individuals vehemently demanding an explanation for this - you pretending not to know this is not a counter-argument.

When the thrust of an article (I use that term ‘article’ very loosely in this case) is predicated on something like, "In a Reddit post, captioned…” one should know right quick that they're not in for any sort of Woodward and Bernstein-esque investigative journalism or anything that should be deemed ‘journalism’, for that matter. The onus is on the reader to determine whether something should be trusted or not.

As for those vehemently making demands, they are obviously ignorant and/or have never had a window seat on a plane. Seems like it’s their personal problem and not an indictment of all journalistic endeavors and certainly these rags shouldn’t be considered the bellwether for the decline of critical thinking in the media. We’ve got plenty of proof of that regarding far more important issues elsewhere. 

[Pete Svarrior]

Pete, if you really want to believe there is a conspiracy in which media need ridiculous unrealistic pictures to defend the globe

I already told you that this is not the case. Nobody is proposing a conspiracy, and you seem to be the only person who insists on pretending otherwise. If you're going to just make up your opponents' arguments, is there any point in discussing things with you?

Perhaps there might be a reason for you not answering my question, and instead choosing to mock an argument I haven't made? 

[AATW]

To some people, facts and critical analysis don't matter. What matters to them is twisting facts to fit the narrative they're interested in.

Have you seen Tom's posts? That is literally his jam.

It's unfortunate that you have been bombarded with people sending you this picture with "check mate, flat earthers!" type messages from RE people, just as it is unfortunate that you see so many "The horizon is flat, check mate, round earthers!" type comments on the internet from FE people. And as I've highlighted to you recently, your own FAQ contains this kind of reasoning:

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses.

And yes, I've seen the first sentence, you're not claiming this is the totality of your evidence but I would suggest if you're interested in critical thinking it should be no part of your evidence or argument.
"The world looks flat" isn't evidence of anything other than the earth is large.
"the bottoms of clouds are flat" isn't even true
"the movement of the sun" is more evidence that the sun goes round the earth rather than the earth rotating but that is more a heliocentric/geocentric argument, not a shape of the earth argument.

I agree with what you're saying, but neither FE or RE has a monopoly on stupids or people who can't think critically.
And yes, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing extends to the media, that - and the sheer amount of nonsense on the internet - makes it even more important that kids are taught to think logically and critically.

[Pete Svarrior]

And as I've highlighted to you recently, your own FAQ contains this kind of reasoning

You know what? Fine. Please start a thread about this in FE Projects and we can consider re-phrasing it (but not removing the appeal to intuition - it's useful to newcomers, who are already expected to take in quite a lot when they first encounter us). I think you understand the intended sentiment well enough to make a sensible proposal.

I agree with what you're saying, but neither FE or RE has a monopoly on stupids or people who can't think critically.

Well, obviously. I think in this particular case it's worth focusing on the RE crowd because of the way the logic loops onto itself. They're so deeply convinced that we're wrong that they jump to the conclusion that we're never right. This thread (or, rather, its reshare on Twitter) featured many individuals who went "gotcha, you obviously altered the photo to make it look flat!" - clearly not bothering to even read the OP. Even if we were to concede that FE'ers are completely mistaken, a lazy and incorrect argument against us would only be harmful to everyone.

And yes, before you repeat yourself, you could very easily pick a different scenario with the roles swapped. Only one of us has control of MSM, however

And yes, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing extends to the media, that - and the sheer amount of nonsense on the internet - makes it even more important that kids are taught to think logically and critically.

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

[Rushy]

If we renamed ourselves the Critical Thinking Society then the government actually would start sending assassins out to get us. Think about what you're doing, Pete. Let the grassroots grow first, don't try to jump straight to the world tree.

[Dr David Thork]

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

The world doesn't work like this. You undoubtedly surround yourself with people you find interesting ... and that means they will have a similar IQ to you. And those people will be capable of critical thinking.

But the average IQ is 100. And 100 ... its not very smart. I wish that it were not true, but most people in life need to be told what to think, because they aren't capable of forming complex opinions of their own. Sure, they can decide for themselves that they are hungry, or that they want to go to the pub, or that their Facebook profile hasn't been updated in 3 days and that it can use a new selfie. But they can't decide if Capitalism is of any use. They can't decide if Marxism might be dangerous. If their college professor tells them that anything other than Socialism is a wicked and cruel thought, that's what they will believe. And that's why so much money is poured into political propaganda.

Those who would push nonsense ideas know that they will never convert you. And they don't care, because you are a minority (being smart) that will be obliterated at the ballot box. You are asking people to choose between right or wrong, when they are not capable of doing that. You have to make the argument simple so they can grasp it. And if that argument is "If you vote for me, I'll give you free stuff" ... that's as complicated as it is going to get. This is why soundbites exist. Anything more and average Joe Citizen has lost interest and has gone back to counting their Instagram likes. How do you make an entire country Nazis? How do you make an entire country Communists? Because they'll believe pretty much anything you tell them, as long as you keep it simple.

[AATW]

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

The world doesn't work like this. You undoubtedly surround yourself with people you find interesting ...

I saw an interesting video a while back not quite about what you've said but it's along the same lines:

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles#t-344730

This guy is talking about what he calls "filter bubbles", the idea that my Google results are filtered differently to yours even if we search for the same thing because of our interests or all kinds of criteria. And that can stop us seeing information which might challenge our way of thinking. I don't think there is anything malicious about this, they're trying to be helpful, to give us results they think we will be interested in, but the result is it can stop us broadening our horizons.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.

[stack]

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.

From Schadewald’s book:
"The founding meeting of the Universal Zetetic Society was apparently held on Wednesday, September 21, 1892, at John Williams’s Southwark home. [ref. 4.2]  It’s not clear who besides Williams attended, though probably most of those selected to the UZS Committee were there.  The founders decided on a name, a motto, an object, and a set of rules as follows:

OUR MOTTO

For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation."

Definitely seems larger in scope than the subset of a flat earth.

[Dr David Thork]

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.

However both these societies were largely unsuccessful. More people on earth have heard of 'The Flat Earth Society' - it is part of the lexicon, than had ever head of The Universal Zetetic Society. I think keep the message simple ... the earth is flat. Where you go from there is another matter, but I don't think a rename would be a good idea.

[Pete Svarrior]

To be clear, I was talking about myself and what I choose to do with my time. I have no intention of trying to transform FES into anything other than FES.

[Humble B]

Nobody is proposing a conspiracy, and you seem to be the only person who insists on pretending otherwise. If you're going to just make up your opponents' arguments, is there any point in discussing things with you?

Perhaps there might be a reason for you not answering my question, and instead choosing to mock an argument I haven't made? 

There can't be a flat earth without a conspiracy to hide it for mankind. That makes every FE'er a conspiracy theorist by definition.

And I answered your question by explaining to you that if you believe the use of that Everest picture by the media has something to do with a lack of critical thinking, than that lack is on your side, not theirs.

[Pete Svarrior]

There can't be a flat earth without a conspiracy to hide it for mankind.

You are, once again, changing the subject. You know perfectly well what "conspiracy" was relevant in the context of this discussion (You brought it up yourself!). Pretending not to know this context further cements your failure. If you aren't interested in an actual discussion, please, save us both the trouble.

And I answered your question by explaining to you that if you believe the use of that Everest picture by the media has something to do with a lack of critical thinking, than that lack is on your side, not theirs.

And we (FE'ers and RE'ers alike) have thoroughly debunked every aspect of your proposal - even when you changed your argument. It's up to you to defend it - not restate it without evidence.

[Humble B]

You are, once again, changing the subject......

No sir, I did not change the subject. Introducing an argument you didn't mention is not changing the subject, it is introducing an argument you didn't mention.

And we (FE'ers and RE'ers alike) have thoroughly debunked every aspect of your proposal....

No sir, you, neither someone else, debunked anything I saïd on this subject. Your own claim that the use of the Everest picture is a symptom of a decline in critical thinking by the media is your personal biased opinion.
Your comment that my counter-arguments are not valid because I can't prove it, is in this discussion a false argument for als long als your own initial statement is not proven and no more than your personal but unfounded opinion.

So, if proof is essential for you, let's turn back to the core of this discussion; the title of this thread says that the decline of critical thinking is exemplified by the use of the Everest photo. Now where is your evidence, how do you prove that "lack of critical thinking" is the only right answer on the question why they used this picture without debunking it als proof for the globe?

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, I'm done with you. You keep arguing against things that nobody is claiming (and strawmanning your conversation partners is fundamentally different from just introducing a new argument - again, you fail).

If at any point you feel like actually contributing, let me know

[Pete Svarrior]

Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!

And then there's this tabloid who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.

[Curious Squirrel]

Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!

And then there's this tabloid who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.

I've actually heard of both Metro and Daily Mail. Nice to see the piece even if it took you saying something about it to create one, and they're certainly far less begrudging than that second one.