A discussion on TFES forum

[brimstoneSalad]

First of all, are you saying that these people shouldn't say that they are vegan or talk about it?

Correct. If you have a facial tattoo, you can talk about veganism online -- that's fine -- but you probably shouldn't mention it to people you meet, because they will likely come away from the experience with an impression of veganism that is more socially abnormal.

Just having a couple tattoos on your arms isn't as much of a deal breaker; you can probably still do more good than harm that way in the right circles.
Kids, for example, see teachers with a tattoo as more cool and interesting, so it could be a better way to reach them.

The point is that there's a calculus to this: A certain amount of tattoo in certain situations which is optimal for being normal or cool, and a certain amount that makes you a freak and defeats your arguments before you even form them.

A rat as a pet is pretty minor, but maybe don't talk about it. It's more socially acceptable after Harry Potter, I imagine.

According to psychology, people like people who are like them. They are also more likely to listen to what they have to say if they are like them. People who have tattoos will be able to convert other people who are also accepting of tattoos, whether they have visible tattoos, hidden tattoos, or none at all. I don't have any tattoos, but I don't care what other people do with their body.

There's a big difference between a couple tattoos on somebody's arm and facial tattoos.

Do you really want somebody who looks like this going around and advocating veganism? http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/9 ... lasses.jpg

The same with people who have pet rats or any other uncommon pet.

Again, this is minor. But you shouldn't bring it up anyway.

I found out about veganism through people who weren't the "normal" type. I'm not "normal" either.

Which is why people have the perception of vegans as weird, and have a hard time imagining being one, and are even averse to it on that basis alone.

They don't need to be at the front, no. But they can still encourage people like them to go vegan and that's a good thing.

It is really? Even if it will prevent veganism from growing because it just reinforces the notion that vegans are freaks?

We need the 99%, not the 1%.

People are more accepting of it and know that there are good points because of me.

You probably don't have a facial tattoo or let people know you believe the Earth is flat.

Having a visible tattoo isn't a good idea for a lot of jobs, but with some jobs it doesn't matter, so it's not always irrational.

For teaching, a tattoo on the arm may be good. Facial tattoos are completely different, though, which is what I specified.

Not all people will tune you out if you have a visible tattoo.

Stop equating facial tattoos with just any visible tattoos.
There are enough people who are accepting of modest arm tattoos to make it OK as long as you're otherwise normal.

I can tell you spend a lot of time typing your posts. Surely you can spend a minute saying not all vegans are the same and pointing out it's irrational to think so if you feel like it. You point out flaws in logic any other time.

I do, and it's a waste of my time. Every time I have to spend a post explaining that, it wastes time I could otherwise use for vegan activism. Like this post right now.
Even on a forum we have a limited amount of time to reach somebody. People will only read and respond for so long. The more arguments people have against veganism, the more likely we'll lose the audience.

This is an essential discussion to have, because vegans being weird is harming veganism as a movement and retarding its growth; it would be much better, however, if vegans would just accept that as obvious and try to act more normal rather than wasting everybody's time arguing that they should be able to advocate Flat Earth along side veganism and have facial tattoos if they want to, and it's other people's faults for associating that with veganism.

Whenever I have the money to get veneers, I will. If I get cavities first, I will fix those too. I wouldn't let them get bad enough to affect my life, especially if it affected my job or it caused me pain.

That's good, I hope you do this as soon as you can.

It's not really different. If you are going to say it's not logical to care, but people will, then it won't be seen as different to them because they're not acting rational anyway. Especially if you are going to be saying that they wouldn't listen to me talk. They wouldn't ever hear me say why I have bad teeth.

One is outright immoral (making the choice to be weird and harm veganism), the other is unfortunate.

But seriously, I highly doubt your teeth are as bad as somebody having a facial tattoo or believing the Earth is flat.

I've heard he's doing well. I don't pay attention myself, so I can't say anything about that. But I'm sure that there are people who would like someone who acts like a jerk.

He's still doing pretty well. He would do better if he didn't make misogynistic sounding comments sometimes.
You need to restrict your insults, if possible, to specific individuals, not sweeping categories of people. It limits the number of people you alienate.

I didn't mean that nobody got offended by it. I know that people do. I don't see why they would be offended though.

We don't really have to know why to know that they do. People have a higher tolerance for personal insults than insults that suggest the character of the person making them is negative. E.g. if you speak against women, people will view you as a misogynist -- that's not good for you.

Attacking one person reflects on your personal character too.

It depends on how sympathetic and well liked that person is, and what you attack.

Trump attacking the disabled reporter was a bad call. But, also, because the person was disabled and he made fun of him for that (rather than just calling him an idiot or something) people also saw that as disrespect to disability in general.

It's very safe to insult somebody's intelligence. Not so safe to insult physical features.

You don't know how one way will work until after you do it, unless you already knew the person.

You don't know 100%, but you can be pretty sure. You can get a measure of a person and the personality pretty quickly if you have experience.

But for others, it won't. That's ok as long as there are others for those other people.

Right, there need to be nice people too. The trouble is that nice people don't usually get press, so they can't really reach anybody unless they're already famous.

Celebrities (who are famous for other reasons) should be nice vegans.

So you're insulting the person to get the audience to pay attention then?

You achieve a larger audience.

If I had thought all vegans weren't accepting of other vegans who they thought would make them look bad when really it's something unrelated to veganism, I wouldn't have been as open to learning about it.

We're accepting, just don't talk about that stuff and make us look weird.
I'm less interested in attracting the 1% of weirdos and more interested in attracting the 99%, though. So, if we lose 1% of potential vegans and gain headway into the 99%, that's worth it.

We should obviously correct other vegans if they say something wrong. Try to get flatearthers, anti-GMO people, anti-vaccine people to see the truth...

Good luck. The problem is that all of these people are anti-science conspiracy theorist nutters; you can't falsify their positions, because they'll just make up more excuses to believe what they do, and deny the evidence.

Our best chance is with those who believe in and respect science.

Yeah, but saying that is just a nicer way of saying one is better.

Exactly. What's the problem with this?
We're talking about perception here.

Ok, I agree that I shouldn't bring that up in a topic about veganism or bring it up to a random person while in a conversation about veganism.

Great.

However, if I'm on a forum, I'm not going to only talk about one thing. Maybe one day I want to discuss abortion in a different thread. What do you think I should do then? The posters will see all my posts. Do you think that's ok because it's not in the same thread so it's obvious it's not related to it?

You should leave it alone, and not discuss abortion in another thread. Ideally, stick to vegan topics, or topics that show how friendly and normal you are and are non-controversial (and keep a sensible vegan message in your signature).
Or make a different account to do that with, if you really feel the need.

It's fine to discuss that stuff on a vegan/vegetarian forum. But not when you're out and about.

[teo123]

I have, many times, and to various levels of success. I have 25 years of experience arguing against meat eating. How about you?

No, but I don't think that's a fear comparison. I am only 16.

False. You are making vegans look crazy by bringing it up there and being a Flat Earther. There are more people who believe in the conventional round Earth model than a flat one passing through that forum. When they visit there to convince the flat Earthers the Earth is round, they see some Flat Earther going on about veganism, and they think "Of course, I always knew vegans were crazy, this is to be expected."

First of all, like I've said, I probably haven't convinced any Flat Earther to become vegan either.
Also, Hitler was a vegetarian atheist. In his time, he had enormous reputation. Do you think that anyone became a vegetarian or an atheist only because of worshiping Hitler? I mean, it is obviously far more important to talk about veganism than to care about what others think of you.

You probably haven't convinced anybody to go vegan, and may never. However, you are convincing many people that vegans are crazy, and that they never want to go vegan.

Well, my family thinks that social networks are simply for people who don't have anything smart to do. But I still became vegan because of the vegan you-tubers.

Oxygen being needed for a fire is not a unique prediction of FE, and round Earth models do not predict that oxygen is unnecessary for fire. This is unrelated to the shape and model of the Earth. Satellites are not unrelated. So, this is not an example.

You saying that something is related to the shape of the Earth doesn't make it so. I claimed that the lunar eclipses depend on the fact that the Earth is flat, but that didn't convince you, right?

You are wrong, But as I said, I will disprove every current claim you are making in support of Flat Earth over Round Earth, and I will (in addition) debunk your Flat Earth model.

Go ahead! I promise that, if you actually do it, I will post your rebuttals on the TFES forum under my nickname and not be a Flat Earther any more. I will also show the refutation of some else common proofs of the Flat Earth Theory that I know are false, but might be convincing to some people (like ones favoring universal acceleration over gravity).

I consider the fact that the tops of the clouds are illuminated during the sunset along with the bottoms the most convincing argument for the Flat Earth Theory (I mentioned this one before). I suppose that you will try to explain this one as a result of the light reflecting from the drops of water in the clouds, but that's simply wrong. If you climb or fly higher and higher, not only the horizon seems to rise with you, but also do the celestial bodies (like the Sun). At the sunset, from the perspective of the cloud, the Sun should be somewhat above the eye level (horizon). And from the perspective of the airplane, the Sun should seem even higher above the horizon, while on the ground the Sun seems to be right at the eye line (merging with the horizon line). Yet from both the ground and the airplane above the clouds, the clouds appear illuminated. Basic common sense tells me that this would be completely unfeasible if the Earth were round and the Sun were bellow the clouds. The sunlight can't go through a cloud, regardless of the reflections of the sunlight of the drops of water in the cloud. When a cloud hides the Sun, the bottom of the cloud doesn't appear illuminated (a cloud that hides the Sun during the sunset appears completely dark). So, if the Earth were round and the Sun were bellow the clouds, the tops of the clouds wouldn't appear illuminated either. On the other hand, the Flat Earth Theory claims that only the part of the cloud that is the farthest from us would be illuminated during the sunset (because it is the closest to the Sun), and that it would appear closer to the horizon because of the perspective that makes farther objects be apparently closer to the horizon. And that is completely consistent with what we see! It predicts that the illuminated part of the cloud would seem to be the bottom part from the ground, yet at the same time the top part when the cloud is looked from an airplane above the clouds. Therefore, the Earth has to be flat, because that is the only explanation for the said observation.

So, yeah, I think you should deal with that (show me the error in my reasoning if there is one). Debunking this one may be enough to convince me (and many other Flat Earthers) that the Earth is not flat. I don't even know why, but it feels just so intuitive.

[brimstoneSalad]

No, but I don't think that's a fear comparison. I am only 16.

It's perfectly fair, it speaks to my greater experience.

Also, Hitler was a vegetarian atheist. In his time, he had enormous reputation. Do you think that anyone became a vegetarian or an atheist only because of worshiping Hitler? I mean, it is obviously far more important to talk about veganism than to care about what others think of you.

Hitler hated atheists, but he did speak positively of vegetarianism and was probably a flexitarian (he didn't eat much meat, mostly poultry apparently).
Many people actually have gone vegetarian because of Hitler, and even vegan. Both in his time, and today. But far more people have used Hitler as a bad excuse not to go vegetarian or vegan.

You saying that something is related to the shape of the Earth doesn't make it so. I claimed that the lunar eclipses depend on the fact that the Earth is flat, but that didn't convince you, right?

You have to explain why, and that explanation has to be sound.

1. Describe the phenomenon correctly
2. Show how round Earth fails to explain the phenomenon with the current accepted explanation (prove the existing explanation wrong)
3. Show how Flat Earth does explain the phenomenon (prove that it actually does)

Go ahead! I promise that, if you actually do it, I will post your rebuttals on the TFES forum under my nickname and not be a Flat Earther any more. I will also show the refutation of some else common proofs of the Flat Earth Theory that I know are false, but might be convincing to some people (like ones favoring universal acceleration over gravity).

Remember, this means you can't come up with new explanations for flat Earth. You do understand that only the existing claims can be debunked, and that it's impossible to debunk new claims forever (as with theists who move the goal posts)?

Once you confirm, I'll need to draw some pictures to help explain. This may take some time. I assume you are not familiar with trigonometry? Or if you are, that would be helpful.

[teo123]

Yes, I am familiar with basic trigonometry. And, no, I won't switch the goal (doesn't mean that other Flat Earthers won't when I post your rebuttals on the TFES forum).

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes, I am familiar with basic trigonometry. And, no, I won't switch the goal (doesn't mean that other Flat Earthers won't when I post your rebuttals on the TFES forum).

Thanks. It will take me a few days, since I have to make time to draw some diagrams (hard to explain in text, but very easy by image). I expect by mid next week, since this weekend is busy.

[teo123]

Hic Rhodos hic salta!
Non credo si non video!
In veritate victoria!

[brimstoneSalad]

I've had a hard time figure out what you're even talking about, because the sun's light obviously illuminates the bottoms of clouds in many sunset scenarios:



Searching pictures of sunsets, I'm hard pressed to find any examples of what you're talking about. The thin shimmer of light on the top is from back-lighting, which you can clearly demonstrate at home with a Styrofoam ball or wad of cotton. The light illuminating the bottoms is obviously much brighter.

Do you need me to demonstrate backlighting for you? ( This should help you understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flg_x935MCY )

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... adows.html


Here you can even see mountains just barely scraping the clouds (sometimes not even touching) and casting shadows on clouds' bottom surfaces (which should be enough to debunk FE to any sensible person).

But an illusion can be created when there is sparse cloud cover over a wide range of altitudes:

http://earthsky.org/earth/night-shining ... o-see-them

Very high altitude clouds may be illuminated while low altitude clouds are in the shadow of the Earth.



Happily, there are existing diagrams so I don't have to draw an ugly one.

I have seen some situations where sparse cloud cover at just the right time results in what appears to be thin higher altitude clouds being illuminated from the back, while lower altitude ones are more in shadow. Given a small number of large tall clouds at the right altitude, this could create the appearance of being lit from the top. Since clouds can be many thousands of feet high, this wouldn't seem too difficult to observe.

If you time it just right, you should be able to witness the same effect on a very tall building on the beach.



You might see the top of the Burj Khalifa (at 829.8 m it's as tall as some clouds) slightly lighter, for example, while the bottom is in shadow at the right time at sunset (if you get the right angle so no other buildings are shadowing it). I don't know what time that photo was taken, unfortunately shiny buildings make it hard to tell what's going on.

Better yet, if you go there with a friend, you could sync your watches and record the sunset from the top and bottom, and see that the sun sets for the bottom slightly before the top because the top gives you a better vantage around the curvature of the Earth.

You can probably see this effect on other tall buildings too, but it wouldn't be pronounced (maybe not noticeable).

Likewise, if you take off in a plane at sunset, you will fly up from shadow into light again. I've done this a few times, and you can clearly see the ground is in shadow while the plane is lit up (and you can see the sun from the air, but not the ground, even on a flat area like a beach airport).

If you are talking about a different apparent phenomenon, you'll need to post some pictures of what you mean.

[teo123]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
I didn't know about all those phenomena you've posted about, but here we go.





On all those images, you can clearly see the tops of the clouds being illuminated (especially of the far ones).

[brimstoneSalad]

On all those images, you can clearly see the tops of the clouds being illuminated (especially of the far ones).

Those are pictures from airplanes where you can't even see the bottoms of the clouds you're talking about OR the ground's actual horizon.

Can you tell me what time of day these pictures were taken? It looks like late afternoon; the sun isn't close to touching the ground-level horizon yet, it's just getting close to the horizon created from unbroken cloud cover, which is a different thing entirely, but still isn't at it either.

That is, this is not actually sunset.

You basically just sent pictures of late in the day when the sun is supposed to illuminate the top of the clouds and said it proves the Earth is flat.

See this diagram to help you understand:

sunhorizon1.gif

sunhorizon1.gif

(fixed)

Ground horizon -- made from earth/water at ground level.
Cloud horizon -- made from unbroken cloud cover.

As far as the sun is concerned, it is obviously pretty much the same thing. Clouds look to a person above the clouds at cloud horizon sunset like the ground looks to a person above the ground at ground horizon sunset.

However, there are a few distinct differences: One has a larger radius, so sunset on the cloud horizon actually occurs before sunset for the ground horizon (when it's still clearly late afternoon and not yet sunset).
See the two little figures in the top right. Note the red line descending from the cloud person -- his sunset is before the person on the ground observes sunset (a little earlier in the day).
See the bottom right two: The yellow one is still in late afternoon, and the blue person is at sunset -- and yet this is the same time of day for both of them.

You can probably also observe this effect if you take off from a plane to a high elevation on a cloudy day (or land on one).

Because the sun is still above the cloud horizon, of course it is illuminating them slightly from the top (as it does all day), just as when the sun is still above the ground horizon it illuminates the ground slightly from the top.

It is when the sun is BELOW the cloud horizon, but ABOVE the ground horizon (a short span of time) that you can see the clouds illuminated from below.
You need to take photographs from the ground to see this. From the sky you can not see the cloud bottoms, and it's just dark if there is unbroken cloud cover (all you'll get is backlighting and scattered light from the upper atmosphere, no directl sunlight).

Even in the images you posted, you can see that higher level clouds (visually above the sun, in a higher still cloud horizon level) are illuminated from below and behind.

As to the "far ones"

Of course these are more illuminated from the top than near ones. Look at the diagram again. See the bumps? Far ones are more to the left, pointing at the sun due to the curvature of the Earth.

However, what you are more likely witnessing is simply the illuminated crests at a sharp angle, as opposed to the non-illuminated valleys which you see more of from above since the valleys in distant clouds are obscured by the crests.

You might be familiar with a similar effect from fuzzy fruit (or sparse body hair), where it seems to change colors (to the color of the fuzz) at more extreme angles. This is also apparent on other bumpy surfaces where the bumps have a slightly different color.
If you don't understand what I mean, I can help you find a hands on example.

Is there anything you do not understand about this diagram and explanation?

[Jebus]

Teo, do you also believe that our sun, moon, and the other planets are flat?