Thank you for admitting the intellectual dishonesty, where you clearly made up your mind beforehand and are not seeking evidence of the truth, but mere confirmation of your prior conclusion.

You expose yourself with this post.  We've recognized this thinking among the ball earth crowd for a long time, but you're the first to explicitly admit it.

You should of just walked away.

Every time you use the term "intellectual dishonesty,"  I want to scream hypocrite.  You have clearly made up your mind that the Earth is flat.  When challenged, instead of calmly having a discussion and giving evidence, you lose patience and then attack the person's internal character.

We get it you have researched and made your decision.  Those who believe the earth is a ball have made their decision.  A debate is trying to convince others of your point of view.  Stop implying that people have ill-will.

I try to ignore this behavior, until I just can't anymore.

OK, I thought you were smarter than this.  We've gone through this dozens of times...

I was explaining to you the argument that Dominique was making and that you misunderstood.  A more appropriate response would be to apologize to Dominique for the way you jumped to conclusions rather than to pretend that it was my argument.  

Every time you use the term "intellectual dishonesty,"  I want to scream hypocrite.  You have clearly made up your mind that the Earth is flat.  When challenged, instead of calmly having a discussion and giving evidence, you lose patience and then attack the person's internal character.

So, yet another one who doesn't understand the term "intellectual dishonesty", where it doesn't have anything to do with a "person's internal character", consisting instead of a purely intellectual state where someone has already arrived at a conclusion, and then engages in a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, terms that JayneK here uses regularly.  So, based on some prior intellectual conclusion, you "see" something as evidence because you're reading into it some prior conclusion.  Dr. Sungenis, in arguing against FE, uses his variation (from the discipline of Sacred Scripture), eisegesis, where you're reading something INTO the evidence based on your prior conception.  What's ironic, speaking of hypocrisy, is that it is perfectly OK for HIM to accuse FEs of this, but then when I turned it around on him and pointed out where HE was engaging in the same eisegesis, I was attacked for calling into question his integrity ... despite the fact that I even opened my contention with a disclaimer that I believed Dr. Sungenis to be an honest and honorable individual, just that his mind had already landed upon a predetermined conclusion that was biasing his interpretation of the data, whereas he actually engaged in some ridicule and derision against FEs, where I did no such thing against his character (quite the opposite).

Both HIS assertion that we're engaging in eisegesis / confirmation bias / congitive dissonance, and mine that many globers are doing the same, are legitimate assertions, both on his part, and on mine ... and have absolutely nothing to do with impugning a person's character.

So you can stop rending your garments now.

Of course, you don't see the absolutely irony of YOU calling me a hypocrite for saying that someone has already made up their mind about globe earth ... and then IMMEDIATELY, in the very next part of your sentence ... accusing me of doing exactly that.

You're entitled to claim that I've already made up my mind about FE, but then go ahead and demonstrate it or prove it ... but then to do that while calling me a hypocrite for doign the same, that in fact is the height of "hypocrisy", whereas I'm engaging in no hypocrisy, since I understand what the argument entails, that it's a legitimate charge in a debate, has nothing to do with character assassination, etc.  You, on the other hand, believe it entails character assassination and then engage in it anyway?

In any case, the contention regarding intellectual dishonesty / bias / confirmation bias / cognitive dissonance, etc. ... overwhelmingly favors FEs out of the gate, the reason for it being that, to my knowledge, there's no Flat Earther who has ever started out as a Flat Earther (or if there are, they're rare), and did not start as a Globe Earther.  I myself took about 2 years of examining the arguments on both sides, for quite some time resisting the conclusion (for various reasons).  I took me about 6 months of looking at the issue before I would say that I "lean FE", and about 2 years before I came out and said that I was convinced that the earth is in fact flat.  Do you really think that any of us enjoy the ridicule and derision to which we're constantly subject?  Yeah, it just makes my day to get mocked just about every time I make any posts about the subject.  You want to talk about personal attacks?  There's practically no one on earth who gets subjected to more ridicule and derision than Flat Earthers, where the very term has been programmed to become synonymous in your popular perception with a backwards-looking moronic kook.  We all enjoy those attacks, being masochists of some kind, and that is why we cling to the flat earth conclusion.

So, yet another one who doesn't understand the term "intellectual dishonesty", where it doesn't have anything to do with a "person's internal character", consisting instead of a purely intellectual state where someone has already arrived at a conclusion, and then engages in a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, terms that JayneK here uses regularly. .

According to the forum search engine, I have never used the term "cognitive dissonance".  My posts on flat earth contain the term "confirmation bias" twice.  In one of these, it appears in a quote from you.  This matches my memory.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't see how a globe earth and "space n' planets" can lead any collective of people to God after it's been taught as "real science".

So, yet another one who doesn't understand the term "intellectual dishonesty", where it doesn't have anything to do with a "person's internal character", consisting instead of a purely intellectual state where someone has already arrived at a conclusion, and then engages in a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, terms that JayneK here uses regularly.  So, based on some prior intellectual conclusion, you "see" something as evidence because you're reading into it some prior conclusion.  Dr. Sungenis, in arguing against FE, uses his variation (from the discipline of Sacred Scripture), eisegesis, where you're reading something INTO the evidence based on your prior conception.  What's ironic, speaking of hypocrisy, is that it is perfectly OK for HIM to accuse FEs of this, but then when I turned it around on him and pointed out where HE was engaging in the same eisegesis, I was attacked for calling into question his integrity ... despite the fact that I even opened my contention with a disclaimer that I believed Dr. Sungenis to be an honest and honorable individual, just that his mind had already landed upon a predetermined conclusion that was biasing his interpretation of the data, whereas he actually engaged in some ridicule and derision against FEs, where I did no such thing against his character (quite the opposite).

I don't like hypocrisy in any form.  Great on how you handled the situation with Dr. Sungenis.  Please apply the same principles to those on this site.  It is not your job to determine a person's honesty on the matter.  We need to just stick to the facts that we know and share and try to discuss.  We should not assume the others emotional intention.

Both HIS assertion that we're engaging in eisegesis / confirmation bias / congitive dissonance, and mine that many globers are doing the same, are legitimate assertions, both on his part, and on mine ... and have absolutely nothing to do with impugning a person's character.

Everyone does this.  It is not just the round earth camp or the flat earth camp.

So you can stop rending your garments now.

I will stop, when you stop.

The rest of the reply is just an emotional response and a justification for why you have landed in the Flat Earth camp and want to stay there.

Here was something I posted a long time ago on the "see to far" problem that was never discussed, it was just ignored.

For reference https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/globe-earth-vs-flat-earth/15/

The funny thing is that you do the same thing when it comes to questions you can't answer.

Please look at this post and tell me why it is wrong.  How can that be if there is no curve?  None of this is doctored and is straight from a video that was sent supporting flat earth. 



The image is from the video Meg posted. 
(Ref https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/high-altitude-footage-proves-earth-is-flat-and-not-a-globe/45/)

The image on the left is from 1/2 mile away. The image on the right is from 46 miles away.

The building starts about 20ft above the level of Lake Michigan.  The building is 1451 ft.  The curvature at 46 miles away is about 1411 ft, but then refraction would let you see more of the building.  If it is flat you wouldn't be missing any of the building yet it seems that more than 500 ft is missing.  Just something to ponder.

Here is a better picture of the tower.

So you can stop rending your garments now.

So, yet another one who doesn't understand the term "intellectual dishonesty", where it doesn't have anything to do with a "person's internal character", consisting instead of a purely intellectual state where someone has already arrived at a conclusion, and then engages in a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, terms that JayneK here uses regularly.  So, based on some prior intellectual conclusion, you "see" something as evidence because you're reading into it some prior conclusion. 

Summary:  Someone is intellectually dishonest when 

a) they push a belief which is based on faulty facts, and
b) those faulty facts have been POINTED OUT TO THEM multiple times, and
c) they make no effort to defend such faulty facts, but simply repeat them over and over.

Jaynek has been corrected/challenged so many times i've lost count.  She ignores all challenges to her facts, disappears for a few months, then resurfaces to re-post the same faulty facts.  It is safe to conclude from her actions that she has an agenda and is not interested in the search for truth.  Thus, she is intellectually dishonest.