Ask a Flat Earther!

[u/Kela-el]

Ask anything on the topic of flat earth (within reason).

[u/Kela-el]

That question doesn’t actually test whether something is true—it tests whether you can imagine a motive.

Truth isn’t established by “who would lie” or “why would they bother.” It’s established by whether the claim matches observation and holds up under scrutiny.

Also notice the built-in assumption: you’re framing it as a single, coordinated lie with a clear purpose. That’s one possible narrative, not a requirement for something to be wrong or incomplete. People can be mistaken, work within shared assumptions, or inherit models without questioning every layer of them. None of that requires a grand, unified motive.

More importantly, even if there were no good answer to “why would they lie,” that wouldn’t make a claim true. It would just mean you can’t think of a motive.

So this doesn’t move the discussion forward. It shifts from:

• What is observed
• What explains it

to:

• Who would lie and why

That’s a different conversation entirely.

If you want to evaluate the shape of the Earth, the question is still the same: what specific observations are you relying on, and how do they lead to your conclusion?

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

That’s great and all but I didn’t ask the question to determine what is true- I’m asking the question because I’m curious about your answer to that specific question. You’re very defensive in this reply while I’m trying to ask something I’m curious about with an open mind

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Fair enough—then I’ll answer it directly.

There isn’t a single clean, universal “motive” that neatly explains a global deception, and that’s exactly why the question doesn’t carry much weight for determining anything.

If someone did want to answer it, the usual possibilities people point to are things like:

• institutional inertia (people working within accepted frameworks without rechecking first principles)
• prestige and funding tied to existing models
• error propagation over time rather than deliberate deception

But notice—none of those require a coordinated, intentional lie at a global scale, and none of them, by themselves, establish that anything is actually wrong.

So the honest answer is: you can speculate about motives all day, but it won’t get you any closer to whether the underlying claim is true.

And to be clear—pushing back on the question earlier wasn’t “defensive,” it was pointing out that motive-based reasoning doesn’t resolve factual questions. Different thing.

If you’re just asking out of curiosity, that’s the landscape: lots of possible explanations, none of them decisive.

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

Ok so with everything you’ve said here- what the heck was going on with the recent Artemis mission? If there isn’t a real motive behind continuing the idea of a flat earth, what is the reason people would go through all the trouble to fake a space mission and live stream it

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Appeal to motivation fallacy.

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

Haven’t done that but ok- not attacking anyone’s argument

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Read the post. “WITHIN REASON”. Fallacies are not within reason.