[meany]

I agree that direct debate is a waste of time in these situations, and I as understand, research shows only makes the flat-earther more adamant. In situations like this, I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical. Our views are heavily driven by need for acceptance by our community or to rationalize our uniqueness/importance, both which relate back to our survival

[dataflow]

> I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical.

Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that.

[TeMPOraL]

> Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that.

You'd have to have some pretty non-standard circumstances. I have no problem entertaining such counterfactual in a normal discussion. I'd only squirm if there was a risk the conversation would be used against me - e.g. quoted by a journalist, a law enforcement officer, or some crazy rando on Twitter, with the fact that it was a hypothetical conveniently omitted.

[ssklash]

I think you've nailed exactly why most people who "believe" in flat earth theories do so. They get some sort of emotional benefit from it that is not being met otherwise, which in my experience is a sense of community, belonging, or purpose.