OT: Duke Alum - Kyrie Irving and Sparty Alum - Draymond Green Believe Earth is Flat

Submitted by VicTorious1 on February 19th, 2017 at 7:22 AM

It appears Kyrie Irving and Draymond Green are flat earthers. FYI, the Earth is round.

Per the initial podcast where Kyrie unleashes this foolishness:


“This is not even a conspiracy theory. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. “It’s right in front of our faces. I’m telling you, it’s right in front of our faces. They lie to us.”


While serial ball-kicker Draymond doesn't proclaim that the Earth is flat, he's definitely not a believer in a round earth:


“Who’s to say that picture is telling the truth? I can make a round picture with my iPhone today, with the panorama camera and make it look round."


I hope Kyrie is trolling, but based on his follow up comments he appears to really believe this stuff. Draymond is a Sparty, so not much surprise there.

Links to the various stories:





February 19th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^

many things are possible contributing factors. I think genetic factors, environmental factors, diet and many other things contribute to the development of the condition. I have fathered a child with autism for 10 years and people in here don't think I am versed on the topic? You have these Good Will Huntings up there that want to talk about how "Wood drastically underestimates the effect of inherited wealth..." without thinking for a second that a person who actually SAW the nearly immediate onset of ASD symptoms literally within two weeks of the multi-vax have no place in the conversation? Even a person who concedes you should vaccinate regardless? Like I said, negs are fine, free to disagree and all of that. But ignorant? That isn't fair or accurate. I have been reading anything I can get my hands on about this topic for the last eight years. I am not even saying that there is likely a connection, there most likely is not, just that I am not ready to dismiss it as "silly" yet. I am the person you want in this debate.

blue in dc

February 19th, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^

If this was your original post. Very sorry for the huge challenges your family faces and I think most of us can understand why you feel so strongly.

That having been said a chaallege to consider is that there are finite tesearch dollars to be spent on research. Spending money looking into the links with vacines likely tales away from other research that could be more fruitful.


February 19th, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that a god or Santa Clause don't exist, same way you can't prove that there isn't a link between autism and vaccinations. A million tests can be ran that show no link but, theoretically, the next test could show a link between them. That doesn't mean there is a connection between the two.

The CDC's take on the subject.



February 19th, 2017 at 9:56 AM ^

Part of the reason that people don't have the respect for scientific results - and often, but not as often, scientific consensus - is that in many cases, they shouldn't. I tell my classes this all the time. For example:





It's nothing new. Phrenology, Wegener, etc. Scientists are as politicized as anyone else, and people need to be aware of that. Even lay people need to be able to use Occam's razor, think critically, understand the laws of thermodynamics, etc. in order to evaluate what scientists are telling them.

Doesn't mean science isn't awesome, hasn't changed the world a million times for the better, or should be replaced with irrationality. Just means people aren't perfect.


February 19th, 2017 at 10:27 AM ^

You are confusing the built in feature of science as its flaw.

Science is all about the process. The process is not discriminatory. It welcomes all ideas, no matter how fantastical or unlikely the idea may seem. This leads to many, many ideas that are disproven once the idea goes through the scientific process.

People who are against science point these as why science should not be relied on. But they do not understand that this is what makes science so great and limitless.

Without this feature, we would not have things like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, which are really beyond imagination.


February 21st, 2017 at 8:30 PM ^

Quantum mechanics, general relativity, and special relativity are not beyond imagination.

Furthermore, disproven ideas and the publishing of incorrect results is not what makes science "so great and limitless." That's ridiculous. If all science ever did was come to incorrect conclusions, would you be calling it great? No.

You're actually the one who is confused, and you are doubly so.

First, you're confusing a judgment of the process with a judgment of the results. The process can be great while still producing bad results that should not be relied upon.

Second, you're confusing free science with modern science when you say "it welcomes all ideas." For example, the American Physical Society issued a statement the other year wherein they said that the evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change was "incontrovertible." That word is anathema to free science, of course, but in response to the APS's statement, there was little outcry. Nobel winner Ivar Glaever resigned, and I think a few others did, but that was it. Modern science in no way welcomes all ideas equally.

LS And Play

February 19th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^

I'm not sure what anti-climate change means. The only people I've met who seems to be anti-climate change are the ones who think they know the ideal temperature of the Earth, and that humans, through a global carbon tax scheme or something, can adequately control it. The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. 

LS And Play

February 19th, 2017 at 12:20 PM ^

I'm not crying about anything. I break down the climate change discussion through six statements, each one increasingly unlikely:

1) The Earth is getting warmer. This is consistent with everything we know. 

2) Human activity is the reason the Earth is getting warmer. Here, human activity may be the predominant factor causing warming, one factor among many, a minor factor, or even no factor at all. I'm pretty sympathetic to the arguments that human activity plays a major role. 

3) The consequences of the warming will be disastrous, something approaching the apocalypse. There is much uncertainty here, and even the IPCC would concede that. 

4) Global bureaucrats will be able to manage/mitigate the damage that may occur. Will they be able to get China and India on board? Good one. 

5) Global bureaucrats find a solution that is economically sensible and efficient. Nope. Any global plan would likely have devastating effects on poorer countries especially. Could we take corrective steps over time as individual nations? That could probably be done. Any global regime is almost certainly doomed. 

6) A global climate change regime could effectively mitigate damage in an economically efficient manner while respecting civil liberties and national sovereignty. HAHAHA. 

LS And Play

February 19th, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^

And I completely understand your frustration with my cynicism. You may disagree, but I am extremely skeptical that anything could be done at the global level that could address my concerns that I outlined above. A poster above noted that China has recently committed to major investments in green energy. That is how I ultimately believe things will get done. Country by country, little by little, and not as fast as many would like. 

blue in dc

February 19th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^

If you'd started with this statement, I would have been much more sympathetic to your position. A global scheme is way to complicated. This does not however mean that some levels of global cooperation are not possible. Global cooperation has in fact been highly successful in combatting other environmental issues such as the impacts of compounds such as CFCs.

Further, I think you are overly pessimistic about the potential rate of technical progress (and the impact smart policy can have on it). While I'd agree that tax breaks and renewable mandates have not necessarily been the most economically efficient way to get there (I'd much prefer the carbon tax offset by income tax reduction approach that you scoff at), it is hard to deny that those policies have not been hugely successful at reducing the price of renewable energy.

blue in dc

February 19th, 2017 at 1:01 PM ^

It is interesting that you list 6 statements in an order of increasing unlikeliness, yet you acknowledge the first two statements are in fact likely.

While i tend to have a much different viewpoint than you, it is much easier to have a rationale discussion when you are much clearer with regards to where you disagree.

Starting with (3) - while i agree that all the potential benefits and disbenefits are hard to tease out, sea level rise is one that in my mind stands out. How could that on net be beneficial? Significant amounts of land, population and infrastructure is at or near sea level. Wouldn't a small rise in sea level logically have a big impact? Isn't sea level rise a pretty logical outcome of increased temperatures?

(4). If the potential problem is caused by increases in GHGs, the core of a potential so.ution seems pretty straightforward (albeit much harder in practice. The idea of a price on carbon is actually an acknowledgment that the market will find better so;utions than bureaucrats, it just needs the right signal. I'm happy to get to the front of the line when it comes to encuraging environmental solutions that are market driven, not buerocrat driven.

5. china and India - China in particular is more on board than the US government at the moment. The Paris treaty is in fact an acknowledgment of what you are saying and moves significantly away from the ideas of global markets and solutions that were much more central to the Kyoto protocol. Huge conjecture on the impact on poorer countries. For instance, from the standpoint of electricity, a more decentralized grid based more on renewables could be in fact much cheaper than a centralized grid in an area that does not currently have significant imvestment in either approach.

6. Here is where I think we disagree the most. I am much more concerned about loss of civil liberties in a world with rising temperatures and rising seas than I am in a world with more reliance on renewable forms of energy and non gasoline powered vehicles.

blue in dc

February 19th, 2017 at 12:23 PM ^

As I'm fairly sure you know, most people who accept the scientifice consensus on the impact of GHGs understand very well that the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years for a variety of reasons. What they are concerned about is the portion of climate that we are impacting through the use of GHGs and the likelihood of rapid and dramatic climate change.

Would be genuinely intersted in your thoughts on the following:

1. Do you agree that absent the presence of any GHGs the earth would be a signicantly colder place?

2. Do you agree that there has been a significant increase in GHG concentration since the advent of the industrial revolution?

3. Presumong you agree with those first two statements, what is it that makes you comfortable that the increase in GHGs won't have the same directional impact and increase temperature? Further, what makes you so comfortable the increase in temperature won't lead to sea level rise through multiple mechanisms including changes in seawater density and melting polar ice, consistent with historical records of times when the earth's temperature were higher?

4. Do you think people buy less of something when it is more expensive? Why don't you think this would happem with carbon based fuels when there are substites available (for at least some uses) today?


February 19th, 2017 at 1:09 PM ^

I think most intelligent people are against climate change, given that the current species on the planet evolved to fit the environment of the planet, and that changing the planet's environment will cause massive evolutionary upheaval and the extinction of many species, potentially including the human one.  I can understand why some people regard this with equanimmity, knowing that they can enjoy the current, destructive lifestyle and be safely dead long before the worst effects are visited on the species, but I don't understand their pride in their selfishness.

It isn't the presence of climate change, but the speed of it, that causes the issue.


February 19th, 2017 at 7:36 AM ^

This seems too off topic even for the off season.

That said, I wish we could send all the flat earthers on a ship around the world. What would they say then?


February 19th, 2017 at 8:41 AM ^

If you read his comments yesterday (he said science didn't support the earth is flat theory)I'm pretty sure his "earth is flat" was one of two things:

1: A reference to our current state of political affairs or

2: An attempt to generate publicity for the upcoming "Uncle Drew" movie he will star in once the season is over.

Now as far as Draymond goes I think he's just a dumb ass.



El Jeffe

February 19th, 2017 at 9:23 AM ^

Yeah I don't think he really thinks the earth is flat. Kyrie's tongue was pretty far in his cheek. And Draymond was laughing the whole time. 

If I were an NBA player I'd probably troll the media like that a lot too.


February 19th, 2017 at 10:20 AM ^

Trolling the media or just making him look like a dumbass? The media is a collection of people that the joke wouldn't specifically land on whereas his comments can be and have been attributed to him specifically. When it gets reported on, people don't say "Wow, he really trolled the media there." They say, "Wow, that's one dumb motherfucker. I guess a year at Duke didn't help with that."



February 19th, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^

Pretty sure that's just him trying to walk back his comments because his PR person told him not to be an idiot. Giving him way to much credit if you think that podcast was some deeper comment on political affairs.

We are back

February 19th, 2017 at 7:48 AM ^

I read the comments on Facebook when ESPN put the story up about Kyrie saying the earth is flat, some of the people's reasons were hilarious.

If you put water on a basketball why doesn't it stay still.

If you hover in a helicopter why doesn't the earth move.

Why doesn't people and water south of the equator fall into space

Why can't you see the horizon bending with the earth

There was a lot more I can't remember them all but reading them made me feel very smart


February 19th, 2017 at 8:48 AM ^

Interesting hypothosis.

I was thinking yesterday when the subject was being discussed that our entire society has become "tollerant" of people being just flat out WRONG on things because it's their opinion and who are we to judge?  But not everything is subjective and open to interpretation like strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla.  Some things, like the earth is flat for example, are just WRONG.

 2 +2 does not equal 7 and anybody who says it does should be viewed as a dumb-ass, not someone expressing their personal individuality and creative thinking.