nice cringe thread

Thanks, I mean, I thought the same thing, but didn't feel like explaining all that. I summed it with with this line lol...











This post was edited by Ep0ch on Aug 12 2017 10:33am

rhetorical fallacy




Appeal to authority is nothing more than a false attribution. Your argument is nothing more than Nasa and Wiki tell me facts, while the truth is that once you critically look at these things and think for yourself they are easily seen as propaganda.



It might be your not being able to tell the difference between science and scientism.



You finally admit your use of the ad-hom term was wrong, kinda like all of your logic. Nasa is a "character"? Isnt that a person in a fictitious work of fiction? This pretty much explains your rage trolling - you think Nasa is your personal friend in your Fantasy. Cool story.....



I dont have confirmation bias, you do. I look for truth, you believe whatever the State wants you to think. You only see and believe in the B&W, I look for the Grey. FE is not a religion, its a cosmological belief. Heliocentricity is a religion of the State and Gravity is your true God. Actually i love science , tangible science that you can touch and see and repeat, natural science - not theoretical astro science that the state and priests expect you to believe. The fact you keep trying to explain what i believe is just denoting your failed understanding and your need to label is a result from the fear that your own intellectual inferiority will be revealed.



State propaganda said so, gj being a muppet

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 12 2017 02:11pm

Prove that the youtube maker got his info from a reliable source or that the info I have is propaganda and you and you prove me to be a muppet

Say we stop believing in globe earth.
What do you expect us to believe in when you have no definitive answer how you believe the world to work

funny, yet again you throw stones at people disagreeing, you have a 20% warn and you want to bitch about me trolling?
What goes around come around

This post was edited by kai_jph on Aug 12 2017 02:26pm

Except that I followed it up with... evidence. An actual argument.



This is textbook ad hom. You summarily dismiss anything said as "propaganda." You need to address WHAT THEY SAY, not THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY REPRESENT. (We call this their character.) That is what makes your assault on NASA an ad hom.



Not at all. You did ad hom. Had I just said "you dodged," it would have sailed through your ears.



The hell you don't have confirmation bias. You are already on record ITT stating you ignore facts and agree with something depending on if you like it, as opposed to whether it's actually true. Since you CHOOSE to believe in something while outright excluding whether it can be verified as true, you are taking the path of faith. Geocentrism is a religion. You are a cult.

Don't see how criticizing a source is actually ad-hominem, do you have any proof of this besides your misunderstanding?

Helios-centerism - Helios is the ancient god of the sun , you worship its gravity - definity the cult religion of the state.

Geo just means earth - definitely not a god or religion.

I definitely dont have confirmation bias - if you could provide proof instead of faked facts your told to believe from Nasa and wiki, id be more than happy to switch my beliefs and opinions back to Heliocentricity but you continually fail.




Its funny how you admit you're a troll, spam thread 50- 70 times and mock the mods bad decision to side with you, obvious troll is obvious.

"What do you expect us to believe in? " believe in yourself, not Nasa to show you pretty cartoons and pure Fantasy.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 12 2017 02:56pm

Criticizing a source while failing to criticize the argument is what makes it ad hom.

Proof of confirmation bias:

ad - hominem is attacking the person instead of their argument, (what you actually do). I asked for proof of your opinion, while you just offer just your continually incorrect opinion of "facts" from the Ministry of Truth.

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

Nowhere does it mention attacking the source, so your obviously wrong as usual.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 12 2017 03:09pm

That's because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that NASA IS the source material for the argument.

Example: photos by NASA of the Earth are faked CGI. This is an ad hom because you don't have any proof or actual reason for this statement, you take it as a truth "cuz NASA."

How is it spam, I simply ask you about your beliefes?
Resort to name calling, yelling triggered every time and refuse to answer questions about your own belief- troll is obvious
I'm fine with that (common in GC) but don't complain about me doing it then

And by the way its not because of nasa.
You actually convince me more I'm right when you refuse to answer basic questions about your own beliefs and provide fantasy with no proof

We live in an infinite plain, a flat earth with no edge you said.
No evidence to this resists

you say believe in myself and observable evidence?

(Flat earth or globe) humans see the sun "set" and drop into the horizon at the end of each day
So its either rotating ~vertically around the flat earth rotating below at night (geometric model more or less) or the earth is a globe rotating round it

Either way it contradicts the beliefs you proposed

This post was edited by kai_jph on Aug 12 2017 03:50pm