Quote (card_sultan @ Aug 12 2017 08:15pm)
Ad hom is attacking the person and not the argument, you'll still proved zero proof that ad-hominen is attacking the source.
Just your fourth time insisting it is.
And my Argument is never as simple as that the picture is fake because it came from Nasa, the argument comes from consistency and obvious mistakes and signs of trickery.
Look at moving pictures of the spinning globe from the 1920s - what a coincidence that they were exactly correct. Keep your blinders on.
You forgot the word *character*.
Quote
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
...and what is the source, if not part of the character?
@ bold: not one of which you've presented. You dismiss every single photograph with the same dismissiveness, and never once have you rendered any evidence that there is ANY "obvious mistakes and signs of trickery."
Don't tell me to "look at a spinning globe from the 20s" and expect me to make your argument for you. If you think there's something to be said, say it yourself. Then prepare for justified scrutiny.