@Human Sheeple _argument ad populum_ only applies if the existence of a consensus is being used to justify an argument, but scientific consensus is short hand for saying there is a vast swathe of evidence behind it

@Mia_ShardOfShardOfConfusion I agree with you but isn't that generally a legal definition varying by jurisdiction?

@Human Sheeple why is it anti-human to be okay with abortion?

@Human Sheeple on what grounds?

@Human Sheeple a partial-birth abortion is not a post-birth abortion, and the point of a partial-birth abortion is to leave a fetus intact to help with the grieving process

@Human Sheeple why are you assuming the fetus can feel it?

<@565177355111497738> it really isn't in concentrations high enough to cause an issue in terms of hormones, nor is there a reason to think it is carcinogenic

But iirc (don't have evidence on hand) it does cause skin irritation in many people

<@565177355111497738> The research hasn't really been done on can-lining leaching or the impact of BPA on hormones, so guess we have to wait

<@565177355111497738> That's completely untrue, delivery method is incredibly important in terms of effects on the body

@Human Sheeple Do you believe it is inherently wrong and not worth your time simply to have a _discussion_ ?

<@565177355111497738> Not necessarily but my point is that there IS a big difference in ingestion and absorption through skin with a general trend that you absorb FAR less than through the skin

@!GPT I shall report to my superiors at Monsanto at once!

What is the general dislike of Monsanto by people here? Their biodiversity practices I'm assuming?

As much as i dislike Monsanto is being aggressively sarcastic helpful in any way?

@!GPT who did?

<@565177355111497738> What is the _main_ reason you think the moon landing is fake?

@LQCKAS looks like you'll need to find someone who is serious lol

<@565177355111497738> what about the footage in particular?

@!GPT do you normally talk by making vague, non-specific statements then changing the subject?

@moneyduck that is a beautiful proboscis if I do say so myself

@!GPT what makes you think the sun doesn't move?

@!GPT what do you mean by sun spot?

@lanky that goes without saying but this is still a place for discussing it with people who, for whatever reason, believe

@!GPT do you ever actually elaborate on anything you say?

@The Gwench sorry I should have been more concise, I wanted to ask whether or not [JAXA LIES] is trolling because his statements are always vague, without specifics and followed up by a barrage of sarcasm that do nothing for discussion

@The Gwench I do agree that the cross-talking nature of Discord may not be helpful for discussion but is asking for clarification on very short statements that, I repeat, contain no specifics, considered redundant here?

@The Gwench okay thanks I'm just trying to get a feel for the server, I only just joined

@Overlord Yam it's just words, at the end of the day it's harmless

@The Gwench I may just be blind because i can't find info anywhere, but how does someone become a verified Mainstream?

<@565177355111497738> when you say "Clear they're on wires", I don't see any wires?

<@565177355111497738> So I'm not making an argument in particular but have you ever seen that sped up footage of certain things can appear to be quite odd, on earth?

<@565177355111497738> Any footage of things sped up often appears strange, and that effect is going to be amplified by the physics we are very unfamiliar with of a body in 0.16 g

@!GPT Theory means something different in science than it does in the colloquial use

@Overlord Yam Oh no but it's just getting fun

Seeing as you like to quote wikipedia @!GPT :

"The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope."

My apologies I mixed you up with Sheeple

@!GPT there's generally more financial incentives to deny climate change

And oil companies have been caught attempting to do so in the past

@VoidedKN0X seeing it through a telescope is a good bet

@VoidedKN0X to be sure of what it is if you're hypothetically discounting other evidence for it (aka NASA) you'd need a telescope

@Overlord Yam I vote we allow abortions up until age 14. Sometimes you just realise your child was a mistake

@VoidedKN0X a simple telescope with no electronic components is suitable

@VoidedKN0X And that can't be manipulated without very significant conspiracy

@VoidedKN0X What I mean is you are perfectly capable of obtaining this telescope _yourself_ if you truly believe every piece of evidence handed to you is doctored

@VoidedKN0X in my opinion the idea that there's such a grand conspiracy to manipulate things like that is very similar to narcissism but that's just my opinion on the matter, I would suggest you obtain evidence yourself if you decide you can't believe anything given to you

@Human Sheeple I believe in R, it is a very powerful statistical software package

@VoidedKN0X Take it apart and look at the very simple optics first, then

@VoidedKN0X Learn to grind the lens yourself if you're that concerned

@Human Sheeple with that second picture is it not considered good manners here to format some sort of mathematical proof in a way that is actually legible? I see no nomenclature or units at all

@Human Sheeple thank you for that but what I meant was presenting whatever you're trying to say with the above picture in a clearer way. I can begin to muddle through it but it's very unclear

<@565177355111497738> the earth looked curved to me?

<@565177355111497738> You mean the Baumgartner jump?

@Overlord Yam don't assume

@Overlord Yam just clarifying, do you find there's an issue with understanding frames of reference and perspective on this server? I'm very confused with what's going on here

@VoidedKN0X nobody has even begun to talk about proofs yet though

@!GPT if it is reasonable to say that NASA is expertly doctoring images to prove their point, can we reasonably use photographs someone with a clear flat earth bias provides?

<@565177355111497738> While the Baumgartner video is useless as evidence for a curved earth for this reason, there's also nothing in it that says the earth is flat either

@VoidedKN0X did you try doing another reaction in the rank channel?

@VoidedKN0X it's too late just accept your fate as a flat earther. Do not resist.

WOAH @VoidedKN0X settle down

<@565177355111497738> Okay so then you have to get into whether or not it's reasonable to believe that conspiracy is true, which is kind of a dead end argument

<@565177355111497738> You can just say "I don't believe that, it's lies" to basically anything

@!GPT Human Sheeple answered your own question there, it's a stitched together image left bright for clarity

@!GPT who here has said that questioning a government agency is close minded?

@!GPT No, photons don't have an end. They have a point at which they stop being "visible"

@Human Sheeple is that a troll question?

@!GPT The end of your journey, perhaps? But the photon continues whether or not you can see it (if I'm correct in assuming you're talking about light falloff)

@Human Sheeple I guess you'll have to consider me a liar then Sheeple, it's a sad day

<@565177355111497738> That would be really cool

@!GPT the exposure is wrong for capturing stars

<@565177355111497738> Really cool theory but is there any reason to believe that's the case

@!GPT when people take pictures of objects in space they often have a specific purpose or data they want to capture, or have some kind of limitation. They deliberately are setting exposures that don't capture the stars

<@565177355111497738> I've read all of this stuff before and while very cool and fantastical none of it is _reasonable_

@Hamburger Guy careful, debating actual experimental procedure here feels out of place. Too hard

@Hamburger Guy I was being sarcastic haha

@Hamburger Guy Sorry I probably shouldn't have

@Human Sheeple Jesus christ Sheeple do you want to slow it down a bit?

@!GPT True, both ideas are silly

@Hamburger Guy Most of his messages are over the top sarcastic so I'd guess he believes in a God

Is anyone around to verify me as mainstream?

@Hamburger Guy You could just easily argue they're as heretical as any other sect on Earth

@!GPT You can't have singular experiments to describe something that big. Much like a legal case, there is no "GOTCHA". It has to be piles and piles of complementary evidence that may even form many variations upon the core theory, which is the case for the Big Bang Theory

@Hamburger Guy God doesn't love me back 😢

@Hamburger Guy wait do you mean I don't exist so I can't be loved?

@Hamburger Guy Please I don't need an existential crisis at 1 AM

@!GPT Once again JAXA, a dictionary definition does not encompass the definition used by the scientific community

@Hamburger Guy I've never had a hamburger, can you convince me to try one?

<@565177355111497738> I don't use a laptop

@!GPT laptops are okay for work but I'd pick desktop every time

@!GPT I use a laptop for my work at NASA, they can run photoshop perfectly fine 😛

That's a long exposure picture, what are you trying to prove?

@!GPT what about it? I'd assume it's a composite picture

@!GPT I'll take that into consideration next time I'm doctoring a photo. I thought I'd done a better job

@!GPT A lot of budget cuts from Trump tbh

<@565177355111497738> You mean how the Nazis allegedly had connections to occult ideas?

@!GPT The budget is being redistributed to different areas of NASA, mostly military contracts

@!GPT most people eat it up so we say it's good enough

@!GPT Good enough to get the job done