Message from @Throttles

Discord ID: 637764870774849546


2019-10-25 18:00:11 UTC  

Ya, consensus is consensus.

2019-10-25 18:00:12 UTC  

Dumbass.

2019-10-26 06:15:40 UTC  

science is not a consensus, but whatever

2019-10-26 06:16:08 UTC  

a consensus proves nothing, that's a logical fallacy

2019-10-26 06:16:11 UTC  

you morons

2019-10-26 06:16:44 UTC  

it used to be that the consensus was the Earth was the center of our "solar system"

2019-10-26 06:16:48 UTC  

and that it was flat

2019-10-26 07:27:09 UTC  

Except in this case consensus isn't based on some scientifically unsupported religious mumbo-jumbo. This time the consensus is based on years of research and data that a very specific breed of morons simply cannot accept, because it goes against their fundamentally erroneous views of how this planet works.

2019-10-26 07:27:21 UTC  

Case in point, the golden moron above.

2019-10-26 07:28:08 UTC  

It's also a subject of scientific consensus that your brain is flat, qwasi. <:peepok:583236153852035072>

2019-10-26 08:47:39 UTC  

"Science is the best idea humans have ever had. The more people who embrace that idea, the better." - Mike Tyson

2019-10-26 16:22:40 UTC  

@qwasi what’s your rebuttal to that qwasi

2019-10-26 18:17:48 UTC  

He has no rebuttals.

2019-10-26 18:18:17 UTC  

Just random shit he types whenever he's caught in order to pretend that he's "trolling".

2019-10-26 20:36:36 UTC  

Little qwasi is big dumb

2019-10-26 21:29:19 UTC  

@qwasi consensus is not a logical fallacy

2019-10-26 21:29:32 UTC  

Argumentum ad populum is a informal fallacy

2019-10-26 21:29:37 UTC  

Meaning it focuses on the content

2019-10-26 21:29:41 UTC  

Not the structure of the argument

2019-10-26 21:29:46 UTC  

That would be a formal fallacy

2019-10-26 21:29:54 UTC  

And a formal fallacy is a logical fallacy.

2019-10-27 03:14:15 UTC  

it may not be a logical fallacy, but it still doesn't prove anything

2019-10-27 03:14:19 UTC  

that was my point

2019-10-27 06:57:51 UTC  

It does when it's based on empirical data that's been gathered over many years by experts in the field.

2019-10-27 06:58:32 UTC  

Attacking the consensus without disproving what the consensus is around, naturally, is absolutely moronic.

2019-10-27 06:58:47 UTC  

It supports the argument that the contrary is more improbable, as experts in the field who study it are in support. @qwasi

2019-10-27 06:58:59 UTC  

yes

2019-10-27 06:59:02 UTC  

i get that

2019-10-27 06:59:54 UTC  

Also deductive vs inductive reasoning. One is better than the other but not possible in many cases

2019-10-27 07:00:25 UTC  

I'm skeptical of the 97% consensus, that's all I'm saying

2019-10-27 07:00:43 UTC  

Because 49 ex-workers for NASA wrote a letter.

2019-10-27 07:00:47 UTC  

No

2019-10-27 07:00:48 UTC  

<:peepok:583236153852035072>

2019-10-27 07:01:22 UTC  

What's it like being so arrogant that you're convinced you can read someone's mind over the internet?

2019-10-27 07:01:36 UTC  

I didn't read your mind. I wrote what you typed.

2019-10-27 07:01:43 UTC  

And that's what you typed.

2019-10-27 07:01:48 UTC  

and you're a retard

2019-10-27 07:01:48 UTC  

GG @qwasi, you just advanced to level 11!

2019-10-27 07:01:51 UTC  

?

2019-10-27 07:02:13 UTC  

You've nothing to say back and you go to your primitive nature through animalistic insults.

2019-10-27 07:02:15 UTC  

I see.