don’t play the fallacy game with me mr “established science”

as if science is in stone, and not constantly changing by default

how quickly you shift your opinion of “established science” depending on your audience

Dew. I'm happy to have an adult discussion with you about this, but you are being aggressive. Would it help to move to <#538929818834698260>?

I’m sorry you don’t like your condescending language being commented on. perhaps you’re not used to having your religion of Science questioned and so you don’t even realize how much you talk down to alternate theories by default with your very language itself

I'm quite used to it - I enjoy the debates here and on other servers. But I prefer a civil debate.

feel free to begin at any time, would be a nice change of pace from your grandstanding

crisis actor news anchor reports shooting before it happens and accidentally says 'that hasn't happened yet' on air: http://82.221.129.208/Shootingannouncedahead.mp4

Not sure how I was grandstanding... but sure.

the very term, “established science” is grandstanding in itself, thats not even commenting on your feigned civility or general tone

again i don’t blame you, since those who taught you also taught you to speak like this

smug liars that they are

LIke it or not, established science is a relevant thing. It's built everything around you. It has an amazing track record. I'm sorry you feel that way.

its a word, a generalized term, that you keep parroting as if it makes your theories fact

its just strong language designed to give your theory an air of authority, its how people like you talk

usually your types are ranting about “muh facts” as if a crime scene can’t be planted with evidence

I don't agree with all *established science*, though. For example, I know gravity has its faults.

gravity doesn't work on quantum and macro levels. It's not a complete theory.

i don’t care, don’t try to extend the olive branch, stop using wizard words

Gravity is a myth, your own leaders have no idea in what it is

Isn't the flat earth society "controlled opposition"

I've looked into flat earth quite a bit and have been debating for a while. And it's not gravity or curvature that convinced me the earth is a globe.

It's the fact that there's *two* celestial poles.

what does that even mean, stop making a preamble to your opinions

you’d get marked down on an essay for that, pointless sentence

There isn't even any south star, only a north star (Polaris). This would only work on a flat earth where the north star is in the middle

Come to me with a picture of Polaris from Argentina and I'll walk on my head

haha, I'm leading up to my explanation, Dew. The celestial poles are the points where the sky rotates. Polaris is very close to the north celestial pole, where the sky rotates counter clockwise. The southern cross is very close to the south celestial pole where the sky rotates clockwise.

that whole nonsense?

hardly nonsense.

that's a bi-directional turn the sky makes.

only makes sense on a globe earth.

https://imgur.com/A3jmBPX

yes, I've debated Sheeple with that gif

notice how you need a cylinder for it to work?

and if the sky were, in fact, a cylinder, the celestial poles would be forever at their respective horizons.

You don’t? It’s creating the same effect regardless depending on your movement

absolutely not. the sky wouldn't work that way on a flat earth