Message from @Morning Dew
Discord ID: 608152775431553034
sure
@Drewski4343 thats not how logic works.
??
i don’t need a theory to prove that your theory isn’t facts. thats a fallacy
You haven't proven my theory to be false. You appealed to a conspiracy.
words like “established” are meaningless. it was “established” that we went to the moon and thats nonsense too
i have proven your theory to be a theory, which you waltz around with like its a fact
with your buzzwords like “established science”
^
i can smell the appeals to authority and condescending establishment snobbery before he even makes the post
I am appealing to established science because that is what I am trusting as a source. When this discussion started, I was being told that the current standard of heliocentrism was proven false by its own view of the stars. I stated that, according to this standard, the view is correct, to which I was suddenly barraged with a switched flat earth viewpoint.
muh established science, muh everything that contradicts the mainstream narrative is a “conspiracy theory”
your language is fallacious by default, you hold modern theories to the standard of facts, even though they change constantly, and your very language is designed to condescend to competing theories
So, it makes sense for me to argue with viewpoint of established science.
I believe you mentioned you didn't want to be condescending.
“established science” keep saying this like it means anything
its how snobs talk down whilst defending their narratives. you and your “facts”
Established science is something. I know it makes you angry, but it does mean something. Established science built the computer/phone you're talking to me with right now.
its a phrase designed to generalize with a popularity and appeal to authority fallacy
Please refrain from the ad homs.
deflecting from the fact that your “established science” is based on theories and no factual measurements
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