I didn't use an ad hominem, idiot. An ad hominem isn't an insult, it's when you use somebody's bad character to act as though their argument must therefore be false. it would be like if I said, "he says the moon landing is real, but he's an asshole and a jerk and also insane. So therefore his argument must be bad."

I didn't say knowing what a false dichotomy would make you feel like an idiot. I just thought you might feel like an idiot when you realized your two choices weren't completely extensive.
and actually i didn't even really think you would feel like an idiot.

If you weren't so serious you'd already be laughing.

You're right that was pretty weird how it collapsed when it was hundreds of yards away from the epicenter when the buildings closest to the WTC only suffered external damage. o.o

Guys the authorities on this subject have spoken and if you're willign to take the word of a few nutjobs on t he internet then your name must be kahljorna nd your and idiot and that's all there is to it.

Quite frankly as a layman you only have two choices and that's to believe nutjobs on the internet or to believe the authorities in the field who have a 100% consensus as to what happened and if you want to do the first one then you're an idiot and your opinion doesn't matter.

Who is an authority on what happens in space?

If any of it is opinion wouldnt the theories be? I mean once they gather enough evidence wouldnt they then be able to say something is true?

Dont they have degrees in fields like engineering and and astrophysics? I would think that makes them just a little more relevant?

So what DOES science care about? I must know?

Does this make religion a vag? A giant fucking VAG?

Say it aint so!

Did you read the restof that paragraph? Not, "What happens in space" but "What happened in space on one particular instance that can't really be measured." Whether or not the moon landing happened isn't really a scientific subject. If there were an authority, it would be some sort of historian or anthropologist but there's not really very many space anthropologists i dont think.
I dunno its a hairy subject. Scientists could provide some evidence but they can't really be an authority. And just because somebody is an authority doesn't make what they say right. it just makes it part of the consensus.

An authority is somebody who has a degree which is relevant to the suggested claim (in this case, its anthropological, not scientific) and who states the consensus. Otherwise they are not an authority. Being an authority is basically just being an authority on consensus.

For the first part, sort of. But theories are sort of accepted as being "maybe true," so when you state a theory you aren't stating fact but something which is accepted as something that might resemble the processes of the universe.
No, science, can never say whether something is "true." Although maybe it can EVENTUALLY because some people think it's cumulative and we can reach a point where we know everything about the universe with certainty. There's differing opinions.

Does a guy in engineering have a more relevant opinion on history than me?

Science doesn't care about anything. EXCEPT FUCKIN THEORIES. AND I MEAN REALLY FUCKIN EM HARD IN THE ASS TILL THEY FOLD. THATS SCIENCE.

No, that doesn't make religion a vag.

:rolleyes

But who? Who I ask?!

Gravity is true. "The sun radiates heat" is true. Things can be true!

I dont know. Do you have a degree in engineering? If not then I would have to say yes when it pertains to things in the history of engineering. But I could just be guessing?

Not even atomic mass? :tear

Then what does?

:yum

Great so you're not only an asshole you're also pedantic. I've checked Wikipedia - the source of all knowledge in the world - and it turns out colloquially ad hominem could be used to describe any personal attack regardless of it's it's used in an argument... as I thought you could. Wow - we're both so smart, look at us with Latin and everything!

You may have some valid points on this subject Kahl but you argue them like such a fucking toss-piece it's very difficult to agree with any of them and ultimately I think you're just trying to piss people off - so why bother?

Duh

I'm not stating my opinion, I'm criticizing evidence. Can you not tell the difference? You're not supposed to believe anything I'm saying.

*shrug*

The way this should be responded to is: The phenomenon of gravity is "true," the theory of gravity is -- uhh i cant think of the word right now -- temporarily acceptable.

Anyway, if you read my post closely you'll notice I never said that things can't be true.

The history of engineering and engineering are different fields. Just like science and the history of science are different fields.

the moon isn't even real they blew up the moon when they tried to land on it and had to replace it w/ a piece of foam rubber

and that statemnt is supported by 27 different foam rubber experts.

oops i forgot to respond to this:
Idiots abuse words all the time. That's not the proper usage and since I had used the term false dichotomy in its proper context and you were trying to sound equally "smart" in your response, I figured you were responding the way a smart person would but I guess I was totally fooled. Kudos.
also try looking up, "Equivocation."

so which "ad hominem" is it you were talking about, anyway. Personally I think what you said makes no sense if you take it to mean an insult, since the event which you were referring to as an ad hominem was when I tried to sound "Smart" which must mean when I was using the word false dichotomy? There was no insult there except maybe, "Blow your mind." Or was it the crap about how space scientists aren't qualified experts on if the moon landing happened? Either way, they weren't insults or "ad hominems." The only ad homineyish things I even posted didn't even look like they were trying to sound smart.
but i guess im pedantic. I think your usage of ad hominem was kind of ad homineyish like ive done something wrong and my argument is worth ignoring because it's just showoffey.

I think a lot of what nietzsche says makes sense :(

Actually I was trying to sound like an asshole that pulls fancy-sounding words out of my arse so people on the Internet will fully appreciate my brilliance.

It was kind of a lampoon. Pretty high-brow stuff I know, though I thought the rest of the post would've given you a clue.

But thanks for clearing that up. This is quite a fascinating and important exchange which merits every point being covered.

Oh well next time you're putting on an act maybe you could dedicate yourself fully and actually try to encompass the character you are trying to portray fully. Like in this instance you could've actually tried to be intelligent.

When i make a point I don't try to sound fancy. I do my best to make it as simple sounding as possible. The false dichotomy thing wasn't even part of my point. It was more of a qualification in case the subject eventually merited further discussion.

if you were going to see brilliance it should PROBABLY be in the actual arguments but maybe you can only focus on the irrelevant things because you are the king of irrelevancy.

and man I didn't expect you to argue with my so long its something else.

when i was in my teens i would frequently believe that my whole existence up to that point was a fabrication and that all my memories were false, does that count as a conspiracy theory or is that just mental illness :(

Jesus Christ, what the fuck am I doing with my life?

This is the most pointless discussion I've ever had the misfortune to become entangled in. Kahl, I'm just going to block you, okay? And I'd like you to do the same thing to me, okay?

Hopefully that way we'll never find a situation where such a vast quantity of utterly pointless bollocks can accumulate again. Sound good? Wait, I'll never hear the answer so I'll just assume a yes.

lol its just being skeptical :(

:lol i actually got blocked

man that's like getting the infinite last word in I GUESS METAL MILITIA WINNNSSS

So how about the one where Anti-virus software companies are actually making viruses so they won't run out of a job?

I was reminded of it after seeing that story about the reporter in Brazil accused of orchestrating crimes so he could film them for his show.

He basicaly gave you a big "talk to the hand" Kal.

As for conspiracy theories I actually believe in

*WTC 7 Collapse
*JFK Assasination, Was Oswald a patsy or the real asassin? Grassy Knoll sniper?
*Project Jennifer, Did the Submarine k-129 broke in half or was it fully recovered with the nuke warheads?
*Did the nazis really make a moonbase?

ok the last one was made up
As for theories about Lizard people or Illuminati. Theres simply not enough evidence wether they exist and is only mostly speculation.

The WTC7 thing really bugs me.

I don't really believe any conspiracy theories, but I reeeeally enjoy the nazi occult stuff. Even if it's all bullshit, it's cool to read about.

Well Himmler was really serious about the occult stuff. They had secret occult rituals deep beneath his lair called Castle Wolfenstein. ^^