You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.
No, only the strawmen you set up to knock down.
You decide I’m a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.
No, that would be an ad-hom.
But that wasn't the entire argument was it?
Instead that was a note after the argument.
He wasn't using a claim of you being a narcissist to dismiss your claim, instead he demonstrated the problem with your claim and then stated you were a narcissist.
But of course, rather than actually address the argument, you yet again strawman him.
I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!
Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman!
Because what I actually did was object to the claim Brawndo made and provided a logical argument showing that it is false, by virtue of showing that if that was the case, no one could know the shape of Earth.
But rather than focus on that at all, you continually strawman and try to shift the burden of proof.
Justify it! Why because it happens to be true? It’s my position Jack.
No, because it happens to be pure BS and you refuse to provide any justification for it, instead continually deflecting and strawmanning.
I don’t see any way you could do it that’s not been done before.
And yet again you strawman.
Again, who said to come up with a brand new, never before done method?
NO ONE!
But there you go continually pretending they did so you can attack that strawman rather than the actual argument being made.
It truly is pathetic.
I don’t think there is any experiment you could do all on your own with no assistance. That’s my justification.
That isn't a justification, that is a baseless claim.
And it still doesn't address the actual issue.
Again, Brawndo claimed the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth was to study the literature on what the subject matter experts SAY EARTH IS.
Doing experiments, even with the help of others, still doesn't fall under just accepting what the experts say Earth is, and as such is a different possible that refutes the claim.
Stop attacking strawmen and actually defend the real issue.
Show that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.
You after 11 pages have yet to disprove my stance.
It was disproven right from the start.
Let’s stick to the point Jack. No more deflection or Strawmen!
I agree with B you say he is wrong because you can do it all on your own.
So you say no more deflection or strawmen, yet you then immediately deflect from the issue and set up a strawman to attack.
Here was my response to him:
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
If that truly was the case, then no one could ever possibly understand the shape of Earth.
Notice how I am not saying I can do it all on my own, or experts are useless or anything like that?
Notice how instead I am stating that his claim would mean no one could know the shape of Earth.
Again, the counter claim is not that I can do it all on my own. The counterclaim is that you do not NEED to just ACCEPT WHAT AN EXPERT SAYS EARTH IS, and that if that was the case, then no one could know the shape of Earth.
Do you understand that?
Again, do you understand the difference between just accepting what they say Earth is, vs doing an experiment with some help?
If not, you need help. I recommend contacting an ESL school so you can understand basic English.
If you really want me to start providing experiments, then first claim that as far as you know, there is no experiment ever conceived or carried out which demonstrates that Earth is round or that could be used to show Earth is round, and thus you believe Earth is round, purely on faith; and accept that to show the position is wrong, I don't need to carry out experiments all by myself, nor do I need to come up with new ones.
If you aren't willing to do the former, then that shows that you KNOW that these experiments exist, and it is extreme dishonesty for you to pretend they don't and demand others provide them.
If you aren't willing to do the latter, then you aren't interested in actually trying to argue the issue, and instead just want to stick to strawmen to pretend you are correct.
All you now need to do is prove it!
No, I don't.
Again, the burden of proof was initially on Brawndo, but then you picked it up when you chose to defend him.
And regardless of who the burden of proof is on, I have proven the claim wrong.
Again, this argument, that you are yet to even attempt to refute, that you cannot explain any fault with, proves Brawndo's claim wrong:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.
So if you want to stop with the strawmen and deflection, then deal with that argument. Either accept it and accept that you and Brawndo are wrong, or clearly explain what step you think is wrong and why.
If you want to try to defend a different argument, then go start a new thread, make that argument, and have people object to that.