Ahhh, the ridiculous memes, logical fallacies, and insults begin. Give a valid rebuttal of flat earth arguments and you get an in insulting meme, and no actual arguments. In this case, you're just promoting your own content that is actually just an appeal to popularity instead of making an argument about the post.
Typical flat earth thought processes.
Please, I'd love to hear why you believe that a guy interviewing a bunch of people who are unable to science or math changing to a ridiculous and easily rebutted world view proves that a flight landing in Alaska from Asia wouldn't happen on a globe earth.
You don't have an answer to that, you are just using the logical fallacies necessary to get other people to believe such a ridiculous argument.
I'm not confused. It seems you are, as all flat earthers must be.
Your confusion seems to be that a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity is any sort of argument against an emergency landing in Alaska from Asia. That 'was' the topic of my post, and you simply posted a bunch of videos about how and why people became flat earthers- which is an appeal to popularity and not a response to the topic, which is what flat earthers always do when one of their claims is rebutted because they can never ever admit that they are wrong even when it's shown conclusively that they are.
So, since you say that I'm confused, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: how is a bunch of interviews about how people came to their belief system an argument against an emergency landing in Alaska being perfectly sound on a globe earth?
Or are you just posting off topic articles to promote your content, instead of having an actual discussion... as flat earthers constantly do in order to avoid actual discussion?
In fact, how is a bunch of interviews about how people came to their belief system anything but the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity?
Ahhh, the ridiculous memes, logical fallacies, and insults begin. Give a valid rebuttal of flat earth arguments and you get an in insulting meme, and no actual arguments. In this case, you're just promoting your own content that is actually just an appeal to popularity instead of making an argument about the post.
Typical flat earth thought processes.
Please, I'd love to hear why you believe that a guy interviewing a bunch of people who are unable to science or math changing to a ridiculous and easily rebutted world view proves that a flight landing in Alaska from Asia wouldn't happen on a globe earth.
You don't have an answer to that, you are just using the logical fallacies necessary to get other people to believe such a ridiculous argument.
What? lol I think you might be confused :)
I'm not confused. It seems you are, as all flat earthers must be.
Your confusion seems to be that a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity is any sort of argument against an emergency landing in Alaska from Asia. That 'was' the topic of my post, and you simply posted a bunch of videos about how and why people became flat earthers- which is an appeal to popularity and not a response to the topic, which is what flat earthers always do when one of their claims is rebutted because they can never ever admit that they are wrong even when it's shown conclusively that they are.
So, since you say that I'm confused, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: how is a bunch of interviews about how people came to their belief system an argument against an emergency landing in Alaska being perfectly sound on a globe earth?
Or are you just posting off topic articles to promote your content, instead of having an actual discussion... as flat earthers constantly do in order to avoid actual discussion?
In fact, how is a bunch of interviews about how people came to their belief system anything but the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity?