sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Do you ban just about anyone with an opinion different than yours?
No. Very few people have ever been banned here.
Zzzz's friend Dizzy had a few accounts banned when he was trolling, but that was mostly for abusing CAPS LOCK after multiple warnings, not for trolling (which is allowed as long as you respond to arguments). His most recent account has never been banned.
One member was banned for repeatedly insisting that human breast milk is not vegan by using a ridiculously anal personal definition and refusing to be corrected on the matter (despite consensus and every available definition being against that). Said user was trying to get banned.
A new member was banned for self-promotion on his first post and then "freaking out" when the link was removed and he was politely asked not to link to his stuff like that on his first post as per the rules, and arguing with the rules instead of following them.
The previous admin banned one person who would not be banned under the new rules.
It's not easy to get banned. You basically have to consistently mouth off and then refuse to address other people's arguments.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmI don't have a proof. Guess what, you don't have a proof either.
What is your standard of proof?
Do you have proof that the Earth isn't flat?
Is there "proof" of anything at all?
What we look for in empirical arguments is the amount of evidence and the probability of something being true.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmApparently Zzzzz's wild claim about Moon trip being cheaper than a fakery doesn't need any proof to pass your rigorous standards
I will let Zzzz address that if he wants. I understood what he was saying, you apparently did not.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmI admit it's been very very naughty of me tho and I had good fun while it lasted! I am not pushing anything nor lecturing; I will shut up the very moment you stop poking.
It is incumbent upon you to either shut up first and let others debunk you, and slink quietly away, or to respond to their arguments with evidence and explanation.
If you're not going to respond to arguments, then let it drop gracefully, implicitly accepting the debunk, and don't bring this up again.
It's not our job to give conspiracy theory quacks the last word if we don't feel like continuing to bash our heads against a wall.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Agnostic? By all means! Where do I sign?
Just answer "yes" to this question:
Do you accept that you have no idea if the moon landing(s) was(were) actually real or fake, and further do you accept that you have no idea if others have any idea of whether the moon landing(s) was(were) real or fake?
You only get out of this by being a true agnostic. You can't be a militant agnostic and claim other people do not know: that still carries a burden of proof because it's still making a negation claim against others' knowledge.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmI haven't signed up for that one.
If you can answer "yes" to the bolded question above, then you can get out of that. Otherwise it's your duty to uphold your burden of argument and respond to others points (which you still have not done).
If you fail at that duty, and Zzzz complains, you'll make it up on the hall of fame as one of a
minute number of people to ever have been banned here for being unwilling to make an argument while also being unwilling to shut up.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmI'm missing a disclaimer that would read something like:
If you answer yes and you fail to provide a plausible alternative to the Moon landing as we know it, you will be banned from this forum.
If you just answered "Yes that is my personal faith, I do not
know it to be true, but just believe it on blind faith: I have no evidence for it, and no amount of evidence would convince me to the contrary." then I don't think anybody would have bothered you about it.
Why? Because that's not anything resembling an argument, and it doesn't require a response. It doesn't carry any burden of proof, because it's only talking about what you believe on faith and not what is actually true or what there is evidence for (or even claiming the evidence against your belief isn't good).
Zzz, Red, please correct me if I'm wrong here and you would have expected him to respond to argument from something like that.
sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pmDoes anyone really want me to go hogwild
guessing? How could that possibly improve my position? Giving baseless claims, providing zero proof? I'd prefer to keep my feet on the ground.
Yes, you need to provide at least ONE plausible explanation.
The same applies to theistic claims.
For example, when we observe a contradiction between free will and a god's supposed omniscience: the theist doesn't need to know exactly how his or her god works, and if there are multiple possible resolutions the theist does not need to make any claim as to which is correct, but merely show that there IS a possible resolution.
By showing a possible way omniscience and free will could be compatible, the theist defeats the argument that god is impossible due to that contradiction.
There are reasons we know the moon landings could not plausibly have been faked, and Zzzz covered many of them. You need to respond with at least one plausible alternative scenario. You don't need to know exactly how it was faked, but only show there are ways in which it could have been in order to show that Zzzz's arguments do not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was real.