How is it guilt by association when my reasons for demoting Pluto are different from what a professional astronomer might consider such as agreeing to the IAU definitions for a planet which Pluto does not meet.Guilt by association.
Upvote
0
How is it guilt by association when my reasons for demoting Pluto are different from what a professional astronomer might consider such as agreeing to the IAU definitions for a planet which Pluto does not meet.Guilt by association.
Did you mean "professional astronomer," or "planetary scientist"?How is it guilt by association when my reasons for demoting Pluto are different from what a professional astronomer might consider such as agreeing to the IAU definitions for a planet which Pluto does not meet.
Is English not your first language because you seem to have great difficulty in understanding the context of my post.Did you mean "professional astronomer," or "planetary scientist"?
Either way -- from my Pluto Issue thread:
Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused.
Read this slowly:Is English not your first language because you seem to have great difficulty in understanding the context of my post.
I asked you why would my reasons for demoting Pluto be considered crooked which has nothing to do with internal politics or semantics.
Let me me try to explain this as simply as possible in the hope there is a glimmer of comprehension somewhere.Read this slowly:
Guilt by a ... so ... see ... a ... shun.
(If you're hurting that badly to have me accuse you of something, I won't disappoint you. )
Not if they can get to a polling place on their own. But it is considered fraud, and one of the rare confirmed instances in the 2020 election. Get over it.Is there something wrong with dead people voting?
Should a person lose his/her right to vote, just because he/she bought the farm?
Well excuse me for ad homineming an organization of crooks.JFYI, used that way, it's a form of ad hominem fallacy.
Now thats an assertion without evidence.Well excuse me for ad homineming an organization of crooks.
Cause and Effect.Now thats an assertion without evidence.
The ad hom is at the person accused of guilt by association, i.e. sjastroWell excuse me for ad homineming an organization of crooks.
You should use a tinfoil hat.Cause and Effect.
I'm sure they didn't wear name tags stating their intent to deceive.
But their willingness to play along without the other 96% smacks of subterfuge.
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
It's an ad-hominem.sjastro said this:
If sjastro wants to inject himself behind those closed doors back then and tell me he would have voted against Pluto ... which was done in violation of their own bylaws ... then sjastro is no better than anyone else behind those doors who did the same thing.
And if I think those others who did that are crooks, then I'm going to think the same thing of sjastro too.
That you continue to reinforce your ad-hom directed at another member, makes this an even more convincing case that you're deliberately violating the rules of the forum. You've left no room for any remaining doubts in my mind.sjastro said this:
If sjastro wants to inject himself behind those closed doors back then and tell me he would have voted against Pluto ... which was done in violation of their own bylaws ... then sjastro is no better than anyone else behind those doors who did the same thing.
And if I think those others who did that are crooks, then I'm going to think the same thing of sjastro too.
Your revered religious text is the fruit of a similar crooked vote. Remember that every time you point your finger.Cause and Effect.
I'm sure they didn't wear name tags stating their intent to deceive.
But their willingness to play along without the other 96% smacks of subterfuge.
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
-- I'll do that.Your revered religious text is the fruit of a similar crooked vote. Remember that every time you point your finger.
Along with the personal attacks your post doesn't even make any sense.sjastro said this:
If sjastro wants to inject himself behind those closed doors back then and tell me he would have voted against Pluto ... which was done in violation of their own bylaws ... then sjastro is no better than anyone else behind those doors who did the same thing.
And if I think those others who did that are crooks, then I'm going to think the same thing of sjastro too.
And to defend an organization that would stoop to violating its own bylaws to further its agenda should be unconscionable.To suggest any scientist who voted to demote Pluto must obviously be a crook is so utterly ridiculous it reflects your pathological dislike of scientists to the point of vilifying them at any cost.
You can't even stick to the same storyline.And to defend an organization that would stoop to violating its own bylaws to further its agenda should be unconscionable.
But then, I don't think like a scientist, so what do I know?
That might routine with them.
AV16111VET said:
I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.