Challenge Thread: Was Pluto our Ninth Planet in the Fourth Century?

AV1611VET said:

Guilt by association.

Click to expand...

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.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AV1611VET said:

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. )

Click to expand...

Let me me try to explain this as simply as possible in the hope there is a glimmer of comprehension somewhere.
Guilt by association is a form of stereotyping which is a bad thing, I repeat a bad thing, it leads leads to bigotry such as racism, sexism anti-intellectualism etc.
Perhaps this is beyond your level of comprehension but I assure you it is not a positive.

The obvious question which arises is the 400 odd astronomers who voted, a certain percentage voted to retain Pluto's planetary status; they could just as easily be accused of guilt by association in your framework.
So what makes astronomers who voted to demote Pluto's status the bad guys while those who voted the opposite the good guys when both parties would have based their decision on professional reasons.

This is the point I have been making which up until now has gone way over your head.

AV1611VET said:

Is there something wrong with dead people voting?

Should a person lose his/her right to vote, just because he/she bought the farm?

Click to expand...

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.

AV1611VET said:

Guilt by association.

Click to expand...

JFYI, used that way, it's a form of ad hominem fallacy.

AV1611VET said:

Well excuse me for ad homineming an organization of crooks.

Click to expand...

Now thats an assertion without evidence.

AV1611VET said:

Well excuse me for ad homineming an organization of crooks.

Click to expand...

The ad hom is at the person accused of guilt by association, i.e. sjastro

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

You should use a tinfoil hat.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's an ad-hominem.

I just found out that I'm a crook.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

You really need some time to deeply examine the more general basis behind such discriminatory behaviours.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your revered religious text is the fruit of a similar crooked vote. Remember that every time you point your finger.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

Along with the personal attacks your post doesn't even make any sense.
When does making the case that Pluto is not a planet because it doesn't have enough mass to perturb the orbit of Uranus or Neptune's mass was overestimated which meant Pluto was not "Planet x', constitute crooked behavior?

Furthermore if there was a problem with the 'bylaws' it would pertain to the voting process, not the intentions of the individual voter.
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.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can't even stick to the same storyline.
Do I need to remind you of this pork pie.

AV16111VET said:
I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.

Click to expand...