So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific
I struggle to see how the scientific advancements required going to the moon
is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now.
This right here is moving the goalpost:
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded (“how the scientific achievements required going to the moon”).
Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing?
I assume you meant wouldn’t have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be “good for the average man”.
See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
I’m not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn’t do “the average man” any good.
As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that’s not going to change.
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis.
Yea, and it’s a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including “the average man” (sexist language by the way).
Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this
My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.
The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.
I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
Do you need the definition provided again? I’m responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don’t really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else
My first post which was a quote and two links? I’m sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.
(you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”
And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
I’m not your buddy. As I said, I don’t care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes).
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were the head of the MLA (that’s the Modern Language Association, I’ll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:
Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that’s your opinion and, as established, I don’t care about your opinion.
So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific
is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.
This right here is moving the goalpost:
Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded (“how the scientific achievements required going to the moon”).
I assume you meant wouldn’t have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be “good for the average man”.
I’m not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn’t do “the average man” any good.
As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that’s not going to change.
Yea, and it’s a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including “the average man” (sexist language by the way).
Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this
My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.
The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.
I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.
I’m sorry I have a vocabulary? You should let people know you struggle with big words.
You clearly do since you didn’t recognize when you did it.
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
Do you need the definition provided again? I’m responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don’t really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.
My first post which was a quote and two links? I’m sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.
I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”
And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣
I’m not your buddy. As I said, I don’t care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were the head of the MLA (that’s the Modern Language Association, I’ll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:
Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that’s your opinion and, as established, I don’t care about your opinion.
I’m not your buddy either 😡
want to quote smtn from mla guide on citing sources
use broad and ambiguous blog post for making a glossary (a collection of textual glosses, click the link to learn what those words mean)
don’t use a glossary
profit?
want to defend my half assed attempt at using thesaurus.com
tacitly acknowledge that I did change my language as the comment chain went on
Calm down please