@NatNewsNetwork@Flerfspective@HorizonAeroKSP@the_flatbastard@ken_caudle No need. You’re missing the point.
Fire is an effect of a process we were unaware of for a long time. Yet, we knew what results fire has on objects.
So your argument about applying an effect as the cause for something else is invalidated by this and many examples.
@NatNewsNetwork@Flerfspective@HorizonAeroKSP@the_flatbastard@ken_caudle Aren’t you the asshole crying about misrepresentation of what you said? For fucks sake. I asked you if fire burns. I never once said if something is hot, it’s caused by fire. Thanks for proving what a hypocrite you are.
@NatNewsNetwork@HorizonAeroKSP@the_flatbastard@Flerfspective@ken_caudle So YOU 🫵 are the one displaying logical fallacies here. Denying the effect something can have just because you don’t know what causes that something is a logical fallacy. It’s called Argumentum ad Ignorantium. And you display it proudly. It’s also appeal to incredulity