Another dishonest tactic - deflecting to an unimportant part of the argument to hold up the participant with needless explanations for metaphorical concepts.
What the other user meant is that all we know about space travel is, that we need a lot of protective layers around our crafts just for leaving the atmosphere, so one would assume that craft that supposedly travel hundreds of light-years would need a very sophisticated kind of protection. But there is no way to deliver evidence to a theoretical concept, hence why I said your arguing is in bad faith my dear.
edit: and now he takes the cowards way out of a failing argument by deleting his comments. That’s another tactic - ending the conversation, rendering all our arguments worthless and essential wasting our time. Jean Paul Sartre described it well in his quote about anti semitism.
Another dishonest tactic - deflecting to an unimportant part of the argument to hold up the participant with needless explanations for metaphorical concepts.
What the other user meant is that all we know about space travel is, that we need a lot of protective layers around our crafts just for leaving the atmosphere, so one would assume that craft that supposedly travel hundreds of light-years would need a very sophisticated kind of protection. But there is no way to deliver evidence to a theoretical concept, hence why I said your arguing is in bad faith my dear.
edit: and now he takes the cowards way out of a failing argument by deleting his comments. That’s another tactic - ending the conversation, rendering all our arguments worthless and essential wasting our time. Jean Paul Sartre described it well in his quote about anti semitism.