Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
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.
Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
Might want to work on your reading comprehension.
Technology developed during the Apollo Mission has made everyday life easier – and safer.
That’s the first paragraph from a section on one of those links that’s about technological advances.
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.
Maybe not, but that wasn’t the question you posed, it’s where you moved the goalpost to. The US went to the moon, that happened already; but there were any number of achievements that resulted in life improvements for everyone while it happened.
What you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion.
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.
alcibiades@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
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.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Might want to work on your reading comprehension.
That’s the first paragraph from a section on one of those links that’s about technological advances.
Maybe not, but that wasn’t the question you posed, it’s where you moved the goalpost to. The US went to the moon, that happened already; but there were any number of achievements that resulted in life improvements for everyone while it happened.
What you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion.
alcibiades@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
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.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
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.