| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
User talk:Rursus/Bad antiastrology
fail blatantly[edit]
Your response to the question "Why is the moment of birth, rather than conception, crucial for astrology?" has nothing to do with astrology at all. How does a conjecture about what a psychologist would think invalidate a question about how an astrologist works? Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Argument 1 is only ever applied to horoscopes and signs, rather than more general astrology. The two are interrelated, but to say that it's an argument only used against astrology in general is a straw man of an apparent straw man. I also don't get the rebuttal to no.4; anyone claiming supposedly supernatural or predictive ability could very easily sell it for much more than the usual charlatans can, and even if they weren't interested in personal gain they could give it to deserving charities. It's an economic argument, not some kind of ad hom scorn.
...I'll jostle your flap! 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't end up in mainspace. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't end up in mainspace. Wėąṣėḷőįď