P A N

you're right. it would be very silly to say it doesn't exist. but like i said, i'll be getting into jupiter later. the only thing i'm saying about it is that just because it's there, doesn't mean it is exactly what we're told it is. this isn't a cop out at all. i can't cover everything in a day, and frankly, no one is doing me the courtesy of answering my questions directly, so i don't particularly feel the need to abide by your expectations. i'm not looking to convert anyone. i just want to talk about it. the tenacity of some of this site's long-standing members in ridicule and conclusions about people who think differently than them is not classy, and i'm doing things how i see fit in light of such behaviour. you can label that what you want.

but as far as labels go, and to bring light to the fact that i'm thinking logically in terms of jupiter, i'll say that bringing up jupiter at all in terms of determining the shape of the earth is a two logical fallacies. one being a false dilemma: we're looking at jupiter as existing in planet form or not existing at all, and the inquiry ends there. the second is a fallacy of division, in that your logic follows that because jupiter is a planet earth must be a planet as well. the second fallacy - to me - suggests that we should look for plenty of proof of the shape of the earth, right from the surface of it, without considering celestial bodies at all.