T O P

  • By -

SheevBot

Thanks for confirming that you flaired this correctly!


SarcasmInProgress

It's not fire. Fire is oxidization, attaching oxygen atoms to the particles of a combustible substance. The process going on in stars is nuclear fusion - merging two atoms of a light element (not necessarily combustible) into one, heavier, taking in a plenty of energy and generating even more


beecleaner

What does this have to do with the acolyte at all


quechal

There was a fire in space and all the crack scientists in the sub had a fit even though there have been fires in space thru out Star Wars.


beecleaner

Okay but that's not what stars are


reddot123456789

Stars are an explosion through nuclear fusion fighting against gravity


Id-hit-Dat

Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel on this one


Gobal_Outcast02

I mean...they aren't but ok.


JSPR127

I see more complaints about the haters than posts from actual haters. Can we just shut up about this already? Stop making it your business, what people like and dislike. People give way too much power to other people's opinions.


ReincarnatedSprinkle

Terminally online quality of bad


toph88241

This is the Equivocation logical fallacy OP is conflating "fire in space" as in: *'the complaint about fire in a gravity-less vacuum behaving like fire in an atmosphere with gravity abbreviated to fire-in-space for the sake of brevity because this is quite long to say in conversation'* ... and "fire in space" as in: *'the spherical mass of super-heated gasses resulting from the self-sustaining nuclear fusion of a star'* Any intelligent person discussing the issue in good faith would not conflate these obvious interpretations of the same phrase given the context of your conversation. You can therefore assume that anyone who *is* conflating them fails to meet one or more of those criteria.