@cameron_vale@lemm.ee Well, then, good luck appeasing the angry god for the excess or lack of rain (which one? there are too many!). I think I’ll stop here.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee I have no idea what 4 things you are talking about. Clearly you don’t are not asking a question as stated in this community. Goodbye
That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you’re imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.
That’s just a longwinded way of saying “they were dumb”.
Thousands of years of dumb people. Then suddenly us smart guys appear?
That seems unlikely.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee where did I say they were dumb? don’t put words in my mouth. Also, ignorance != dumb
I said they tried to explain natural phenomeana the best way they could. I mean that. Most likely every modern person would have done the same.
You offered that they “pulled it from their ass”. Let’s not quibble.
As for what explanations they’d contrive. They’d contrive useful ones. Just like us. Because time is money etc.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee Well, then, good luck appeasing the angry god for the excess or lack of rain (which one? there are too many!). I think I’ll stop here.
I offered 4 examples of “known things”. You ignore that in preference for these caricatures.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee I have no idea what 4 things you are talking about. Clearly you don’t are not asking a question as stated in this community. Goodbye
The 4 things I listed in the title, you raving dogmatist.
Those same people eventually thought the sun revolved around us and labeled scientists who theorized and eventually proved otherwise as heretics.
And now some still believe the world is flat.
Stick to the examples I offered.
They see it. We don’t. Why?
No. You can accept my response as an example of groupthink being completely wrong.
Then you are strawmanning.
Arguing the more easily defeated interpretation.
Rather than steelmanning.
Which means arguing the actual point.
And to do that. Hmm. Why would anybody do that?
That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you’re imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.
You are however cherry picking.
Arbitrary? It’s literally the examples I offered in the title.
Which also implies the class of “stuff they saw but we don’t see”. And he could have gone there too.
But no. He went for the caricature.
You people.
Based on the contents of this thread, you aren’t aware enough of fallacy to speak like an authority on it.
Wave your hands around a bit more. You might fly like a bird.
Sure, this post no longer belongs in this community, it is definitely stupid now.
I suspect that you and these other people are as dogmatic as 13th century christian zealots.