cameron_vale@lemm.ee to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 7 months agoFor thousands of years the smartest people considered gods, spirits, "the little people" and the afterlife to be a reality. What's wrong with us modern people?message-squaremessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1message-squareFor thousands of years the smartest people considered gods, spirits, "the little people" and the afterlife to be a reality. What's wrong with us modern people?cameron_vale@lemm.ee to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 7 months agomessage-square41fedilink
minus-squarecameron_vale@lemm.eeOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·7 months agoThen 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?
minus-squareLvxferre@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-27 months ago Then you are strawmanning. 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.
minus-squarecameron_vale@lemm.eeOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·7 months agoArbitrary? 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.
minus-squaremateomaui@reddthat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·7 months agoBased on the contents of this thread, you aren’t aware enough of fallacy to speak like an authority on it.
minus-squarecameron_vale@lemm.eeOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·7 months agoWave your hands around a bit more. You might fly like a bird.
minus-squaremateomaui@reddthat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·7 months agoSure, this post no longer belongs in this community, it is definitely stupid now.
minus-squarecameron_vale@lemm.eeOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·7 months agoI suspect that you and these other people are as dogmatic as 13th century christian zealots.
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.