Why Reports Of The Yeti Are In Decline.

[JDL]

Wait, I thought they created the earthquake.

I think that it's safe to assume that there are just as many yeti as there ever were.  What's changed is the behavior of the human population.  It may well be that with less human activity on grazing lands at high altitudes that grazing lands, food sources previously harvested by humans, and the general lack of human activity may lead to an increase in both vegetable and animal food sources and a resultant increase in the yeti population.

[Guest DWA]

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DWA

[Faenor]

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime.

[Guest DWA]

""We haven't gone to the mountains for more than two decades now and we are really not sure if the yeti is still in our mountain ranges," he says.

"But it doesn't matter, because there is no question the yeti is around somewhere.

"I don't think anyone will ever find it. It's just such a clever animal. It migrates from place to place, and with fewer people going up there, maybe it will never be found. But I know it exists!"

 

If you're just telling me he's wrong, I'd need something more than a condescending reason why.

Edited November 6, 2015 by DWA

[JDL]

 

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime.

 

 

BS, You're saying the skeptic opinion, without proof, is stronger than the proponent opinion with limited proof.  They are both just opinions.

 

An opinion that something does not exist is not proof that something does not exist.  It is just a belief.  No more factual than any other belief.

Edited November 5, 2015 by JDL

[dmaker]

How can proof be limited?

 

Your logic works for unicorns, tea pots in space and flying pigs. 

[Twist]

I've heard of anecdotal evidence of a primate like animal known as a yeti. Are you saying you have limited proof of a sub-aboriginal yeti?

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime.

 

 

BS, You're saying the skeptic opinion, without proof, is stronger than the proponent opinion with limited proof.  They are both just opinions.

 

An opinion that something does not exist is not proof that something does not exist.  It is just a belief.  No more factual than any other belief.

 

This is one of the most fundamental aspects of human knowledge, known to pretty much everyone by halfway through grade school...and yet with some things some people act like it's utterly new to them.

[Faenor]

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime.

 

BS, You're saying the skeptic opinion, without proof, is stronger than the proponent opinion with limited proof.  They are both just opinions.

 

An opinion that something does not exist is not proof that something does not exist.  It is just a belief.  No more factual than any other belief.

Limited proof ha! More like no proof keep dreaming dude.

[Guest DWA]

"Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime."

 

Try clicking heels together three times while you maintain this eyes-tight-shut mantra.  Earnestly wishing for something that isn't true doesn't make it true.  Here, let's play.  THERE ARE NO CARS.  THERE ARE NO CARS.  NO CARS!  CAR SKEPTICS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CAR PROPONENTS EVERYTIME.

 

Now, go have a look outside.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

Ok, let's play:

 

THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS, THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS, THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS.

 

 

Now, go have a look outside.  No bigfoots..

 

Analogy Failure 101.

 

Thank-you for the demonstration.

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

Given that there has been little Western attention to, or travel in, yeti habitat outside of maintained routes, and given what Westernization tends to do to native travel, native ways of making a living, and native attitudes, there is nothing surprising about this.  It doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Actually it does invalIdate the evidence. I think your going to have to give this one to the skeptics they control the high ground. Yeti skeptics >>> yeti proponents everytime.

 

 

BS, You're saying the skeptic opinion, without proof, is stronger than the proponent opinion with limited proof.  They are both just opinions.

 

An opinion that something does not exist is not proof that something does not exist.  It is just a belief.  No more factual than any other belief.

 

If there was actual proof your argument would have some validity.  But bigfoot proponents speak as if evidence is somehow proof.  It's not and that's why evidence is not called proof and why proof is called proof.  

[Cotter]

^True.  But I think the 'spirit' of the comment was more inclined to be read as 'limited evidence'. 

 

No need to go down the proof vs. evidence rabbit hole again, eh?

[JDL]

Thank you, Cotter.  I realized that by saying limited proof instead of limited evidence, I made a mistake, but you beat me to it.

[Cotter]

No problem!

 

:-)