dmaker Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 good grief. Just for once, could you spare us all the same comment over and over and over and over and over again? Seriously, man! We get it. 1
JDL Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 No, has nothing to do with turning around on me. I was illustrating the irony that you love to point out when you think someone else is using a fallacy, yet here you are clearly using argumentum ad populum. d, I don't recall anyone but you introducing unicorns into any given topic. I just wanted to know if you or anyone else actually believes in them. Regardless, the use of unicorns in an attempt to establish that bigfoot do not exist is specious.
dmaker Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) d, you do exactly the same thing all the time. You just don't like having it turned around on you. "Native legends" is not only racist but beyond ignorant; it totally discounts the superb observational skills and ability to follow up and develop knowledge that have allowed our species - wherever it is and however much it has hitched its wagon to so-called progress - to succeed as well as it has. This doesn't even make sense. You are all over the map. At one point you will extol our species observational powers, then at other times, when it suits you, you will talk about how utterly helpless and clueless we, as a species, have become in the wild. Also, native legends is not racist by any means. Native legends are full of mythical creatures that cannot possibly exist. How is that even remotely racist? "Regardless, the use of unicorns in an attempt to establish that bigfoot do not exist is specious." JDL Where did I do that? I simply used unicorns as an analogy to demonstrate that your logic could be applied to any subject, regardless of how ridiculous it may, nor may not be. The point being, that if your logic can support even the most ridiculous of notions, then maybe you don't want to use it to support bigfoot. Edited November 6, 2015 by dmaker 1
JDL Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The use of Unicorns is specious. It suggests a false equivalency between unicorn encounters and forensic evidence and bigfoot sightings and forensic evidence. With regard to unicorns contemporary reports are sparse at best and without forensic evidence that I can recall. With regard to bigfoot there is a large mass of contemporary reports and forensic evidence that is consistent with historical accounts and Native American accounts. There are also at least three species in the fossil record that could be related to bigfoot - homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, and gigantopithecus blacki. By using unicorns, you are either implying that bigfoot evidence is no more developed than unicorn evidence or that unicorn evidence is equally developed. It's not an apples to apples comparison, therefore specious.
Guest DWA Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 We are NOT continuing to discuss unicorns. We are NOT. Gang! (and I am addressing, um, one half of you here). Yeti and sasquatch are supported by not only voluminous and consistent descriptions, against which, no, "white horse with a horn" doesn't hold a candle, but also by forensic evidence. One wonders, half of you, how many times this has to be stated.
dmaker Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 No, I was talking about your logic, not evidence. The forensic evidence for bigfoot is putative at best. Contemporary reports are not testable evidence and have extremely limited value. But let's argue all that in a different thread, k?
salubrious Posted November 6, 2015 Moderator Posted November 6, 2015 Moderator statement: There will be no more discussion of unicorns. Take it down a notch. 2
Recommended Posts