That's not actually true, though. There's evidence that domestication of fire predates humanity as we know it.
Maybe use "vaccines" instead of "fire," but it still seems sort of missing the point to co-mingle life and death matters with Photoshop and Facebook.
It's a new technology that enhances oral storytelling and then later replaces it.
Or do you mean "predates modern man"?
That's true. I suppose the analogy to context is that the wiring of my brain isn't the same as the wiring of others, so something which seems obvious to me might make no sense to others.
Framing things can help, especially if that framing is done in the right place. For example, if I said "it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", many people would find that silly.
If I framed it badly, and said "if we don't want arbitrary code on our machines, it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", then the argument follows, but the premise seems just as silly as the original.
If I framed it better, like "if we want to run only Free Software, it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", then the argument still follows, but now the premise seems like something a reasonable person might want; maybe not the listener, but they can imagine that others might want that. If not, then at least we've found the right level at which there's misunderstanding/disagreement.
> Would you like to live without fire? More humans lived without it than with it after all.
I reframed the context too much, it became bad.
There's a fundamental problem with communications we've all experienced, or at least for those of us who tried to teach someone something:
The thing coming out of my brain isn't the same as the one entering the brains of others. Hence why teachers repeat themselves a lot.