Re:Archaeologists Ask Netflix to Reclassify Graham Hancock’s...
by adolph on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:17AM
(#33865194)
It is baseless to claim that I “attempt to dismiss all arguments.” I only refer to one comment.
In that comment there was not an argument to which someone might engage. There was a string of free associated claims. The post did not contain any links to substantive support for the claims that Atlantean theory is “inherently racist.”
As a form of argument, it was of the class “when did you stop beating your wife?”
First, the Atlantis theories are essentially racist.
To make an argument the supporting sentences would address what is meant by “racist” and provide some evidence that “Atlantis theories” meet the criteria established definitionally.
Four supporting sentences:
Fundamentally, what it does is take some impressive structure--Great Zimbabwe probably the most notorious example--and ask who built it.
Claim, not argument. Additionally, as far as I can tell there is no claim that a lost Atlantic civilization built stone forts in SE Africa.
The natural first place to start looking is among the indigenous inhabitants (and in basically all cases, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed the case), but this theory is instead built by another group of people for whom there is really no evidence.
Claims not argument.
In other words, the theory is going well out of its way to avoid the explanation that the indigenous inhabitants, to such a degree that you have to ask why.
Claim and query, not argument
And the "why" is probably an inability to believe that the indigenous people could be capable of building such structures.
In that comment there was not an argument to which someone might engage. There was a string of free associated claims. The post did not contain any links to substantive support for the claims that Atlantean theory is “inherently racist.”
As a form of argument, it was of the class “when did you stop beating your wife?”
This is the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860417
Claim:
First, the Atlantis theories are essentially racist.
To make an argument the supporting sentences would address what is meant by “racist” and provide some evidence that “Atlantis theories” meet the criteria established definitionally.
Four supporting sentences:
Fundamentally, what it does is take some impressive structure--Great Zimbabwe probably the most notorious example--and ask who built it.
Claim, not argument. Additionally, as far as I can tell there is no claim that a lost Atlantic civilization built stone forts in SE Africa.
The natural first place to start looking is among the indigenous inhabitants (and in basically all cases, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed the case), but this theory is instead built by another group of people for whom there is really no evidence.
Claims not argument.
In other words, the theory is going well out of its way to avoid the explanation that the indigenous inhabitants, to such a degree that you have to ask why.
And the "why" is probably an inability to believe that the indigenous people could be capable of building such structures.