The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

Re:The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus by replygirl on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:26PM (#36749448)

you asked me how i would ascertain that an animal documented to exist is more likely to be real than a hypothetical animal depicted with _a photoshop of a different animal climbing a tree_, as if there is no reasonable expectation of intelligence or intuition for an abled, functioning adult

the difference between people who initially believed this and those who didn't is gullibility, and this is a great example of gullibility because of how outlandish the claim is and appears to be. that's all i'm arguing. the counteraguments i see boil down to "but if someone is gullible enough, they'll think it's actually not outlandish and accept it on face value" which is not contrary to what i'm saying.

if you were one of the gullible ones, sorry! sucks to be more deficient than others in some way, but we all have deficiencies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus by HelloMcFly on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:07PM (#36750390)

I think the point is that it seems highly unimaginative (or perhaps just highly unempathetic, if there's a difference in this situation) to not see how a casual reader could just take it at face value and go on with their day. This seems especially plausible to me if I think of someone who knows little of the natural world beyond the odd thing they've come across on the internet, doubly so if not from America. At face value it seems as plausible as anything else, with just a bit of scrutiny it clearly doesn't hold up.

But I suppose you have your deficiencies too, same as those who thought it to be real (however briefly).

[ Parent | on HN ]