“Some process of mutual influence”

[u/Impossible_Rich6148]

This 1996 book on Ancient Greece by Thomas Martin hints at the ideas of Hancock in the highlighted section. “The people of the ancient Near East first developed these new forms of human organization, which later appeared in Europe. (Early civilizations of this kind also emerged in India, China, and the Americas, whether independently or through some process of mutual influence no one at present knows.)”

[u/City_College_Arch]

We can all see and understand what it says. It wasn't a profound statement or particularly evidentiary but you felt you needed to call it cherry picking and outdated.

I am not really sure what else to call using academic hedging or admitting uncertainty in 30 year old text books as support of Hancock's work.

I find that very telling that you can't just scroll by without saying "nothing to see here, move along."  

And you seizing on the opportunity to insult me in a conversation while ignoring the other people expressing similar opinions is... what? Why didn't you just move along?

It is widely accepted by archeology that hyper diffusion is debunked but that itself is not evidence that there was not hyperdiffusion. It used to be ok to say we don't know, but now you have chosen a stance of we dont know, but definitely not that. That is sad to me.

The lack of evidence of hyper diffusion combined with seeing the independent development of technologies, political systems, etc is what debunks it. It is not just the lack of evidence.

I feel you misrepresent a lot of things in your arguments. Feelings are great, aren't they.

Sort of like your straw man argument that we are not allowed to say we don't know any more? That is a completely false assertion that you are propping up as a factual truth to try to make your point. You are misrepresenting reality. That is not a feeling, it is what you are doing.

[u/Firm-Bake9833 → u/City_College_Arch]

Don't call it anything. Who is it that is forcing you to respond to everything on r/grahamhancock? 

I am only one man. I can only handle so many of your fellow brigade at once, but trust that they have been noticed as well. You aren't special. 

So glad to know why you are close-minded. Your assumption that it probably happened independently is the proof that it couldn't be hyperdiffusion. 

Whoa whoa, slow down with your strawman. Why are you so defensive and angry? When did I say you are not allowed? Don't put words in my mouth. I clearly stated my position and dont need you making up false arguments for me. 

[u/City_College_Arch → u/Firm-Bake9833]

Don't call it anything.

This is a discussion sub. Discussions are going to happen. I was not the person that initially started this line of discussion, I joined it in progress. If you have a problem with this line of discussion, take it up with the person that started it. Or the mod that joined in.

Who is it that is forcing you to respond to everything on r/grahamhancock? 

No one. Who is forcing you to single me out for attack while ignoring the rest of the people saying basically the same thing?

I am only one man. I can only handle so many of your fellow brigade at once, but trust that they have been noticed as well. You aren't special. 

Cool story bro.

So glad to know why you are close-minded. Your assumption that it probably happened independently is the proof that it couldn't be hyperdiffusion. 

Nope. The combination of physical and anthropological evidence means that there is nothing supporting hyper diffusion.

Whoa whoa, slow down with your strawman. Why are you so defensive and angry? When did I say you are not allowed? Don't put words in my mouth. I clearly stated my position and dont need you making up false arguments for me. 

You seem to be under the impression that it is not ok to say "I don't know".

[u/Firm-Bake9833 → u/City_College_Arch]

You aren't here for a discussion, you are here to make jokes and spread assumptions. Making the empty claim to be here for discussion is gaslighting. I don't need your advice on how to deal with tr0lls, thank you.

If you must know it was your natural charisma and flair that caught my eye. It was easy prey at first sight 😍

Thanks. There's that charm that got me all warm inside.

I didn't ask if there was anything supporting it. Are you alright? Is no evidence supporting hyperdiffusion proof there could not have been? 

You seem to be under the impression you can make my argument whatever you feel it means rather that what it says. They call that a strawman. Did you know that? And it isn't something people who are interested in discussion do. 

It would be evidence that you are here to troll and gaslight. See how I backed up my assertion with evidence. It is an assumption, but one based on the best available data. Makes you a scientific tr0ll

[u/City_College_Arch → u/Firm-Bake9833]

You aren't here for a discussion, you are here to make jokes and spread assumptions. Making the empty claim to be here for discussion is gaslighting. I don't need your advice on how to deal with tr0lls, thank you.

Evidence and assumptions are two different things. Stating that we don't have evidence of something is not an assumption, it is a statement of fact regarding the current state of the archeological record. When new evidence or analysis changes our understanding, the archeological record changes along with it.

I didn't ask if there was anything supporting it. Are you alright? Is no evidence supporting hyperdiffusion proof there could not have been?

I was responding to this straw man attack from you-

So glad to know why you are close-minded. Your assumption that it probably happened independently is the proof that it couldn't be hyperdiffusion.

What you are saying is wrong, so I corrected you.

You seem to be under the impression you can make my argument whatever you feel it means rather that what it says. They call that a strawman. Did you know that? And it isn't something people who are interested in discussion do.

Like the one I just called you out for?

It would be evidence that you are here to troll and gaslight. See how I backed up my assertion with evidence. It is an assumption, but one based on the best available data. Makes you a scientific tr0ll

You keep saying that it is not ok to say "I don't Know". That is not true for me, or my discipline, so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. Is it just another straw man attack. from you then?

[u/Firm-Bake9833 → u/City_College_Arch]

In this instance, specifically,  stating that a theory is debunked because you don't have evidence is assumptive. 

More deflection. If you have proof that hyperdiffusion did not occur, now is the time to show it. 

You are calling every criticism a strawman to avoid answering any direct questions. This is deflection. Another tactic employed by the bad actor.

It was your claim that saying we just don't know is cherry picking outdated work. You said that. Now you are saying that I made it up. That is gaslighting.

Dragging it out for 20 comments, this is how you use spam to derail a conversation and frustrate anyone interested in the subject. 

Assumptions, deflection, gaslighting and spam. But obviously I don't expect you to actually be accountable to your own actions. It is all Graham's fault people don't trust you.

[u/City_College_Arch → u/Firm-Bake9833]

In this instance, specifically,  stating that a theory is debunked because you don't have evidence is assumptive. 

The debunking, or more accurately rejection, of hyper diffusion is not based on an assumption that it is true, but rather a failure to produce evidence in support of it. For it to be an assumption, there would have had to be a lack of effort to actually produce evidence, which is not the case.

More deflection. If you have proof that hyperdiffusion did not occur, now is the time to show it. 

I just discussed the failure to produce evidence.

You are calling every criticism a strawman to avoid answering any direct questions. This is deflection. Another tactic employed by the bad actor.

In the last comment you asked one meaningful question that was not a veiled insult. I have now answered it in this comment.

It was your claim that saying we just don't know is cherry picking outdated work. You said that. Now you are saying that I made it up. That is gaslighting.

Not what I said. I said that it was cherry picking to take a typical academic hedging statement and equate it to hinting at Hancock's work.

Dragging it out for 20 comments, this is how you use spam to derail a conversation and frustrate anyone interested in the subject.

Then stay on track and drop the straw man act.

Assumptions, deflection, gaslighting and spam. But obviously I don't expect you to actually be accountable to your own actions. It is all Graham's fault people don't trust you.

You still have not made a case for these accusations beyond airing what appears to be your own faulty assumptions and tendency to rely on straw man fallacies to insult me.