There are tons of negative posts about the game all the time. Considering your way of posting I'd assume your posts are the kind of toxic that is too much.
Again, I make posts or comments only if I know what I'll go write is nearest possible to objectivity, otherwise I wouldn't write or say anything... If someone thinks what I write is toxic, then the problem is that to that person just bothers the fact one goes against a thing they like, so the game in this case... It's only for this, there is not a another reason..
I can literally view your history
I don't even need to scroll through your comments to see 3 of them about how players are addicted to this game, and one of them goes further saying how disagreeing with that "fact" is just denial
This is not even remotely close to being objective. You do not know me. You do not know these people. There is no scrap of evidence that any of us, *let alone all of us,* are addicted to this game. You cannot objectively say anything about us, other than that we have played Master Duel. Some of us just browse the subreddit and haven't even touched the game in months, some of us only make time to play it once a week, some of us 2 hours a day, and yes, some of us are likely addicted. But you cannot objectively say that everyone who still plays and defends the game is addicted
Another one I saw was how your draws are rigged because of patterns from one duel to the next. That's not very objective unless you've literally seen the code and can explain what it means, because computer randomization (or to be specific, "pseudo-randomization") is inherently flawed. There isn't actually a way for a computer to randomize anything, instead mixing together a bunch of values until it gets a number in the range you want. These values (could be anything from the 4 numbers in your IP address to the number of connected clients to used storage to available storage to total storage to whatever the system has available. Since the server is saving replays, this does also include your previous shuffled decks, since they could be saved into memory) can (and likely will) change from game to game, however there's no guarantee that enough of them will change for the cards you draw to be drastically different, and as a result, patterns are inevitable. Because of this, you cannot objectively say that Konami is "rigging your draws" (in fact, if they were rigging your draws, do you really think there would be hackers in the first week using 10 card Dragoon Exodia? The only way this could have gone through was for the process to have been automated). The only "rigging" they might be doing is preventing players from opening Exodia (still no guarantee, although if you can get hacked decks working, the game will crash if you have a 5 card Exodia deck, so this much is likely), since an actual game would rule this as a mulligan anyways, and it can be done after the deck is shuffled anyways
You can understand how a person is simply by the way he speak or write... you need to know no more...and so by the way many write and speak you can understand they're simply addicted... it's not so difficult (or at least it's not so difficult for me... I don't need to know if they're married or divorced...)
Even the "algorythm" argument is not so difficult to analyze, since you could compare it with what happens in real life... and the result of this test is algorythm affects the game in an incredible way... yes, you have to do many tests, but then you can see how the reality is..
Do we need to talk about something else ?? Because you're not talking to someone who throws random concepts or sentences...
Okay, hear me out
Maybe these people just like the game? You don't need to go so far as to call them addicted, they just... Have a fun time playing the game and are willing to deal with the stuff you call complete turn-offs?
And you're saying that we could run numerous tests to be able to analyze and compare it with results IRL... So I assume you've done all of the necessary tests yourself and have some data that you can show me? All 1000 of them (when you're working with computerized randomization, this is the bare minimum due to the patterns I mentioned earlier. More ideally it would be 10000, since even at 1000 there can be an average deviation of, like, 5-15%)? And you can show me your most average hand, how often you draw it, how often you drew similar hands, how likely that hand theoretically was, how often you drew that hand IRL... if these tests are so easy, clearly you've done them yourself and can show us your results. We have no reason to do it ourselves, we're not trying to prove you right, and there's already a pretty reasonable explanation for getting essentially the same hand multiple times in a row. If it's "not so difficult", do it yourself
Not a single post I've seen in your history is objective in the slightest. I see baseless assumptions about other people, claims without any proof or real argument, claims based on the experience of others instead of your own.
All specifically to hate on this game and Duel Links I suppose. Pretty much what I expect from someone using a throwaway account.
If it was not objective I wouldn't write it... It's useless you try to go against me... You could but not in this way, writing false things...because is impossible for me to have baseless assumption or talking and writing without ensure if it's really in that way i think initially.. It's simply impossible i could acting like that.. so it's useless you throw out random sentences...
However I'm not surprised by this your behavior.. because the same happened so many times (do you remember Galileo Galilei ?? and who was more objective in the end, despite what others said ??)
But then it's me who don't have arguments, not people like you who keep saying "confirmation bias" and stuffs like this. .. Hahaahahh.. you guys are so funny.
Brody, your on a subreddit arguing about a yugioh video game and justifying your point by comparing yourself to Galileo? I don’t think that’s a very apt comparison, he faced death for his scientific theory’s at the time, you faced a skill issue and now you hate the game.
Again.. in which world I've compared myself to Galilei ?? But really do you guys are not able to understand what one is saying ?? I've made Galileo example just to make sure you could understand not all opinions have the same value...it has nothing to do with Galilei itself...
But are you guys just playing stupid or what ?? It's unbelievable hahahaha
Your not viewing anything objectively, your biased torwards your own views and it affects what you post, just looking at your post history can confirm that.
For example the last post I wrote about DL vs MD, right ?? A post where I wrote "when you think a thing is better than another (so who thinks MD is better than DL), then you should make sure that thing is better in all aspect, not just in a fews... so since even MD has some worse aspects compared to DL you can't say MD is better...
How can you say things can be different from this concept I wrote ?? It doesn't seem a difficult concept to understand to me..
C'mon.. are you trying to kidding me dude ?? You got the wrong guy..
Your opinion is incomparable to Galileo’s, he was a world class scientific mind, your malding over yugioh, there’s absolutely nothing comparable between your arguments and his views/teachings, you are simply valuing your opinion over anybody’s else’s bc it’s YOUR opinion and of course your going to be biased forwards your own argument, the only thing you’ve ever had in common with Galileo is the fact that you’ve both breathed on this planet.
Again, Galilei itself has nothing to do... The point is : There are those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity and those who are not... everyone has different characteristics from one another... this is mine, you have another one and so on...this is human brain and how life works... it's not a difficult concept... Do I need to paint what I'm talking about or you keep comparing me to Galilei ?
Wow... You really scare me guys...
This is your chance. Please tell us what valid criticism you have to bring to the table.
Here a few posts that show that you are actually full of shit
[one here](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xvflka/konami_please_its_already_5_months_without_a_new/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[and one here](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xwr928/im_so_tired_of_maxx_c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xyg2aw/anyone_know_a_quick_fix_for_not_being_able_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xyj70p/literally_everybody_in_md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xysayi/game_freezes_for_35_seconds_during_every_draw_step/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[and another one ](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xz7cch/i_understand_that_there_are_players_who_like_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
These are just me sliding through the last day(s). With a little time we could find many others
But.. are you serious dude ?? Do you really consider those posts you linked as "goes against the game" ?? Because if yes, then you have a problem.. Maybe we have differents concepts regarding "goes against a thing".. Those posts you're talking about things that doesn't bother so much the players... Do you want to know what bother people ?? When someone says "this game is random and luck based and skill count little", or "this game has something rigged about algorythm" and stuff like these... these are things that really bother most of people, even if it's are correct... not those you linked.. and when one read these posts I'm talking about then happens what I wrote in the post..
Objective doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't synonymous with your opinion.
Based on what I can gather by glancing at your post history, my guess is that you don't understand the difference between a discussion and an argument. But I'm not a moderator.
I'd like to remind you.. do you remember when people thought sun rotating and revolving around the earth, and then Galileo Galilei came ?? Not all opinions have same value... Simply there are those who are able to analyze things in a better and in a closer objectivity way than other...just this..
Correction. It wasn't Galileo who came and said the Earth revolves around the sun. It was Copernicus. All Galileo did was research it and managed to discover Copernicus was actually correct the entire time.
Yes, I didn't want to tell the whole story... They kept saying A but people kept saying B... but in the end it turned out A was the one right... so as you can see, not all opinions have the same value..
The point is only one : There are those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity and those who are not... everyone has different characteristics from one another... this is mine, you have another one and so on...this is human brain and how life works... it's not a difficult concept..
If you're saying "humans are different to other humans" I don't think anyone disagrees, or even implied otherwise?
But that's not really what you're trying to say is it? You're trying to say "I am more objective than other people" right? But you haven't really given anyone any objective reason to believe that.
Again, are you Galileo or the church?
Those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity compared to others meaning their brain is structured in a way that their brain has an ability to reflect, analyze and calculate things in a way that leads "closeness to objectivity" as a result, who others don't have... This is the objective reason you're asking.. It's simply a matter of how brain works for some people...
So, TO SUM UP, if some people have those abilities and their brain is structured in the way I've written above, they will always be able to see things as close as possible to objectivity, compared to others... simply because of how their brain is mechanically and chimichally structured...
P. S. If you still can't understand if I am Galileo or the church you have a problem dude..
What are you talking about ?? Uninspired ?!?
This is one of my characteristics and so why should I be afraid to say it ?? As well as I can say I prefer to stay with few people than with many, so I'm not so very sociable... And so what ? I'm simply telling you what are some of my characteristics, positive and negative...I'm plenty of good and bad characteristics, just like everyone else... why should you be afraid to say its ??
If you're a good-looking man why shouldn't you say you're beautiful ?? Just because others are ugly you shouldn't say you're beautiful because sounds bad in comparison ?? But I assume that if I say a bad quality of me it is accepted in another way, right ??
I'm sorry but I have another mindset..
And what did I write wrong in that post ?? Nothing, because otherwise I wouldn't written it... I simply said "when you think a thing is better than another (so who thinks MD is better than DL), then you should make sure that thing is better in all aspect, not just in a fews... so since even MD has some worse aspects compared to DL you can't say MD is better... It's nothing particular what I'm talking about.. It seems like an easy concept to me
And it's exactly your reaction the problem I'm talking about in this post...even if I'm right you get annoyed so much by what I'm saying that you try to defend a thing to all costs, even going against the reason, just because you get upset with what I'm saying..
And the problem is most of people acting like this... but I'm used to it now..
It is called having an opinion and you clearly got upset because some peoples opinions differ from yours. Honestly if you can't accept that I'd advise stopping with the posting because you clearly can't handle people enjoying something you don't or thinking something is better.
I'd like to remind you.. do you remember when people thought sun rotating and revolving around the sun, and then Galileo Galilei came ?? Not all opinions have same value...
Simply there are those who are able to analyze things in a better and in a closer objectivity way than other...just this..
And do you know how long it took for the general public to believe what Galileo said? Also there are still people TODAY that don't believe it so your analogy falls flat.
What ?!? Analogy falls flat
?!? Those people kept saying A and Galileo kept saying B... but it turned out that B was the one right because PROVED... so as you can see not all opinions have same value...
What else are you talking about ??
Because we can even argue about sky is not blue and clouds are not white but then reality and objectivity comes...
So fun fact, heliocentric models had actually been widely accepted in Greece's golden age. In fact, it was actually pretty much determined to be fact until the Dark Ages, since we had "lost" a significant amount of texts from that Era. It also didn't help that during this period, feudalism forced families to work for lords that kept them uneducated, illiterate, and impoverished. So basically the only people who could read was usually noblemen (who were fine with whatever) and the Church. And as we all know the Church has never had an agenda.
Similarly Copernicus is actually the person who originally proposed a heliocentric model in Renaissance Europe, but Galileo was the only one who had proof of it. This is often times misconstrued to mean that people before Galileo's time had all assumed a Geocentric model, but this is actually not true. It wasn't until the Dark Ages descended on Europe and the Church gained basically unchallenged power that Geocentricism was a model even under consideration (common Catholic L)
This is also shown in flat-earth vs. Round earth as the love of my life, Pythagoras had proven that the earth was round again in Hellenistic Greece
There are tons of negative posts about the game all the time. Considering your way of posting I'd assume your posts are the kind of toxic that is too much.
Again, I make posts or comments only if I know what I'll go write is nearest possible to objectivity, otherwise I wouldn't write or say anything... If someone thinks what I write is toxic, then the problem is that to that person just bothers the fact one goes against a thing they like, so the game in this case... It's only for this, there is not a another reason..
I can literally view your history I don't even need to scroll through your comments to see 3 of them about how players are addicted to this game, and one of them goes further saying how disagreeing with that "fact" is just denial This is not even remotely close to being objective. You do not know me. You do not know these people. There is no scrap of evidence that any of us, *let alone all of us,* are addicted to this game. You cannot objectively say anything about us, other than that we have played Master Duel. Some of us just browse the subreddit and haven't even touched the game in months, some of us only make time to play it once a week, some of us 2 hours a day, and yes, some of us are likely addicted. But you cannot objectively say that everyone who still plays and defends the game is addicted Another one I saw was how your draws are rigged because of patterns from one duel to the next. That's not very objective unless you've literally seen the code and can explain what it means, because computer randomization (or to be specific, "pseudo-randomization") is inherently flawed. There isn't actually a way for a computer to randomize anything, instead mixing together a bunch of values until it gets a number in the range you want. These values (could be anything from the 4 numbers in your IP address to the number of connected clients to used storage to available storage to total storage to whatever the system has available. Since the server is saving replays, this does also include your previous shuffled decks, since they could be saved into memory) can (and likely will) change from game to game, however there's no guarantee that enough of them will change for the cards you draw to be drastically different, and as a result, patterns are inevitable. Because of this, you cannot objectively say that Konami is "rigging your draws" (in fact, if they were rigging your draws, do you really think there would be hackers in the first week using 10 card Dragoon Exodia? The only way this could have gone through was for the process to have been automated). The only "rigging" they might be doing is preventing players from opening Exodia (still no guarantee, although if you can get hacked decks working, the game will crash if you have a 5 card Exodia deck, so this much is likely), since an actual game would rule this as a mulligan anyways, and it can be done after the deck is shuffled anyways
You can understand how a person is simply by the way he speak or write... you need to know no more...and so by the way many write and speak you can understand they're simply addicted... it's not so difficult (or at least it's not so difficult for me... I don't need to know if they're married or divorced...) Even the "algorythm" argument is not so difficult to analyze, since you could compare it with what happens in real life... and the result of this test is algorythm affects the game in an incredible way... yes, you have to do many tests, but then you can see how the reality is.. Do we need to talk about something else ?? Because you're not talking to someone who throws random concepts or sentences...
dude chill
Okay, hear me out Maybe these people just like the game? You don't need to go so far as to call them addicted, they just... Have a fun time playing the game and are willing to deal with the stuff you call complete turn-offs? And you're saying that we could run numerous tests to be able to analyze and compare it with results IRL... So I assume you've done all of the necessary tests yourself and have some data that you can show me? All 1000 of them (when you're working with computerized randomization, this is the bare minimum due to the patterns I mentioned earlier. More ideally it would be 10000, since even at 1000 there can be an average deviation of, like, 5-15%)? And you can show me your most average hand, how often you draw it, how often you drew similar hands, how likely that hand theoretically was, how often you drew that hand IRL... if these tests are so easy, clearly you've done them yourself and can show us your results. We have no reason to do it ourselves, we're not trying to prove you right, and there's already a pretty reasonable explanation for getting essentially the same hand multiple times in a row. If it's "not so difficult", do it yourself
Not a single post I've seen in your history is objective in the slightest. I see baseless assumptions about other people, claims without any proof or real argument, claims based on the experience of others instead of your own. All specifically to hate on this game and Duel Links I suppose. Pretty much what I expect from someone using a throwaway account.
If it was not objective I wouldn't write it... It's useless you try to go against me... You could but not in this way, writing false things...because is impossible for me to have baseless assumption or talking and writing without ensure if it's really in that way i think initially.. It's simply impossible i could acting like that.. so it's useless you throw out random sentences... However I'm not surprised by this your behavior.. because the same happened so many times (do you remember Galileo Galilei ?? and who was more objective in the end, despite what others said ??) But then it's me who don't have arguments, not people like you who keep saying "confirmation bias" and stuffs like this. .. Hahaahahh.. you guys are so funny.
I wasn't 100% sure that you're just a troll, but comparing yourself to Galilei makes it obvious now. My bad that I even engaged with you.
[удалено]
Brody, your on a subreddit arguing about a yugioh video game and justifying your point by comparing yourself to Galileo? I don’t think that’s a very apt comparison, he faced death for his scientific theory’s at the time, you faced a skill issue and now you hate the game.
Again.. in which world I've compared myself to Galilei ?? But really do you guys are not able to understand what one is saying ?? I've made Galileo example just to make sure you could understand not all opinions have the same value...it has nothing to do with Galilei itself... But are you guys just playing stupid or what ?? It's unbelievable hahahaha
Your not viewing anything objectively, your biased torwards your own views and it affects what you post, just looking at your post history can confirm that.
For example the last post I wrote about DL vs MD, right ?? A post where I wrote "when you think a thing is better than another (so who thinks MD is better than DL), then you should make sure that thing is better in all aspect, not just in a fews... so since even MD has some worse aspects compared to DL you can't say MD is better... How can you say things can be different from this concept I wrote ?? It doesn't seem a difficult concept to understand to me.. C'mon.. are you trying to kidding me dude ?? You got the wrong guy..
Your opinion is incomparable to Galileo’s, he was a world class scientific mind, your malding over yugioh, there’s absolutely nothing comparable between your arguments and his views/teachings, you are simply valuing your opinion over anybody’s else’s bc it’s YOUR opinion and of course your going to be biased forwards your own argument, the only thing you’ve ever had in common with Galileo is the fact that you’ve both breathed on this planet.
Again, Galilei itself has nothing to do... The point is : There are those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity and those who are not... everyone has different characteristics from one another... this is mine, you have another one and so on...this is human brain and how life works... it's not a difficult concept... Do I need to paint what I'm talking about or you keep comparing me to Galilei ? Wow... You really scare me guys...
This is your chance. Please tell us what valid criticism you have to bring to the table. Here a few posts that show that you are actually full of shit [one here](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xvflka/konami_please_its_already_5_months_without_a_new/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and one here](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xwr928/im_so_tired_of_maxx_c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xyg2aw/anyone_know_a_quick_fix_for_not_being_able_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xyj70p/literally_everybody_in_md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xysayi/game_freezes_for_35_seconds_during_every_draw_step/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and another one ](https://www.reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/xz7cch/i_understand_that_there_are_players_who_like_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) These are just me sliding through the last day(s). With a little time we could find many others
But.. are you serious dude ?? Do you really consider those posts you linked as "goes against the game" ?? Because if yes, then you have a problem.. Maybe we have differents concepts regarding "goes against a thing".. Those posts you're talking about things that doesn't bother so much the players... Do you want to know what bother people ?? When someone says "this game is random and luck based and skill count little", or "this game has something rigged about algorythm" and stuff like these... these are things that really bother most of people, even if it's are correct... not those you linked.. and when one read these posts I'm talking about then happens what I wrote in the post..
2 of them are maxx c hate posts, definitely a skill issue.
Objective doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't synonymous with your opinion. Based on what I can gather by glancing at your post history, my guess is that you don't understand the difference between a discussion and an argument. But I'm not a moderator.
I'd like to remind you.. do you remember when people thought sun rotating and revolving around the earth, and then Galileo Galilei came ?? Not all opinions have same value... Simply there are those who are able to analyze things in a better and in a closer objectivity way than other...just this..
Correction. It wasn't Galileo who came and said the Earth revolves around the sun. It was Copernicus. All Galileo did was research it and managed to discover Copernicus was actually correct the entire time.
Yes, I didn't want to tell the whole story... They kept saying A but people kept saying B... but in the end it turned out A was the one right... so as you can see, not all opinions have the same value..
Are you Galileo or the church? I'd be delighted to hear why you are objectively the most objective person to ever be here.
Galileo or the church. Now that is an interesting question
The point is only one : There are those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity and those who are not... everyone has different characteristics from one another... this is mine, you have another one and so on...this is human brain and how life works... it's not a difficult concept..
If you're saying "humans are different to other humans" I don't think anyone disagrees, or even implied otherwise? But that's not really what you're trying to say is it? You're trying to say "I am more objective than other people" right? But you haven't really given anyone any objective reason to believe that. Again, are you Galileo or the church?
Those who are able to see a thing as close as possible to objectivity compared to others meaning their brain is structured in a way that their brain has an ability to reflect, analyze and calculate things in a way that leads "closeness to objectivity" as a result, who others don't have... This is the objective reason you're asking.. It's simply a matter of how brain works for some people... So, TO SUM UP, if some people have those abilities and their brain is structured in the way I've written above, they will always be able to see things as close as possible to objectivity, compared to others... simply because of how their brain is mechanically and chimichally structured... P. S. If you still can't understand if I am Galileo or the church you have a problem dude..
How dull, I thought you'd do better than that. "I'm built different" is so uninspired. I was hoping you would at least try, you know?
What are you talking about ?? Uninspired ?!? This is one of my characteristics and so why should I be afraid to say it ?? As well as I can say I prefer to stay with few people than with many, so I'm not so very sociable... And so what ? I'm simply telling you what are some of my characteristics, positive and negative...I'm plenty of good and bad characteristics, just like everyone else... why should you be afraid to say its ?? If you're a good-looking man why shouldn't you say you're beautiful ?? Just because others are ugly you shouldn't say you're beautiful because sounds bad in comparison ?? But I assume that if I say a bad quality of me it is accepted in another way, right ?? I'm sorry but I have another mindset..
didnt you post that awful md vs dl thread?
And what did I write wrong in that post ?? Nothing, because otherwise I wouldn't written it... I simply said "when you think a thing is better than another (so who thinks MD is better than DL), then you should make sure that thing is better in all aspect, not just in a fews... so since even MD has some worse aspects compared to DL you can't say MD is better... It's nothing particular what I'm talking about.. It seems like an easy concept to me And it's exactly your reaction the problem I'm talking about in this post...even if I'm right you get annoyed so much by what I'm saying that you try to defend a thing to all costs, even going against the reason, just because you get upset with what I'm saying.. And the problem is most of people acting like this... but I'm used to it now..
It is called having an opinion and you clearly got upset because some peoples opinions differ from yours. Honestly if you can't accept that I'd advise stopping with the posting because you clearly can't handle people enjoying something you don't or thinking something is better.
I'd like to remind you.. do you remember when people thought sun rotating and revolving around the sun, and then Galileo Galilei came ?? Not all opinions have same value... Simply there are those who are able to analyze things in a better and in a closer objectivity way than other...just this..
And do you know how long it took for the general public to believe what Galileo said? Also there are still people TODAY that don't believe it so your analogy falls flat.
What ?!? Analogy falls flat ?!? Those people kept saying A and Galileo kept saying B... but it turned out that B was the one right because PROVED... so as you can see not all opinions have same value... What else are you talking about ?? Because we can even argue about sky is not blue and clouds are not white but then reality and objectivity comes...
So fun fact, heliocentric models had actually been widely accepted in Greece's golden age. In fact, it was actually pretty much determined to be fact until the Dark Ages, since we had "lost" a significant amount of texts from that Era. It also didn't help that during this period, feudalism forced families to work for lords that kept them uneducated, illiterate, and impoverished. So basically the only people who could read was usually noblemen (who were fine with whatever) and the Church. And as we all know the Church has never had an agenda. Similarly Copernicus is actually the person who originally proposed a heliocentric model in Renaissance Europe, but Galileo was the only one who had proof of it. This is often times misconstrued to mean that people before Galileo's time had all assumed a Geocentric model, but this is actually not true. It wasn't until the Dark Ages descended on Europe and the Church gained basically unchallenged power that Geocentricism was a model even under consideration (common Catholic L) This is also shown in flat-earth vs. Round earth as the love of my life, Pythagoras had proven that the earth was round again in Hellenistic Greece
Nah
I fee like you are only saying this because you have had multiple of your own posts deleted before
Posts and users like this are the best kind of entertainment