Jump to content

New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

Disagreement with me has nothing to do with it. I know how a real historian would treat any historical item, and it is most assuredly not "take it down" or "remove it from the public consciousness", or any other intellectually inferior approach.

 

thus we now have at least 3 novel ppp based definitions. "historian", "appeal to authority" and "expert". perhaps you all should publish your own dictionary.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

apparently you read none of the references I linked re the definition of argument to authority. but go ahead. make up your own definitions and argue based on them. it's what you do. too bad you're not good at it.

 

Apparently you failed to notice that even your argument about "argument to authority" was an argument to authority. The epistemological term for that is "bull ****."

 

Let me explain it to you this way: with respect to Cecil Rhodes, no one's arguing with you. For the sole reason that you're asking everyone to argue not with you, but with David Olusoga. But he's not here to argue with. THAT - requiring people to debate a non-present third party instead of yourself - is an argument to authority.

 

And the reason your shallow, stupid, and fallacious arguments are the topic of discussion is because it is impossible to discuss a topic with someone who is stupid, shallow, and fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting you've read more of the authors work? Or is it true you've only read the CV and the article he wrote?

ah, let's add another qualifier to the ppp definition of expert: "can only be identified by others that have read his/her works".

 

Apparently you failed to notice that even your argument about "argument to authority" was an argument to authority. The epistemological term for that is "bull ****."

 

Let me explain it to you this way: with respect to Cecil Rhodes, no one's arguing with you. For the sole reason that you're asking everyone to argue not with you, but with David Olusoga. But he's not here to argue with. THAT - requiring people to debate a non-present third party instead of yourself - is an argument to authority.

 

And the reason your shallow, stupid, and fallacious arguments are the topic of discussion is because it is impossible to discuss a topic with someone who is stupid, shallow, and fallacious.

and yet another condition to the definition of "appeal tio authority". will your new dictionary have footnotes?

 

and I didn't fail to notice. that was the point. definitions are made by authorities over time. some have very long histories, others short but all we're agreed upon or set forth by experts and therefore carry the meanings they do. without authority, there are no definitions.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case in point:

 

If we are to believe that there are REAL Muslims, and that the people above are not, then the history of the Hagia Sophia bolsters that claim.

 

For the ignorant...

 

The REAL Muslims back in the day did not destroy the Christian monument. They did not remove it, even though it was highly offensive to them. No. The REAL Muslims valued history, and items of historical significance. They converted it to a Mosque. Today, it's a museum. That's because Turkey is a REAL Muslim country.

 

Meanwhile, we have the non-Real Muslims behaving above....as all totalitarians do.

 

Perhaps birdog should ask himself which side he wants to choose? The enlighted side which cares for historical items, or, the totalitarian(in this case totalitarian PC) side, which wants to destroy anything they find offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah, let's add another qualifier to the ppp definition of expert: "can only be identified by others that have read his/her works".

 

Not what I said (try to pay attention, I know nuance isn't your strong suit), I asked if you have read his other works. It's an appropriate question considering you're lauding him as an expert based entirely on his resume rather than the content of his work. \

 

Isn't it awfully shortsighted to call someone an expert when you're unfamiliar with their work and views outside of an opinion piece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody want to give the U/O on how many pages it's going to take birdog to acknowledge that my idea: add another monument alongside Forrest's that commemorates those who fought against him...

 

...is infinitely superior to this idiot's idea that we should take away historical items, because we can't learn from them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not what I said (try to pay attention, I know nuance isn't your strong suit), I asked if you have read his other works. It's an appropriate question considering you're lauding him as an expert based entirely on his resume rather than the content of his work. \

 

Isn't it awfully shortsighted to call someone an expert when you're unfamiliar with their work and views outside of an opinion piece?

don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more...

 

You don't accept the premise that in order to have a valid opinion on the material you must first read the material? :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't accept the premise that in order to have a valid opinion on the material you must first read the material? :wallbash:

nope. here's the definition: Full Definition of expert

  1. 1 obsolete : experienced

  2. 2 : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.

this doesn't require reading works. do I need my it or electrician expert at work to publish and then I read his works before he can be considered an expert?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplest terms possible:

 

The Forrest momunent's very existence can be used as a starting point for explaining the necessity and justification of the Reconstruction policy.

 

You take the monument down, and everything becomes abstraction. Instead, you show a kid the monument, describe that it was put up AFTER the South had already lost the war, and the entire picture becomes instantly clear: the South's attitudes and indeed it's societal realities, required the Reconstruction policies to be what they were. Then you move on to the KKK.

 

It's not that F'ing hard to create a month's worth of lesson plans...all predicated on a visit to the Forrest monument.

 

But, I'm supposed to believe that monuments have no historical education value...because some guy said so? :lol: Yeah, because the only reason 24 million people visit the Washington Monument each year is so they can aimlessly walk around and not learn anything. :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

nope. here's the definition: Full Definition of expert

  1. 1 obsolete : experienced

  2. 2 : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.

this doesn't require reading works. do I need my it or electrician expert at work to publish and then I read his works before he can be considered an expert?

 

 

Reading the material you're commenting on and debating is ABSOLUTELY necessary if you're going to have an informed opinion. Otherwise you're just regurgitating information without vetting it.

 

In other words, you're outsourcing your own filtration system which is dangerous because you're letting other people determine your outlook on the world and history. This is EXACTLY why destroying historically important artifacts, monuments, and pieces of history -- even uncomfortable ones -- is anti-liberal.

 

It's the antithesis of everything a true liberal should believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more...

I am absolutely !@#$ing speechless...

 

How can you possibly justify taking hard line stances either for or against anything, if you haven't actually studied the material yourself? How?!?

Your entire intellectual philosophy is nothing more than a mismatched tapestry of others peoples opinions, to which you grant total authority, based on how you feel about how other people feel about their work.

That is astounding...

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Reading the material you're commenting on and debating is ABSOLUTELY necessary if you're going to have an informed opinion. Otherwise you're just regurgitating information without vetting it.

 

In other words, you're outsourcing your own filtration system which is dangerous because you're letting other people determine your outlook on the world and history. This is EXACTLY why destroying historically important artifacts, monuments, and pieces of history -- even uncomfortable ones -- is anti-liberal.

 

It's the antithesis of everything a true liberal should believe.

it is not necessary in order to label someone an expert. stop moving the goal posts. that was the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not necessary in order to label someone an expert. stop moving the goal posts. that was the question.

 

No it was not the question. I asked YOU if YOU had read his material. You have not yet you're claiming him as an expert BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY (other people you also have not read). Can't you see how that's a very dangerous and very slippery slope to intellectual sloth?

 

You're a doctor, right? Let's say a patient comes to you for a second opinion and is complaining of pains in his chest. Would you examine the patient first before rendering your diagnosis or would you simply re-read his first opinion (because the first doctor is clearly an expert, just look at his CV!) and go with that?

 

Of course you would examine the patient yourself first, right?

I have to respond here:

 

We have posts by,

 

Birddog,

Deranged Rhino,

OCin Buffalo

and Take you to Tasker

 

all in a row !!

 

 

If DCTom posts next,

 

its one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. :lol:

:lol::lol::beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to respond here:

 

We have posts by,

 

Birddog,

Deranged Rhino,

OCin Buffalo

and Take you to Tasker

 

all in a row !!

 

 

If DCTom posts next,

 

its one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. :lol:

I'm not ready for it, thus I am posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No it was not the question. I asked YOU if YOU had read his material. You have not yet you're claiming him as an expert BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY (other people you also have not read). Can't you see how that's a very dangerous and very slippery slope to intellectual sloth?

 

You're a doctor, right? Let's say a patient comes to you for a second opinion and is complaining of pains in his chest. Would you examine the patient first before rendering your diagnosis or would you simply re-read his first opinion (because the first doctor is clearly an expert, just look at his CV!) and go with that?

 

Of course you would examine the patient yourself first, right?

:lol::lol::beer:

how does that patient know that i'm an expert? by reading my puiblications? i'll bet less than o.1% of them have done that. by my board certification? maybre 10% are aware of that.

 

 

nope, it's by reputation. and it's a legitimate measure because my reputation in part is based on those other things that other experts are well aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does that patient know that i'm an expert? by reading my puiblications? i'll bet less than o.1% of them have done that. by my board certification? maybre 10% are aware of that.

 

 

nope, it's by reputation. and it's a legitimate measure because my reputation in part is based on those other things that other experts are well aware of.

 

You didn't answer the question(s)... at all. Now who's obfuscating? I didn't ask about the patient, I asked about YOU. Would you examine him yourself or would you rely upon the previous diagnoses of the doctors he saw before you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...