New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[birdog1960]

 

Following

 

 

with

 

 

 

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority. What's more

 

 

 

"Without any basis" only in your own mind. And that's only because you've been paying no attention to anything anyone else says. And "juvenile and ignorant" more accurately describes the blind and uncritical argument to authority you make than an observation that an opinion of such narrow scope and vision is "shallow and dumbass."

 

Following

 

 

with

 

 

 

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority. What's more

 

 

 

"Without any basis" only in your own mind. And that's only because you've been paying no attention to anything anyone else says. And "juvenile and ignorant" more accurately describes the blind and uncritical argument to authority you make than an observation that an opinion of such narrow scope and vision is "shallow and dumbass."

obfuscation. it's what happens when you or nearly any of the chorus post. it's almost always due to lack of substance. but I won't stoop to your level and hand wave away nearly everything you've ever witten as superficial and facile, even if it is.

[DC Tom]

obfuscation. it's what happens when you or nearly any of the chorus post. it's almost always due to lack of substance. but I won't stoop to your level and hand wave away nearly everything you've ever witten as superficial and facile, even if it is.

 

Argument to gatorman.

 

Which doesn't even work for gatorman.

[birdog1960]

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority

 

 

 

I think we missed a teachable moment here. you see, the statement cut and pasted from wiki is footnoted. it's something you seem wholly unfamiliar with. that number "2" after the statement refers to this book: ^ Salmon, Merrilee (2012). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 118–121. ISBN 1133049753. which is also thoroughly footnoted. in this way, the authors of the piece and the book are building on previous work and knowledge while acknowledging said works. it's something you might try.

 

we can also use this opportunity to better understand the fallacy of appeal to authority: "Contemporary interest in fallacies was reinvigorated with the publication in 1970 of C. L. Hamblin's Fallacies. Hamblin challenged standard treatment of fallacies as dogmatic and unmoored from contemporary logic.^[9] As a result, scholars such as Douglas Walton in Appeal to Expert Opinion and Ralph Johnson and J. Anthony Blair in Logical Self-Defense^[10] developed more rigorous accounts of how and when arguments from authority are fallacious. Logic textbooks also shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"^[11] or the "Argument from Ureliable Authority,"^[12] identifying the fallacy as being due to the misuse rather than just the use of authority in argument."

 

this is also thoroughly referenced as a point of illustration and simple fact.

Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority

 

 

 

I think we missed a teachable moment here. you see, the statement cut and pasted from wiki is footnoted. it's something you seem wholly unfamiliar with. that number "2" after the statement refers to this book: ^ Salmon, Merrilee (2012). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 118–121. ISBN 1133049753. which is also thoroughly footnoted. in this way, the authors of the piece are building on previous work and knowledge while acknowledging said work. it's something you might try.

 

Oh, appeal to footnoted authority. That's totally different.

[birdog1960]

 

Oh, appeal to footnoted authority. That's totally different.

you are truly an idiot and a intellectually dishonest one at that.

[DC Tom]

you are truly an idiot and a intellectually dishonest one at that.

And your first post in this thread that isn't someone else's opinion.

[OCinBuffalo]

we're not discussing removing monuments honoring the men behind all these other despicable acts, now are we? if we were, then i'd agree that removal would be appropriate just as it is for the confederates that are/were honored in new Orleans. start another thread about them and we'll agree. cecil Rhodes anyone? yeah, i'd support removing any positive reference or monument to his name....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/cecil-rhodes-statue-war-criminal-rhodes-must-fall

I see you didn't get the part about the guns/ocean going vessels at all, or you wouldn't have posted this.

 

When one looks at history, cherry picking is tempting, especially when one has an agenda, and seeks to avoid context. Cherry picking is how leftists deal with history all the time. However, the real trouble begins when we start attempting to erase history. As was said earlier in the thread, this is the real problem here. It's a real problem, not only because it's stupid. It can lead to a slew of unintended consequences. The chief unintended consequence: not knowing where to halt the erasure. By the time some are done, ALL of American history would be labor unions and the great works of government.

 

Thomas Edison would be banned for the crimes of being white, a male, cultural appropriation(because yon can Kevin Bacon anything), theft of other people's ideas, and whatever he did/might have done to Tesla. See? Leaving the Ministry of Erasure in the hands of people who aren't historians and aren't very smart, or objective, or rational, otherwise known as the far-left, is a recipe for chaos. In fact it is a recipe for counter-education.

 

Leaving a monument of a CSA general in place in New Orleans...does a lot more to educate the public...than tearing it down. 100 years from now, if that statue is still there, some kid is going to ask why(because that's what kids do), and will want to know the answer, as on the suface it won't make sense to them(i.e. "Why is there a statue of a loser of a war?", "Why would we keep a statue of somebody who supported slavery?"). Tearing it down means that never happens. And once again, the far-left will achieve the exact opposite of what it intends: slavery will become less observed, thus less acknowledged, thus less taught and considered, not more.

 

Ask yourself: why haven't they torn down the death camps in Poland/Germany? Certainly nothing is more offensive. Yet, they keep them open, preserved/untouched.

 

Tearing down the monuments is just as stupid as tearing down the death camps, in terms of the only thing that matters: proper rememberance of history, so that we do not repeat it.

 

I say only thing that matters, becuause yes, in fact, teaching history properly, for millenia, is infinitely more important than the butthurt/offened sensibilities of those who will be historically irrelevant in just a few decades, if they aren't already right now.

Edited January 12, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

I see you didn't get the part about the guns/ocean going vessels at all, or you wouldn't have posted this.

 

When one looks at history, cherry picking is tempting, especially when one has an agenda, and seeks to avoid context. Cherry picking is how leftists deal with history all the time. However, the real trouble begins when we start attempting to erase history. As was said earlier in the thread, this is the real problem here. It's a real problem, not only because it's stupid. It can lead to a slew of unintended consequences. The chief unintended consequence: not knowing where to halt the erasure. By the time some are done, ALL of American history would be labor unions and the great works of government.

 

Thomas Edison would be banned for the crimes of being white, a male, cultural appropriation(because yon can Kevin Bacon anything), theft of other people's ideas, and whatever he did/might have done to Tesla. See? Leaving the Ministry of Erasure in the hands of people who aren't historians and aren't very smart, or objective, or rational, otherwise known as the far-left, is a recipe for chaos. In fact it is a recipe for counter-education.

 

Leaving a monument of a CSA general in place in New Orleans...does a lot more to educate the public...than tearing it down. 100 years from now, if that statue is still there, some kid is going to ask why(because that's what kids do), and will want to know the answer, as on the suface it won't make sense to them(i.e. "Why is there a statue of a loser of a war?", "Why would we keep a statue of somebody who supported slavery?"). Tearing it down means that never happens. And once again, the far-left will achieve the exact opposite of what it intends: slavery will become less observed, thus less acknowledged, thus less taught and considered, not more.

 

Ask yourself: why haven't they torn down the death camps in Poland/Germany? Certainly nothing is more offensive. Yet, they keep them open, preserved/untouched.

 

Tearing down the monuments is just as stupid as tearing down the death camps, in terms of the only thing that matters: proper rememberance of history, so that we do not repeat it.

 

I say only thing that matters, becuause yes, in fact, teaching history properly, for millenia, is infinitely more important than the butthurt/offened sensibilities of those who will be historically irrelevant in just a few decades, if they aren't already right now.

 

[birdog1960]

I see you didn't get the part about the guns/ocean going vessels at all, or you wouldn't have posted this.

 

When one looks at history, cherry picking is tempting, especially when one has an agenda, and seeks to avoid context. Cherry picking is how leftists deal with history all the time. However, the real trouble begins when we start attempting to erase history. As was said earlier in the thread, this is the real problem here. It's a real problem, not only because it's stupid. It can lead to a slew of unintended consequences. The chief unintended consequence: not knowing where to halt the erasure. By the time some are done, ALL of American history would be labor unions and the great works of government.

 

Thomas Edison would be banned for the crimes of being white, a male, cultural appropriation(because yon can Kevin Bacon anything), theft of other people's ideas, and whatever he did/might have done to Tesla. See? Leaving the Ministry of Erasure in the hands of people who aren't historians and aren't very smart, or objective, or rational, otherwise known as the far-left, is a recipe for chaos. In fact it is a recipe for counter-education.

 

Leaving a monument of a CSA general in place in New Orleans...does a lot more to educate the public...than tearing it down. 100 years from now, if that statue is still there, some kid is going to ask why(because that's what kids do), and will want to know the answer, as on the suface it won't make sense to them(i.e. "Why is there a statue of a loser of a war?", "Why would we keep a statue of somebody who supported slavery?"). Tearing it down means that never happens. And once again, the far-left will achieve the exact opposite of what it intends: slavery will become less observed, thus less acknowledged, thus less taught and considered, not more.

 

Ask yourself: why haven't they torn down the death camps in Poland/Germany? Certainly nothing is more offensive. Yet, they keep them open, preserved/untouched.

 

Tearing down the monuments is just as stupid as tearing down the death camps, in terms of the only thing that matters: proper rememberance of history, so that we do not repeat it.

 

I say only thing that matters, becuause yes, in fact, teaching history properly, for millenia, is infinitely more important than the butthurt/offened sensibilities of those who will be historically irrelevant in just a few decades, if they aren't already right now.

I posted it, in part, because he says this:

 

even if the statue at Oxford were to be removed, and even if that were the only demand of the campaign, it would still not amount to the burying of history. That’s because statues and memorials are not the mechanism through which we learn or remember history: books, museums, memorial days, heritage attractions and television documentaries, among others, perform that task. Statues are how we memorialise and commemorate. They are how we lament tragedies, celebrate victories and lionise the exploits of men – and they almost always are men – whom we’ve decided were heroes. A tiny fraction of historical events and a tiny number of historical figures ever make it to bronze or marble. The question in 2016 therefore is not should Rhodes be remembered – he will be, no matter what happens at Oxford – but should his achievements be celebrated with statues and plaques that ignore his crimes?

 

I fully agree with him. it holds for the confederates, cecil Rhodes and the myriad other evil figures that somehow managed to con people to make statues and monuments to them.

 

in the same piece, he says this:

 

For example, few people in Britain would find it difficult to see why the flag of the pro-slavery Confederacy is an insensitive symbol to fly in a country that is home to 42 million black people. But it was only after the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, last June that Carolinians – a third of whom are the descendants of slaves – and their legislators found it possible to hold a proper discussion over whether it is really right that the flag should fly above their statehouse, or if African Americans should be expected to live under the shadows of statues to slave-owning, Confederate commanders or the founders of the Ku Klux Klan – two groups that often overlap like a Venn diagram.

 

again, I fully agree.

 

the death camps are in no way analogous, they are not monuments to the evil oppressors. they commemorate those who died at their hands and continue to indict the evil doers. very different purposes from what the confederate monuments were erected for.

Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

For a guy who says he isn't a civil war historian, bird has a lot of firm beliefs about exactly who these men were and what they stood for.

 

Of course those beliefs are simplistic, incomplete, and incredibly biased -- but hey, he's read the classics so he must know what he is talking about even when he admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[OCinBuffalo]

I posted it, in part, because he says this:

 

even if the statue at Oxford were to be removed, and even if that were the only demand of the campaign, it would still not amount to the burying of history. That’s because statues and memorials are not the mechanism through which we learn or remember history: books, museums, memorial days, heritage attractions and television documentaries, among others, perform that task. Statues are how we memorialise and commemorate. They are how we lament tragedies, celebrate victories and lionise the exploits of men – and they almost always are men – whom we’ve decided were heroes. A tiny fraction of historical events and a tiny number of historical figures ever make it to bronze or marble. The question in 2016 therefore is not should Rhodes be remembered – he will be, no matter what happens at Oxford – but should his achievements be celebrated with statues and plaques that ignore his crimes?

 

I fully agree with him. it holds for the confederates, cecil Rhodes and the myriad other evil figures that somehow managed to con people to make statues and monuments to them.

 

in the same piece, he says this:

 

For example, few people in Britain would find it difficult to see why the flag of the pro-slavery Confederacy is an insensitive symbol to fly in a country that is home to 42 million black people. But it was only after the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, last June that Carolinians – a third of whom are the descendants of slaves – and their legislators found it possible to hold a proper discussion over whether it is really right that the flag should fly above their statehouse, or if African Americans should be expected to live under the shadows of statues to slave-owning, Confederate commanders or the founders of the Ku Klux Klan – two groups that often overlap like a Venn diagram.

 

again, I fully agree.

 

the death camps are in no way analogous, they are not monuments to the evil oppressors. they commemorate those who died at their hands and continue to indict the evil doers. very different purposes from what the confederate monuments were erected for.

Again both you and he miss the point:

 

Monuments are history. They exist in no other context besides the historical. Their only purpose is the rememberance of history. Once again this clown tries to measure historical significance in a vacuum. As far as the educational value of monuments? School field trips to monuments are the norm, not the exception. I highly doubt this guy has done much learning of history, and I am certain he's never tought it, properly. So his opinion on the educational value of monuments is: completely worthless.

 

Removing monuments is doing it wrong. And it's no surprise that a leftist can't think of any alternative that isn't linear and/or binary == "leave it or destory it".

 

Luckily, I'm not a leftist, so my thinking is not rooted in "all or nothing" childish methodology, which means I am able to come up with much better ides. The right answer here is more history, not less. Rather than tearing down a monument, another should be erected alongside it. That would be both intellecutally astute, and dare I say: the wisest approach. Wisdom is history's gift to us. Thus, if we erected a monument to all of Nathan Bedford Forrest's victims, and those who fought against him both in the Civil War and the KKK throughout it's history, alongside his?

 

That is easily the best approach. You acknowledge Forrest's history. You acknowledge the victim's. But, MOST importantly, you acknowledge the change in attitude between the time when the Forrest monument was built, and the day the KKK victim monument was built, to show that while some still valued Forrest during that time, society has learned from those mistakes and now we do not value him...because we put up a new monument saying so. In this: the history of all people and all eras is preserved.

 

See? Superior intellect has never been the domain of the left...no matter how many times they tell you how smart they are. I've just proven it. My solution is superior in every way to "rip down the monument", which is akin to "burn the books".

Edited January 12, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Again both you and he miss the point:

 

Monuments are history. They exist in no other context besides the historical. Their only purpose is the rememberance of history. Once again this clown tries to measure historical significance in a vacuum. As far as the educational value of monuments? School field trips to monuments are the norm, not the exception. I highly doubt this guy has done much learning of history, and I am certain he's never tought it, properly. So his opinion on the educational value of monuments is: completely worthless.

 

Removing monuments is doing it wrong. And it's no surprise that a leftist can't think of any alternative that isn't linear and/or binary == "leave it or destory it".

 

Luckily, I'm not a leftist, so my thinking is not rooted in "all or nothing" childish methodology, which means I am able to come up with much better ides. The right answer here is more history, not less. Rather than tearing down a monument, another should be erected alongside it. That would be both intellecutally astute, and dare I say: the wisest approach. Wisdom is history's gift to us. Thus, if we erected a monument to all of Nathan Bedford Forrest's victims, and those who fought against the KKK throughout it's history, alongside his?

 

That is easily the best approach. You acknowledge Forrest's history. You acknowledge the victim's. But, MOST importantly, you acknowledge the change in attitude between the time when the Forrest monument was built, and the day the KKK victim monument was built, to show that while some still valued Forrest during that time, society has learned from those mistakes and now we do not value him...because we put up a new monument saying so. In this: the history of all people and all eras is preserved.

 

See? Superior intellect has never been the domain of the left...no matter how many times they tell you how smart they are. I've just proven it. My solution is superior in every way to "rip down the monument", which is akin to "burn the books".

no, I don't see. and since you brought it up. perhaps you should check the author's list of documentaries and publications. you'll find that you are, once again, incorrect.

Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

no, I don't see. and since you brought it up. perhaps you should check the author's list of documentaries and publications. you'll find that you are, once again, incorrect.

If this guy was an expert, or a historian of any kind, he would never suggest tearing down a monument. His very position disqualifies him as an historical expert. He is not intellectually capable of discussing and/or determining what is useful wrt historical education.

 

In contrast, my idea of adding a new monument that acknowledges both those who fought against Forrest, in the war and against the KKK, as well as his victims, is the best way to conduct historical education. My approach is superior. Period.

 

The funny part is: his rush to tear down the monument, and his hilariously awful rationalization for that == "we don't learn from monuments", when literally millions of children go on field trips to monuments every friggin year, exposes him as not caring about, or knowing about, history whatsoever.

 

EDIT: a fascist or a communist destroys whatever historical item offends them and their ideology. An intellectual learns from it, and then shares what they have learned with others, in an attempt to influence them. But a historian, and especially one who teaches history, seeks to provide their students with as much info as possible from all sides, and perspectives, in the hopes that widsom can be gained.

 

Why did Hitler blow up the railway car where the WW1 armistice was signed? Because he was a leftist totalitarian. A historian would have created a new monument next to it commemorating the conquering of Paris, and proving that what had been done in the railway car, had now been undone. By blowing it up, Hitler destoryed his own history.

Edited January 12, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

If this guy was an expert, or a historian of any kind, he would never suggest tearing down a monument. His very position disqualifies him as an historical expert. He is not intellectually capable of discussing and/or determining what is useful wrt historical education.

 

In contrast, my idea of adding a new monument that acknowledges both those who fought against Forrest, in the war and against the KKK, as well as his victims, is the best way to conduct historical education. My approach is superior. Period.

 

The funny part is: his rush to tear down the monument, and his hilariously awful rationalization for that == "we don't learn from monuments", when literally millions of children go on field trips to monuments every friggin year, exposes him as not caring about, or knowing about, history whatsoever.

ah, so solely on his disagreement with you and despite his many accomplishments and acknowledgements in the field, he cannot be an expert. got it...perhaps we can now argue about the meaning of the word expert? I suspect somehow your definition will be crafted to include you in that group. you guys are pathetic.

Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

[DC Tom]

ah, so solely on his disagreement with you and despite his many accomplishments and acknowledgements in the field, he cannot be an expert. got it...perhaps we can now argue about the meaning of the word expert? I suspect somehow your definition will be crafted to include you in that group. you guys are pathetic.

Again...argument to authority.

[Deranged Rhino]

Again...argument to authority.

 

An argument to an authority he's more than likely never read.

[birdog1960]

Again...argument to authority.

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.

 

alternatively, you could link to a respected source of a definition for that fallacy that disagrees with the one I linked. oh, but wait. it would take an authority to make a definition. and you can't have that. because you're the only vaild authority, right? if a definition is not based on expert and consensus opinion, what is it based on?

Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

 

An argument to an authority he's more than likely never read.

 

 

He's read the authority's CV? Isn't that enough?

[OCinBuffalo]

ah, so solely on his disagreement with you and despite his many accomplishments and acknowledgements in the field, he cannot be an expert. got it...perhaps we can now argue about the meaning of the word expert? I suspect somehow your definition will be crafted to include you in that group. you guys are pathetic.

 

An argument to an authority he's more than likely never read.

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, I do not care to read or have anything to do with the guy, because based on his position on this issue, I already know what he is: a propogandist, or, an agenda-driven revisionist. He's not a historian, or an expert on anything relating to history. Thus, his work must be scrutinized, or just flatly rejected as useless to any serious person, on its face, because no serious person with a background in history cares to get past his ridiculous "tear down the momument" position, or it's even more ridiculous rationalization "we don't learn from momuments/monuments can't be/aren't used in historical education".

 

Perhaps you missed my edits so I will state them again:

 

EDIT: a fascist or a communist destroys whatever historical item offends them and their ideology. An intellectual learns from it, and then shares what they have learned with others, in an attempt to influence them. But a historian, and especially one who teaches history, seeks to provide their students with as much info as possible from all sides, and perspectives, in the hopes that widsom can be gained.

 

Why did Hitler blow up the railway car where the WW1 armistice was signed? Because he was a leftist totalitarian. A historian would have created a new monument next to it commemorating the conquering of Paris, and proving that what had been done in the railway car, had now been undone. By blowing it up, Hitler destoryed his own history.

Edited January 12, 2016 by OCinBuffalo