Since Connie Chastain/Ward/Reb has declared that this site…as well as Andy’s, Kevin’s and Brook’s…is a South/Dixie-bashing site, I thought I would do some old school Dixie bashing. Also, beyond the fun of “Dixie Bashing” I thought we could make a game out of it. I am going to post a quote that bashes Dixie…or at least is one person opinion of Dixie…and you, the reader, can try and guess the name of the person who made the quote.
So here it is…
“For the first time we have had the chance to examine the effect that slavery produces on a society. On the right bank of the Ohio everything is activity, industry, labor is honored, there are no slaves. Pass to the left bank and the scene changes so suddenly that you think yourself on the other side of the world. The enterprising spirit seems gone. There work is not only painful, it’s shameful, and you degrade yourself in submitting yourself to it. To ride, to hunt, to smoke like a Turk in the sunshine, there’s the destiny of the white man. To do any other kind of manual labor is to act like a slave.”
So, make good guesses and we shall see who the winner is…boy I hope Connie doesn’t win…but she has not told me what history books she reads and I doubt she reads any, so I feel she will not come in first. Best of luck.
You should see the email exchanges she and I have had.
Where’d you get that picture of Michael Giv. . . oh, nevermind.
David Blight ?
David,
Good try but this is an original source quote…not from someone living today.
Thanks for playing though. Try again.
Hey Dave, I’ve been meaning to ask you something. As a Virginia Flagger — and a professional security officer — do you agree with the Flaggers’ decision to go onto UDC property when they’d repeatedly been instructed not to, and warned that doing so would be considered trespassing?
You’ve been pretty open with you opinions in the past, and I found it curious that you were completely silent on this one. Please let us know — do you endorse that action by the Flaggers?
Well Bubba , don’t do the crime if ya can’t do the time !
Thanks for admitting what they were doing is in fact a crime.
Do I endorse the Flaggers Actions ? Well I will put it this way, I will pitch in for bail money if any of them, (including myself) get locked up !
A French guy.
Yep…but could you please be more specific…
deTocqueville
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner…Mark S. got it correct
Congratulations!
You know what else de Tocqueville said… “Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those states where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states whee slavery was never known…In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negroe apart: they sometinmes share the labors, and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.” – Quoted on p. 11, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, by H. W. Crocker III
Aaron,
First of all, thanks for stopping by TBoMK and commenting. Second, I would not rely on H. W. Crocker III too much…he as a knack of cherry picking his quotes. You are correct about the Tocqueville quote…he did say that, but there is always the context that should be considered. Take a look at the following link…
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/tocqueville-on-slavery-and-prejudice/
Again, thanks for stopping by
1.) So you’re saying that the only way to demonstrate that the South is not racist is to say that the North is ‘more’ racist?
2.) It is a logical fallacy to answer criticism with criticism without addressing the arguments.
Rob, is your response to Aaron? Because if it is, he’s not the “one saying…” He’s quoting de Toqueville. And what’s truly illogical is to wrongly describe a comparison somebody makes and to claim they’re drawing a conclusion they clearly are not drawing.
Let’s say John examines two glasses with water in them. The one on the counter is 3/4 full, the one on the table is 1/4 full. John concludes, “There’s more water in the one on the counter.”
So you turn around and accuse him of trying to demonstrate that there is NO WATER in the one on the table? He’s trying toi demonstrate no such thing. And Aaron wasn’t attempting to demonstrate that the South is not racist.
Where did Aaron claim to be making such a demonstration? YOU are putting words in his mouth — which is not only a logical fallacy, but a dishonest and underhanded way to argue.
Certainly it is logical to answer criticism with criticism.
Connie, I like that you have engaged me here as Corey is less likely to censor me.
My response was to Aaron as indicated by the location of my reply box slightly indented to his comment box and not to Corey’s.
Sadly, for you, it is not illogical to point that out. He put forth the comment as a replacement for a suitable argument. My argument, largely based on the observation of Aaron Kid’s ardant defense of Southern Heritage on your websites and elsewhere, demonstrates to me a willingness to whitewash for the sake of Southern Heritage.
As far as the water on the counter metaphor; you have exhibited yet again your failure to grasp logical concepts. When you get done beating your straw horse arguments to death feel free to engage. I said no such thing about Aaron’s representations outside of his post of Toqueville which remained in context. You however are creating an argument that simply does not exist. In reference to comment about the South being racist, you are yet again “Cherry” picking. The original quote, which is a part of this discussion, made a racial inference. When that is combined with the original post in question, it is very much about the South. This why cherry picking does not work Connie.
If Aaron is advocating anything else aside from a random quote to redirect the argument/attention of the post, I imagine he will come here and explain himself because in all honestly, you don’t help his cause.
And it is illogical to answer criticism with criticism without addressing any of the arguments. This is something that you do often. See how I criticised yet answered your critique?
John may be wrong … because the two glasses may be different sizes. Thus, a 24 oz. glass at 1/4 full (6 oz) would be the same as an 8 oz. glass at 3/4 full (also 6 oz.).
In the future, please be more specific.
I don’t see where Rob’s saying there’s “NO WATER.” Perhaps you’ve been drinking something a little stronger than water, Connie.
Rob, I know the South wasr racist. I wanted to point out that the yankees weren’t perfect like people think.
Aaron thanks for coming back.
No one here thinks the North was/is perfect. Of course I am one lonesome Southerner from Georgia, perhaps Corey or Brooks might have a different opinion. The point is that for some reason, certain heritage advocates think that I or others imply that.
Rob, Aaron,
I agree with Rob’s comment…I do not believe the North was perfect in terms of race relations before, during or after the war.
By imply I was referring to , “imply that I an others think the North was/is perfect”
By people I mean those that don’t know the north was racist.
Rob, Aaron put forth the comment because de Toqueville said it and in response to another a de Toqueville quote cherrypicked by Corey presumably to illustrate South bashing.
How is posting a de Toqueville quote “whitewashing”? You’re description of Aaron is not demonstrated in this comment thread.
You wrote, re: Aaron — “So you’re saying that the only way to demonstrate that the South is not racist is to say that the North is ‘more’ racist?” He wasn’t attempting to demonstrate that the South is not racist, in no way. You’re putting that interpretation on it — and it’s a dishonest interpretation, IMO.
Cousin Perfesser, let’s not strain out gnats and swallow camels, here. The capacity of the glasses was not a factor, or it would have been mentioned. But regardless, the illustration demonstrates that claiming there is less water in one glass is NOT the same as claiming there is NO water in it. Pay attention, Cuz. Rob’s statement, “So you’re saying that the only way to demonstrate that the South is NOT RACIST is to say that the North is ‘more’ racist?” implies Aaron was trying to demonstrate there is NO racism in the South — and he emphatically was not doing that.
Rob — you, Corey, Cousin Perfesser — you are all crackerjack cherry-pickers, and you’re equally adroit at ignoring the illogic and dishonesty of what you’re doing when you cherrypick.
Rob, you think the north is perfect. You told me the north “shed” its sins That makes it sinless, and sinless is a synonym for perfect.
Corey, you get pissed off because I don’t “recognize”– i.e., wallow in, get bent out of shape over — negatives about the South that you think I ought to recognize. Right back atcha. You may not believe in the north was/is perfect, re: race relations — but you do a fine job of ignoring its imperfections in that area….
I will let Corey respond in terms of his “cherry picking.” My guess is that it was an attempt to draw you out and piss you off. Judging by your comments above and your need to comment on this blog, I’d venture to say he achieved that.
As far as my comment about “white washing,” that was to Aaron about people like you. This is demonstrated in your need to downplay the issue of slavery. My description of Aaron is irrelevant as well. It is merely a perception or an analysis apparent through my comments. Sorry if you cannot keep up.
He wasn’t attempting to demonstrate that the South is not racist, in no way.
Nice triple negative. It really gets your point across.
Aaron answered criticism with criticism, a logical fallacy. I responded with a very open ended question without building an entire argument around that question only to deconstruct it; aka, a straw man argument. This of course is the sort of thing that you would usually do. I am going to conclude yet again that you have no concept of logical engagement.
Hey Brooks, apparently Connie’s metaphor about the glasses is to make a point that only she can understand and then claim victory. It seems that all things relative are in fact irrelevant. Notice how she also points out my implications? Beating that straw man to death.
Connie, I really enjoy your interjection of random criticism and insults. It shows the weakness of your arguments.
I stated that the North “shed” its sins, in the context of slavery. I never once said that it was sinless. That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking Connie. You literally just accused us (Corey, Brooks, and myself) of cherry picking while doing it yourself. Hey Connie, claiming others are committing a logical fallacy when there isn’t one, is a logical fallacy.
Corey posted a de Toqueville quote that’s unflattering to the South
Aaron posted a de Toqueville quote that’s flattering to the South.
It’s no more complex than that. You’re trying to complexify it so you can throw out comments about “whitewashing” and accuse Aaron of trying to do something he wasn’t trying to do.
My multiple negative sentence is nevertheless grammatically correct — and effective in showing your false accusation against Aaron.
Answering criticism with criticism is not a logical fallacy.
In any case, Aaron did not answer criticism with criticism. He followed an unflattering de Toqueville quote with a flattering one. Your response, which you describe as an “open ended question” was irrelevant.
You implied that Aaron was attempting to prove that the South is not racist. He was not attempting to do that. Everything else is just you floundering around trying to make a pointless point.
However he did fail to understand his quote in the context in which it was written…and Brooks provided the context.
Corey posted a de Toqueville quote that’s unflattering to the South
Aaron posted a de Toqueville quote that’s flattering to the South.
It’s no more complex than that. You’re trying to complexify it so you can throw out comments about “whitewashing” and accuse Aaron of trying to do something he wasn’t trying to do.
Thank you for telling me I was right. He answered criticism with criticism; a logical fallacy. I didn’t try to “complexify” anything. I employed the Socratic Method to dig deeper into his response. Aaron later responded and the conversation progressed….and then you came.
Your multiple negative usage didn’t show anything but your ability to “complexify” a sentence beyond necessity. You essentially proved nothing except your lack of critical thinking skills.
Answering criticism with criticism is a logical fallacy. It is called “tu quoque.”
My response is hardly irrelevant since it was on topic and pertinent to his statement.
You implied that Aaron was attempting to prove that the South is not racist. He was not attempting to do that. Everything else is just you floundering around trying to make a pointless point.
Since you obviously did not know my implications, as I explained above, your entire argument is moot. Instead, you misrepresented it to create a new argument which you could then attack. This, yet again, is the logical fallacy known as “Straw Man.”
Honestly Connie, you’re better than this. I’m sure you can put together a logical argument this time around. Each time you post, you use less and less logical fallacies. YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!
I like watching you squirm, and interpret and reinterpret what you originally wrote, and throw in all kinds of new stuff in an attempt to cover your behind. Socratic Method? What a scream! More like the Kitchen Sink Method….
You said : “1.) So you’re saying that the only way to demonstrate that the South is not racist is to say that the North is ‘more’ racist?”
That is a CLEAR IMPLICATION that Aaron is trying to prove (i.e., demonstrate) that the South is NOT RACIST. It’s also a lying implication, because he was not attempting to do that.
You said, “2.) It is a logical fallacy to answer criticism with criticism without addressing the arguments.”
A.) It is not a logical fallacy.
B.) This is an irrelevant point anyway, since Aaron didn’t answer criticism with criticism. He followed one de Toqueville quote with another de Toqueville quote. Simple as that.
So you’ve discovered, and grown enamored with, logical fallacies websites. LOL!!! Maybe you need to spend less time on them and more time on (a) grammar sites and (2) reading comprehension sites. The correct terminology would be “…you use fewer logical fallacies,” although it isn’t precisely true since I haven’t used ANY logical fallacies, and you can’t use less, or fewer, than none… Oh, and I still recommend “How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively” by Rudolph Flesch, who also wrote the famous “Why Johnny Can’t Read” . They need to reissue that one with a new title, “Why Robbie Can’t Read”.
It’s funny watching you get defensive and try to initiate attacks like you have accomplished something.
The Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, Socratic irony, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. – retrieved from Wikipedia
You also did it again, you didn’t answer any of the points but just criticized. A logical fallacy.
It’s not my implication. I do think it’s rather odd that you are trying to argue my implied meaning given that you are not the one in charge of my thoughts. However, even if I were “implying” that he was stating that the “South is racist,” it would not be a lying implication as I would be guessing Aaron’s argument based on the quote he posted. Honestly Connie, your attempts at demonizing me are completely childish.
A: It is a logical fallacy.
Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] – Wikipedia
I have fulfilled the burden of proof. Your continued denial only demonstrates your lack of understanding.
B: Answering with a contradictory statement without addressing the context of the previous points is answering criticism with criticism. Aaron’s follow up comments prove the entire point you are trying to make here moot.
Rob, I know the South wasr [sic] racist. I wanted to point out that the yankees weren’t perfect like people think.
Thanks for the rant at the end Connie. I sent that logical fallacy site to you so that you can practice for future conversations. Reading this recent comment however just demonstrates that you didn’t read nor learn. That sort of makes me sad. Yet again, I do not extend the courtesy of proofreading my comments on blog posts. Nor do I spend time attempting to proof read other people’s posts in the hopes of claiming superiority. It demonstrates either that you cannot put forth logical reasonable arguments so you must attack at random, or it shows that you argue for the sake of being argumentative. For some reason, that is what you bank on to win arguments while neglecting substance. Ultimately it is a logical fallacy to state that an argument is weak due to grammar without accounting for substance. Ironically its called the fallacy fallacy. Have a nice day. And please do try to find substance in your arguments.
HEY CONNIE!!! I have a book for you too!!!:
The Civil War For Dummies
“…a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions…”
Your “question” to Aaron was an accusation. You were accusing him of saying that the South is not racist. He wasn’t saying that.
When something is worthy of criticism, Rob, don’t be surprised if I criticize it. If the only response you’re capable of is to flee into “logical fallacy” accusations, go right ahead. It’s not going to stop me from criticizing that which deserves criticism.
The problem lies in your conceptualizing the de Toqueville quote Aaron posted as “criticism” of the one Corey posted…or an attempt to discredit the first quote. Corey posted his quote in an attempt to claim that de Toqueville was critical of the South. Aaron’s quote does not try to negate that — it only shows that de Toqueville was ALSO critical of the North. And then you come along with the cockamamie accusation, framed as a question, that Aaron is claiming the South was not racist… Talk about illogical…. And mean-spirited, as well, with the added “whitewashing” comment….
The one perpetrating tu quoque is you.
Here, let me put it in simpler terms for you.
The gist of Corey’s quote, “South bad.”
The gist of Aaron’s quote, “North bad, too.”
YOU are erroneously claiming that the gist of Aaron’s quote is, “South not bad,” (i.e., criticism contradicting the first quote).
Aaron’s follow up point agrees with my argument, and proves yours irrelevant.
Pointing out grammatical and compositional errors that make a mishmash of “substance” and renders accurate communication unlikely if not impossible, is not “claiming superiority.”
It is extremely illogical to say, “I know I make mistakes that confuse the issue, but I ain’t gonna put forth the effort to correct them, because it is the responsibility of the reader to ignore what I actually SAID and to just know what I MEANT.”
Bullcrap.
“…a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions…”
Your “question” to Aaron was an accusation. You were accusing him of saying that the South is not racist.
When something is worthy of criticism, Rob, don’t be surprised if I criticize it. If the only response you’re capable of is to flee into “logical fallacy” accusations, go right ahead. It’s not going to stop me from criticizing that which deserves criticism.
The problem lies in your conceptualizing the de Toqueville quote Aaron posted as “criticism” of the one Corey posted…or an attempt to discredit the first quote. Corey posted his quote in an attempt to claim that de Toqueville was critical of the South. Aaron’s quote does not try to negate that — it only shows that de Toqueville was ALSO critical of the North. And then you come along with the cockamamie accusation, framed as a question, that Aaron is claiming the South was not racist… Talk about illogical…. And mean-spirited, as well, with the added “whitewashing” comment….
The one perpetrating tu quoque is you.
Here, let me put it in simpler terms for you.
The gist of Corey’s quote, “South bad.”
The gist of Aaron’s quote, “North bad, too.”
YOU are erroneously claiming that the gist of Aaron’s quote is, “South not bad,” (i.e., criticism contradicting the first quote). It isn’t that at all.
Aaron’s follow up point agrees with my argument, and proves yours irrelevant.
My arguments are abundant with substance; what you put up against them is mishmash.
Pointing out grammatical and compositional errors that render an argument weak because they make a mishmash of “substance” is not “claiming superiority.”
You say, “Ultimately it is a logical fallacy to state that an argument is weak due to grammar without accounting for substance.” Basically, what that says, is “I know I make grammatical errors that confuse the issue, but I ain’t gonna put forth the effort (i.e., the courtesy, lol!) to correct them, because it is the responsibility of the reader to IGNORE what I actually SAID and to just KNOW what I MEANT.”
Bullcrap.
This is going to be my last comment on this thread mainly because I feel like Corey’s post is now hijacked by pointless bickering. Sorry about that Mr. Meyer.
My question is simply a question and that’s all that it is. Just a question Connie.. A probing question in order to dig deeper and understand the commenter. You seeing anything other than a question is yet another example of your “Blue Scare” paranoia reminiscent of a fight 150 years after the fact.
Actually, a logical fallacy does not take away the point you make, it simply shows a weakness in your argument. If you want to continue to post weak arguments all over the internet then feel free.
That “cockamamie accusation” that you claim I have put forth is only matched by the now cockamamie idea that you know exactly what Aaron’s intent is. Also, it isn’t white washing. It’s not even close to the definition of white washing. I am glad you’ve chosen a new word and accusation to use now though. As I have said numerous times, it was a question that was then addressed later on during Aaron’s follow up, which you ignored.
You gave an absolutely wrong example of tu quoque. Let me help you out. Two 9 year olds are playing in the park. One says, “You couldn’t finish the puzzle.” The other child responds with, “Yea, well you can’t play kickball.” Notice how child number two did not address anything that was leveled at him but simply went on the defensive and criticized? Sort of childish isn’t it? But hey, if that’s the route you want to take, by all means.
Your arguments are pretty much garbage for reasons listed numerous times. They are riddled with cherry picked quotes, logical fallacies, and crude interpretations.
Yes it is Connie. It is because you then follow it up with insults after correcting the grammatical/typo errors. The difference between ‘fewer’ and ‘less’ hardly changes the substance. But that is what you continuously focus on which only demonstrates how thin your arguments really are.
Rob, your question to Aaron was an accusation that he was claiming the South is not racist… Clearly established in your phrase, “So you are saying…” instead of asking, “So you think de Toqueville is saying…”
You weren’t trying to “dig deeper” and understand the commenter. You already “understand” him to your satisfaction, as evidenced by your description of him as an ardent defender of Southern Heritage and your conclusion that he is willing to whitewash for the sake of Southern Heritage.
Your childish example of tu quoque may be an accurate description of the logical fallacy, but it’s irrelevant to Aaron’s reply to Corey. Aaron’s intent can be accurately determined by the content of the quote he posted just as your accusation can be determined by way you phrased your question (“So you are saying…”)
Rob, please — I didn’t GIVE an example of tu quoque. I clearly established that in response to Corey’s quote, “South bad,” Aaron’s quote, “North bad, too,” is NOT tu quoque. You tried to turn it into a fallacy by implying that Aaron’s quote meant, “South not bad,” but he obviously didn’t mean that, so you failed.
(And your example of the two kids playing in the park is very poor because there’s not enough information. What’s the overall argument about? If it is about establishing the incompetence of kids at play in the park, they both made valid points. If there’s not some overall debate going on, the the first kid is just being a smartaleck, and the second kid’s comeback is just as valid as the first kid’s insult.)
My reference to whitewashing was to your accusation that Aaron is willing to whitewash for the sake of Southern Heritage. Apparently you forgot you made that accusation.
My arguments aren’t perfect, but they’re superior to yours.
I’m sorry but I just can’t resist.
Again Connie, you are attempting a straw man by establishing an argument that I never made. I also did not accuse him of what you accuse me of doing. That is evident by the follow up comments between Aaron and myself.
Your next paragraph is your continual use of the straw man already formed.
Corey’s “South Bad,” with Aaron’s reply of “North bad, too,” is tu quoque. Answering criticism with criticism without addressing the former statement’s arguments is a logical fallacy. Aaron’s example is actually a nearly perfect textbook description. You are better off arguing that his answer, even though a logical fallacy, does not go without merit. This argument is actually proved by the follow up comments from Corey and myself. Your poor description of tu quoque demonstrates that your ‘superior’ arguments, as described below, are simply without merit or any actual intelligence.
The “childish” example, which you fail to grasp, does not need any background information. What is there is all that exists in plain English. Child “A” laid forth the initial argument that Child “B” is bad at puzzles. Child “B” responded with criticism in kind. Is it a logical fallacy? Yes. Does it take away from the fact that both kids are bad at either puzzles or kickball? No. The conversation before hand does not matter because in this hypothetical situation, one does not exist. If I were to add that the kids were compiling a list of things that each other were bad at, then you would be right. Since I did not mention it, it does not exist. It only exists when you decide to add things to the situation to justify your argument. This is another logical fallacy. I am sorry that you truly cannot grasp the tu quoque concept.
From my earlier comments:
No one here thinks the North was/is perfect. Of course I am one lonesome Southerner from Georgia, perhaps Corey or Brooks might have a different opinion. The point is that for some reason, certain heritage advocates think that I or others imply that.
Well that’s funny…..I don’t see where I said Aaron was white washing anything. Oh that’s right, I didn’t. Corey even validated this claim. This is yet another example of creating a straw man argument that is as you say, “a lie.” An underhanded way to argue. “Dishonest.”
My arguments aren’t perfect, but they’re superior to yours
So true. In fact it is so true that you ‘don’t’ provide what appears to be limitless logical fallacies in every single one. Honestly Connie….I destroyed you again and again on this post. For the love of all things that is Southern, stop defending heritage. You’re really bad at it.
My apologies for hijacking yet again Corey, Connie’s ignorance knows no bounds.
You made the accusation, Rob. It’s there in black and white for all to see. You posed it as a question — but it’s an accusation. It doesn’t matter what follows — you initially made the accusation that Aaron was saying the South is not racist, and he was saying no such thing, and nothing he posted indicated that, so you were just making it up as you went along.
Actually, neither Corey nor Aaron were arguing. They posted quotes from de Toqueville.
Since you didn’t give a context for the remarks of the kids in the park, your “illustration” illustrates nothing pertinent to logic and debate. If kid walks up and, out of the blue, says to another kid, “You couldn’t finish the puzzle,” he’s not engaging in debate. He’s just insulting and likely spoiling for a fight. And it may not even be true. Maybe the second kid COULD finish the puzzle, but chose not to. Maybe he hasn’t finished with it yet… Without knowing more circumstances, this is no illustration of formal debate methods — it’s just childish floundering around, which isn’t surprising, considering the source.
You haven’t destroyed anything on this thread, Rob, except your own credibility.
Connie,
However, your credibility was already tarnished from the start…
I’m still very much conflicted on how it is that you know my every angle given that you are not in my head. Instead I am just going to chalk it up to your straw man argument. Without the belief that I am accusing Aaron of something, you have no argument. So go right ahead.
When exactly did I say that the South is “not” racist? Or to clarify, when did I say that Aaron was saying the South was not racist? Aside from a probing question to guess his angle, I didn’t. Of course, you’ll never accept that answer because it renders your entire argument moot.
Arguments do not have to be in the form of bickering Connie. Read “Race and Reunion”….it’s an argument essentially. Aside from that, the context of every situation matters and in this situation (Corey and Aaron posting quotes), it matters as well. Corey initially posted the quote in order to play “South Bashing.” That is the context.
Your “new” explanation is also poor. If a historian were to stumble across a paper and then proceed to discredit it, is he/she “insulting and spoiling for a fight?” No; he/she is offering critique. Is the context of the statement/angle important? Yes it is, but that does not discredit the logical premise that answering criticism with criticism is wrong. As I have stated before a critical response may even be true but it is still a fallacy. I’m sorry you can’t grasp that I truly am. HOWEVER…YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!! The situation described is childish and not a formal debate method which is why the hypothetical situation was created. It represents the logical fallacy of tu quoque. I am glad that you now understand that at least. Maybe now you won’t use it as much.
Corey, my credibility is not tarnished. It is your perception that is tarnished. And perhaps your own credibility. Remember making these statements to me?
~ “You have stated you do not read the history books…”
~ “You have stated over and over that history is of no concern to you…”
But when I challenged you to provide proof, i.e., links to said “statements” that *I* made, you couldn’t. Links to the second statement really ought to be easy to find, since you’re claiming I’ve stated it repeatedly. But you provided no links because you couldn’t. That’s because I never made these statements.
Until you provide said proof/links, your credibility is a the bottom of the outhouse, Corey.
=====
Rob, where do you imagine I’ve claimed to know your “every angle”? I have simply concluded that your question to Aaron was an accusation, based upon the fact that you entered the conversation casting doubt on his veracity based only on your perception — i.e., you admitted that you perceive his “willingness” to “whitewash” for the sake of Southern Heritage.
You didn’t say the South is not racist and I never claimed you did. (Go back through the whole thread if you wish; you won’t find it, ’cause I didn’t say it.) Your question to Aaron is an accusation that HE is making that claim (which he isn’t). How many times do I have to say it?
So now we’re going from two kids on a playground to a historian stumbling across a paper? So, the playground example doesn’t really apply, then, does it? So why’d you bring it up?
Rob, my use of logical fallacies exists primarily in your perception.
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/connie-chastain-ward-admits-history-heritage-are-not-synonymous/
Need I say more Connie?
I am imagining no angle at all which is why I express confusion in your assertion that you seem know my intent.
You can “say” it all you want Connie but it simply ‘ain’t’ true. Mainly because I didn’t . That pretty much makes your conclusion wrong. Sorry. Why is it wrong? Because cross examination of the material (which is me since I made the statement) proves otherwise.
Aaron’s intent was answered when he came in and explained himself. That is when I explained my question and answered his argument. You obviously did not read that part. So lets go over it together.
My response to you:
Sadly, for you, it is not illogical to point that out. He put forth the comment as a replacement for a suitable argument. My argument, largely based on the observation of Aaron Kid’s ardant defense of Southern Heritage on your websites and elsewhere, demonstrates to me a willingness to whitewash for the sake of Southern Heritage.
Notice thatI used to word “willingness.” As in he exhibits that willingness. This adds validity to my question as I am probing to find out exactly what he implies by his post. What was the name of that “How to,” book Connie? “Why Connie Can’t Read?”
The matter between his intent and my question is basically closed. You continue this laughable “defense” just to be argumentative. Which is really all you’ve got. It is demonstrated by the numerous errors in argument you make. As far as my “accusation” is concerned; it was a question. That is demonstrated by the question mark at the end of the sentence.
Thanks for proving another point of mine Connie. Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, you address its form. The use of the historian metaphor was used to dispel your argument. The historian demonstrates a real world situation. The playground was used to provide a simple explanation. They parallel. Since you don’t understand that, next time I’ll try flash cards. See how I addressed your point even though I pointed out that your criticism is flawed logic? So much for my perception. I’ll take your silence about the child like method of argument being a logical fallacy as an admittance of being wrong.
Here’s another book for you.
Logic For Dummies
What you’ve linked to does not contain any admission by me that I do not read history books or that history is of no concern to me. Try again.
Corey, I said history and heritage are not the same thing. They aren’t. Anybody with rudimentary reading skills can read the dictionary definitions of those terms and conclude they’re not the same thing.
However, I didn’t say they are in no way connected. YOU said that: “So are you saying that southern heritage is not synonymous with history. From what I have read on pages like Facebook’s Southern Heritage Preservation Group or Virginia War Between the States Sesquicentennial you are very correct…history and heritage are in no way connected or your’e not connecting them. ” I didn’t write that; YOU did. So don’t attribute to me YOUR “creative misinterpretation” of what you read on Southern heritage Facebook pages.
So here’s a new challenge for you…Let’s see if you can discuss this without lying. (You’re getting as prone to lie as Cousin Perfesser.)
In addition to linking to MY statements that I do not read the history books and that history is of no concern to me, prove where *I* have stated that history and heritage are in no way connected. Saying they aren’t the same thing doesn’t qualify. You have to show where *I* — not you — have said they are in no way connected. Hop to it.
Hey Corey, I wrote the last response from my phone. Lots of typos. Can you replace it with this one. Thanks.
I am imagining no angle at all which is why I express confusion in your assertion that you seem know my intent.
You can “say” it all you want Connie but it simply ‘ain’t’ true. Mainly because I didn’t . That pretty much makes your conclusion wrong. Sorry. Why is it wrong? Because cross examination of the material (which is me since I made the statement) proves otherwise.
Aaron’s intent was answered when he came in and explained himself. That is when I explained my question and answered his argument. You obviously did not read that part. So lets go over it together.
My response to you:
Sadly, for you, it is not illogical to point that out. He put forth the comment as a replacement for a suitable argument. My argument, largely based on the observation of Aaron Kid’s ardant defense of Southern Heritage on your websites and elsewhere, demonstrates to me a willingness to whitewash for the sake of Southern Heritage.
Notice that I used the word “willingness.” As in Aaron exhibits that willingness. The use of the word does not state empirically that he is ‘white washing’ in this case. Just that he has on occasion. This adds validity to my question as I am probing to find out exactly what he implies by his comment above. What was the name of that “How to,” book Connie? “Why Connie Can’t Read?” Look a bit closer next time.
The matter between his intent and my question, is basically closed. You continue this laughable “defense” just to be argumentative. Which is really all you’ve got. It is demonstrated by the numerous errors in argument you make. As far as my “accusation” is concerned; it was a question. That is demonstrated by the question mark at the end of the sentence.
Thanks for proving another point of mine Connie. Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, you address its form. The use of the historian metaphor was used to dispel your argument. The historian demonstrates a real world situation. The playground was used to provide a simple explanation. They parallel. Since you don’t understand that, next time I’ll try flash cards. See how I addressed your point even though I pointed out that your criticism is flawed logic? So much for my perception. I’ll take your silence about the child like method of argument being a logical fallacy as an admittance of being wrong.
Here’s another book for you.
Logic For Dummies
Corey,
First I think it is funny that she is making that assumption. Kevin linked up the name of the group with the term history. Whether or not he is making the assumption that history and heritage are synonymous is unknown. If I had to take an educated guess; I would say no.
Secondly, you are right about her compromising her own arguments and viewpoints. She states that heritage and history do not parallel. History is fact based. So if heritage is antonymous with history, then heritage is not based on fact. Am I correct?
Rob,
That is how I see it…you are correct.
I bet Connie’s explanation is different.