Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,134
- 160,299
So you being born there makes you a valid authority the subject. But being a Ph.D and researching and writing a 300+ page book on the matter doesnt?
Because effectively thats what you are saying.
This guy was born in Kentucky. How valid of an authority is he?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Yes
Anyone can write a book about anything and say whatever they want bro. Show me the peer reviewed research that demonstrates Kentucky fought for the South during the Civil War.
Strawman.
I effectively said that cultural arguments are nonsense because they are subjective and ever mutable, by your own logic I can classify Illinois as a Southern State. Just classifying it as such doesn't make it so. Classifications are wrong all the time, when better evidence prevails. The only non subjective argument is the one based on known and accepted historical fact of what states sided with what armies during the Civil War.
More valid of an authority than you or Lithose, since neither of you were born here.
This guy was born in Kentucky. How valid of an authority is he?
But again: Genetic fallacy. Also just plain old stereotyping.
Bad arguments are bad.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I'm arguing that by living here my entire life I have more experience with the history and culture of this state that people who haven't lived here do.
Let's apply your logic outwards again. By your logic, I will classify Illinois as a Southern state. You even admitted "everything below I 80 is Kentucky". Now, you can't refute this claim. Its literally impossible. Because even though I've only been to Illinois twice in my life (Once to Chicago during 7th grade on a field trip that was completely fucking awesome, later around 18 to go to a Rainbow gathering in extreme southern Illinois) I am a better authority on what your state's history and culture is than you are, simply because I said so.
Let's apply your logic outwards again. By your logic, I will classify Illinois as a Southern state. You even admitted "everything below I 80 is Kentucky". Now, you can't refute this claim. Its literally impossible. Because even though I've only been to Illinois twice in my life (Once to Chicago during 7th grade on a field trip that was completely fucking awesome, later around 18 to go to a Rainbow gathering in extreme southern Illinois) I am a better authority on what your state's history and culture is than you are, simply because I said so.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,134
- 160,299
now you're changing goal posts. originally you said that being born there makes you an authority. now you're changing it to "lived all my life there"
and living somewhere all your life still doesnt make you an expert.
this is a sad, sad, showing for the mighty hodj.
when it comes to illinois I'll take a researched and published book's evidence by a professor from university of nairobi over my own opinion any day.
why even ever bother reading history books or anthropology books? no one even kept any consistent written records until the Common Era. No one could possibly be an authority on anything before the birth of Christ.
and living somewhere all your life still doesnt make you an expert.
this is a sad, sad, showing for the mighty hodj.
when it comes to illinois I'll take a researched and published book's evidence by a professor from university of nairobi over my own opinion any day.
why even ever bother reading history books or anthropology books? no one even kept any consistent written records until the Common Era. No one could possibly be an authority on anything before the birth of Christ.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Actually, I really think its more Araysar's definition of a southern state as this entirely mutable and ever changing entity that can't really be pinned down but is quantified simply as "Its cultural!" that is eerily similar to Mikhail and Dumar's arguments.
My definition is and has not changed, at all, this entire time: You're a southern state if you left the Union and joined the South in the Civil War.
We have Occam's Razor versus basically MUH FEELINGS SAY ITS SOUTHERN BECAUSE CULTURE
My definition is and has not changed, at all, this entire time: You're a southern state if you left the Union and joined the South in the Civil War.
We have Occam's Razor versus basically MUH FEELINGS SAY ITS SOUTHERN BECAUSE CULTURE
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,134
- 160,299
Historian E. Merton Coulter famously said that Kentucky "waited until after the war was over to secede from the Union." In this fresh study, Anne E. Marshall traces the development of a Confederate identity in Kentucky between 1865 and 1925 that belied the fact that Kentucky never left the Union and that more Kentuckians fought for the North than for the South. Following the Civil War, the people of Kentucky appeared to forget their Union loyalties, embracing the Democratic politics, racial violence, and Jim Crow laws associated with formerly Confederate states. Although, on the surface, white Confederate memory appeared to dominate the historical landscape of postwar Kentucky, Marshall's closer look reveals an active political and cultural dialogue that included white Unionists, Confederate Kentuckians, and the state's African Americans, who, from the last days of the war, drew on Union victory and their part in winning it to lay claim to the fruits of freedom and citizenship.
Rather than focusing exclusively on postwar political and economic factors, Creating a Confederate Kentucky looks over the longer term at Kentuckians' activities--public memorial ceremonies, dedications of monuments, and veterans organizations' events--by which they commemorated the Civil War and fixed the state's remembrance of it for sixty years following the conflict.
Rather than focusing exclusively on postwar political and economic factors, Creating a Confederate Kentucky looks over the longer term at Kentuckians' activities--public memorial ceremonies, dedications of monuments, and veterans organizations' events--by which they commemorated the Civil War and fixed the state's remembrance of it for sixty years following the conflict.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Nope, I originally said
Which is simple euphemism for having spent a significant portion of your life in one place. You don't have to be explicitly born in a particular place, but it should be the place you've spent the majority of your life and that you have experienced most of your formative years in in order to claim authority on the subject of what life is like in that place and time.
It makes you more of authority, not an expert, an authority, on the subject than someone who didn't.
I mean you can say it, but the fact that you're running to rhetoric over reason shows the truth that you are the one on the run here. I'm staying put, and my feet haven't moved one single inch on this debate: Kentucky is not a Southern State because it did not fight in the Civil War. Cultural arguments are meaningless drivel.
That just makes you gullible.
Mostly for perspective of the author.
Actually quite a lot of consistent records were kept, even in cultures without written culture. Maybe they weren't accurate, but they were consistent, and demonstrated a narrative and world view of the cultures maintaining those records.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Shows us where Kentucky seceded. This is rhetorical nonsense based on false history. Kentucky never seceded. You can't secede from the Union after the war is over. This cultural argument is effectively racist.
Notice all the subjective appeals in this? Like "the people of Kentuckyappearedto forget their Union loyalties. Appeared that way to whom? To the author of this book. Who cares what she thinks? Historians aren't scientists. They are opinion writers. She's writing opinions about things that happened long before she was born. She is inherently incorporating her own biases into this narrative. Its a perfectly valid narrative from her point of view. But that doesn't make her opinion right, and it isn't some magic IWIN button where you just get to cite this one author's subjective opinion over and over and then ignore actual historical fact.
The best part is that the final line of this reading demonstrates that the state's African Americans were able to continue to draw on Union influence to beat back whatever rising tide of latent evil white racism they think existed after the Civil War.
Basically, Araysar, some white people being frustrated that they lost the war doesn't make the State southern any more than tangential ties to southern culture do. All this is subjective cherry picked history and is meaningless to this debate.
- Status