I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).
[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]
And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.
[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]
Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.
And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.
[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]
The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.
[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]
I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.
[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]
Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.
THAT’S how to debate.
(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).
