3 ms·

The article does not push a reason why there were differences, and the analysis is not about why, so to critique it because you have your own opinions of why is

The article does not push a reason why there were differences, and the analysis is not about why, so to critique it because you have your own opinions of why is just a really terrible analysis.

Mz 11y ago
Excerpt: Confederates, on the other hand, kept things looser, perhaps in deference to a literal reading of Leviticus 19:27? Rebels also had more smooth-shaven faces, which might be explained by several factors. Facial hair became popular in the mid-1850’s, and it’s possible that the traditional South was more resistant to this trend. In addition, Abraham Lincoln was the first US President to have a beard (having, at times, a chin curtain and a goatee), and maybe clean-shavenness was a subtle protest by Confederate commanding officers. It proposes several political/social/cultural reasons and says nothing about the difference in weather between north and south.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  From the conclusion: It’s difficult to say exactly why 9 in 10 officers went with facial hair. Perhaps it was an opportunity to distinguish one’s self in an otherwise uniform environment. Perhaps it was an attempt at normalcy during the bloodiest turmoil in American history. Or perhaps there was a running bet among officers on who could grow the craziest facial hair (our vote: Judson Kilpatrick). __Whatever the reasons__, the diversity and abundance of facial hair will remain one of the more prominent postscripts of this War between the States. The article is about the process they went through to make up a fun comparison of civil war generals and their battles. Drawing a conclusion they do not make and then finding fault in that conclusion is not a fault of the article, but of your own reading.
  - Mz 11y ago
    ...is not a fault of the article, but of your own reading. That strikes me as uncomfortably close to an ad hominem.
    - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
      But no cigar.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

The article does not push a reason why there were differences, and the analysis is not about why, so to critique it because you have your own opinions of why is just a really terrible analysis.

Mz 11y ago

Excerpt: Confederates, on the other hand, kept things looser, perhaps in deference to a literal reading of Leviticus 19:27? Rebels also had more smooth-shaven faces, which might be explained by several factors. Facial hair became popular in the mid-1850’s, and it’s possible that the traditional South was more resistant to this trend. In addition, Abraham Lincoln was the first US President to have a beard (having, at times, a chin curtain and a goatee), and maybe clean-shavenness was a subtle protest by Confederate commanding officers. It proposes several political/social/cultural reasons and says nothing about the difference in weather between north and south.

mmanfrin 11y ago
From the conclusion: It’s difficult to say exactly why 9 in 10 officers went with facial hair. Perhaps it was an opportunity to distinguish one’s self in an otherwise uniform environment. Perhaps it was an attempt at normalcy during the bloodiest turmoil in American history. Or perhaps there was a running bet among officers on who could grow the craziest facial hair (our vote: Judson Kilpatrick). __Whatever the reasons__, the diversity and abundance of facial hair will remain one of the more prominent postscripts of this War between the States. The article is about the process they went through to make up a fun comparison of civil war generals and their battles. Drawing a conclusion they do not make and then finding fault in that conclusion is not a fault of the article, but of your own reading.
- Mz 11y ago
  ...is not a fault of the article, but of your own reading. That strikes me as uncomfortably close to an ad hominem.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    But no cigar.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]