3 ms·

One possible reason is that Ferguson's words lent credibility to a social movement the author considers destructive. Even if the remarks were absurd in the cont

by rtl49 11y ago

One possible reason is that Ferguson's words lent credibility to a social movement the author considers destructive. Even if the remarks were absurd in the context of the available evidence, few people will read further than to see they were written by a Harvard professor.

xiaoma 11y ago
Does lashing out against something one feels is destructive without a reasoned argument accomplish anything positive? I have my doubts that it does. It might even lend weight to the very arguments he's attacking since he's made such a weak argument. I'm not debating his position, which I respect, but his argument. If an argument is nothing more than talking about how angry one is and then attacking those who hold the opposing position, it's noise at best and a rallying cry to a mob at worst.
- nindalf 11y ago
  The argument in the facebook post appears reasoned. He points out that * Ferguson knows very little about the 5th Century, by his own admission * Ferguson cites Edward Gibbon, who is a poor source by modern standards. Gibbon himself felt that he his conclusions were invalid. * Ferguson grossly oversimplifies his other source, because that source tries to say the exact opposite of what Ferguson concludes. I feel like you skimmed the post, found some PC-like arguments, and concluded that its weak.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    >I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th century history, his claims of Ferguson's ignorance and claims and over-simplification of the same and his outright personal attack at the end and I was not impressed with either his critique or his methods. Rather than attacking the person (or even his sources), why not address the actual fallacies in his historical analogies? What is good for a political talk show blowhard seeking ratings is not the same as what is good for a constructive discussion.

by rtl49 11y ago

xiaoma 11y ago

Does lashing out against something one feels is destructive without a reasoned argument accomplish anything positive? I have my doubts that it does. It might even lend weight to the very arguments he's attacking since he's made such a weak argument. I'm not debating his position, which I respect, but his argument. If an argument is nothing more than talking about how angry one is and then attacking those who hold the opposing position, it's noise at best and a rallying cry to a mob at worst.

nindalf 11y ago
The argument in the facebook post appears reasoned. He points out that * Ferguson knows very little about the 5th Century, by his own admission * Ferguson cites Edward Gibbon, who is a poor source by modern standards. Gibbon himself felt that he his conclusions were invalid. * Ferguson grossly oversimplifies his other source, because that source tries to say the exact opposite of what Ferguson concludes. I feel like you skimmed the post, found some PC-like arguments, and concluded that its weak.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  >I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th century history, his claims of Ferguson's ignorance and claims and over-simplification of the same and his outright personal attack at the end and I was not impressed with either his critique or his methods. Rather than attacking the person (or even his sources), why not address the actual fallacies in his historical analogies? What is good for a political talk show blowhard seeking ratings is not the same as what is good for a constructive discussion.