Smith117
Posts: 1447
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
I have wrote a college level thesis, Smith. I had to write a rather lengthy thesis in order to get my degree, and I made an A on it. I used common knowledge all the time, and I had to write a lot. It's a waste of time to cite things that are common knowledge, and only inexperienced writers cite such information.
And I used to be a writer by profession. Just because *you* say something is common knowledge, doesn't mean that it is. It depends on the subject matter and the medium for which you are writing. If you're writing an English paper on Shakespeare, it's "common knowlede" that he wrote in a certain style, was born at a certain point in the world's history, etc. If you write about him in History class, you BETTER have sources citing his works or you're SOL. And in my former profession, none of that didn't mattered anyway. If you stated the sky was blue, you'd better have at least two sources to back it up or else you're stating an opinion and nothing more
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
Ah, an "ad hominem" argument, or attacking the source in layman's terms. You do realize that's a logical fallacy? The University of Hawaii is simply the first video I found when looking for sources. If you want to read up on the use of common knowledge in writing, the sources are there. All you have to do is google "common knowledge" and "citation." You'll come up with a plethora of sources for it.
.
What's worse, attacking a source with an "ad hominem" argument or attacking the ad hominem argument with another? 
Also, as for googling common knowledge, been there, done that. And as I indicated, it's very subjective.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
Of course you don't care. You don't want to be wrong.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you an your original "lack of high school education equals working outside in the heat" generalization.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
No, what you're doing is called "argumentum ad populum" otherwise known as a bandwagon argument. A lot of people think it's racist, therefore it's racist is the argument you're making. It's a logical fallacy, which is the second one you've made in this post.
Incorrect once again. I simply point to the flag's history as a basis for why it shouldn't be flown. Rappers use the N-word as part of their culture these days in their lyrics and common speech, but white people can't because it's racist, has racist beginnings and from a certain group of people, will ALWAYS be racist. The rebel flag, though perhaps part of one group's culture, is seen as a racist symbol by a large number of people. So to fly it, despite this, is like a white person running around using the N-word. They are saying to the black community "I know you think this is a racist slap in the face, so be it. I want to fly it anyway because I am not sensitive to your plight or what my ancestors did to yours so many years ago." Tell you what, try that with the N-word. Walk up any african american and say that to them. Let me know how it turns out.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
Your conversations with people don't make it a fact.
Neither do yours.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
1960-2008 is is not "centuries." CNN said that black men were dragged to their deaths in Jenna? I never read or heard that. A group of students hung a few nooses in a tree, but no one died. The death penalty is heavily attached to race. Here's another piece of common knowlege for you. The death penalty is disproportinately used against blacks more so than whites. So the death penalty has a lot of racial undertones attached to it.
Actually, I was referring to the times of slavery, not the 60's. You brought up the 60's first, not me. Therefore, my "centuries later" comment is perfectly accurate and valid.
As for your death penalty comment.....gosh. We just had one argument over generalizations and here you go making another. Oh well. So much for learning.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
No I am not talking about history books, which would be secondary sources. I am talking about primary sources like letters, documents, and personal accounts written by Texas residents and govenment officials during that time period. I have read many of those, I had to. I took a course on the history of the American Civil War. I'm basing my argument on the material avaliable which is pretty substantial. You're making an argument on what you think they may have been thinking.
Well, since you can't prove a negative in the historical sense.....I guess that doesn't matter. I am speaking about what *I* would have done back then in their situation. Cut off from the north, facing a blood bath if I didn't go along, so soon after a bloody fight with mexico....seems like a no-brainer to me.
Back on point, this whole fallacy-filled argument on your part is a wonderful little attempt at a smokescreen to the huge generalization that you made. Though I do see it for what it is. What I have said from the get-go, is that it's irrelevant where people 'retire to.' My statement was about people making fun of the Northern accents. Since you indicated that it was annoying when people made fun of your accent. Well, you said yourself they move down there....then since they're "yankees" to you people, you make fun of their accents. If you made fun of my accent, I would do the same right back to you.
|
RE: Tampa to erect a huge Confederate flag - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread