|
United States42673 Posts
"Most scholars" is your argument? Really?
I fucking quote Tacitus at you and you respond with "this guy implied a consensus in an academic journal (about a completely different subject) about a specific point that is self evident and not really relevant and therefore you're wrong".
This is my field of specialty and you referenced a journal on undergraduate research by Ryan Stevens (not a graduate, not an Ancient History student) in which he does a generic bullshit opener "most scholars agree".
Did you even look up the journal in question? There's a reason I've not read it. It's the same reason nobody else knowledgable on Ancient History has read it. It's not an Ancient History journal, it's not even a proper journal, it's an online journal for just a single university edited by the students taking submissions from undergraduate students of that one university so they can pretend to be real academics.
You are making an argument from authority and didn't even look up to see whether your source was an actual authority. It's not. It's not a printed journal. It's certainly not an academic journal. It doesn't even claim to be a history journal. I doubt the parents of those involved even read it. I don't know how else to explain this to you. Ryan Stevens isn't anyone and nobody anywhere reads what he says except you who found it by google searching for your preconceived conclusion.
Next you'll be claiming that youtube videos are peer reviewed documentaries. You'll still be closer than to the truth than "you're wrong because Ryan (not an ancient history authority) Stevens (or in fact any kind of authority) said so". Wow, just wow.
|
Most scholars agree that early slavery in the Roman Republic lacked the intensity that existed later in the Empire. When compared with other forms of the institution, like the sugar slavery in the Caribbean hundreds of years later, punishments were light.
I read what you posted. I'm not sure if it makes a difference but you're quoting from the "Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Research". Does that have the same level of peer-review that a more professional journal might? The article was written by a history major, and I'm sure there probably is some fact checking, but I'm not sure its so clear that this journal is so important that it would be impossible for them to miss the sourcing on something.
Also, and more importantly, I'm not sure if this quote logically implies what you're saying it does. If you read it carefully, its just saying that "most scholars agree that early slavery in the Roman republic lacked the intensity that existed later in the empire". Its not saying that scholars agree with anything else besides that statement in particular.
It sounds like you're reading into the quote as comparing the entirety of slavery throughout the history of Rome to what slaves experienced in plantations in the Caribbean, and saying the latter was worse than the former, to which scholars all agree. But again, I don't think that's the case upon careful reading.
It seems to me he is just comparing early slavery in the Roman Republic to slavery in the Caribbean a few centuries later. I don't think he's saying anything about how late slavery in Rome was compared to the Caribbean, or slavery as a whole. So it very well could have been true that slavery was much worse in Rome than it was in the Caribbean (in general).
I mean the whole point of the paper, from what I read, was that as a society transitions from one with slaves to that of a slave society (i.e. many more cheap slaves, basically), their treatment becomes dramatically worse. I would have to agree with Kwark, there isn't really any definitive answer in the journal you're talking about in terms of which societies treated slaves worse, except maybe if you want to talk about specific time periods, and even then I think you would need better sourcing  . After all, if it was so obvious you should be able to find plenty of information about it in many other peer-reviewed journals!
Edit: Okay done editing. Minor points added
|
United States42673 Posts
To sum up, you googled the conclusion to your argument and found a student newsletter containing the scrawlings of a student of a different field and accidentally based your argument upon it.
I was charitable enough to talk you through why this student of a different field was incorrect in his assumptions and included primary sources which I, as a student of the field involved, have read.
You, rather than address the primary sources, instead presented your student newsletter as a peer reviewed journal on the subject and your student (of a different subject) author as an expert in order to present me as arguing against overwhelming academic consensus and thus in need of some new and revolutionary evidence. You then discarded the actual evidence I brought up without addressing it because in your head this had already been assessed by the academic consensus that Ryan Stevens told you about.
This was a mistake.
|
You smacked him like a Roman slave owner would've smacked his slave, presumably.
|
On January 27 2013 06:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:
I counter that by saying that most scholars do not agree with that. See the problem here is that he said that in a peer reviewed article that was published. Thus, a group of professors who are experts in the field looked at his claims and fact checked them. It is a serious article. University's don't publish crap, if they do they lose legitimacy. The peer reviewed journal industry is serious business, you publish something false knowingly, and you'll be hit with academic dishonestly and be expelled if you are a student or fired if you're a professor. And that is why most University's only allow you to quote peer reviewed articles when writing papers.
And the fact he didn't even have to provide a source for the claim that most scholars agrees shows even more than it is common knowledge. You don't need to quote a source if you say Magna Carta was signed in 1215, that is common knowledge. The same thing is happening here. However, your statement was not peer reviewed by a group of professors who are experts in the field and it was not published in a university journal. You need to provide some real evidence, preferably from peer reviewed journals. Do you see the problem here? Do you want more sources saying it is common knowledge? How many sources? In fact, I will ask Paul Burke PHD, he is a very good Roman historian and I studied under him years ago. Perhaps his answer will sway you (and if I remember correctly, he believe that chattel slavery in America was far harsher than Roman slavery)? There is nothing left for me to argue or learn from here...
My nose is bleeding just reading your debate! Rare good kind of discussion her TL.
|
United States42673 Posts
This isn't a debate. This basically goes
Here's a source that supports what I think
That's just a random internet search result and in no way a specialised article on the subject. Here is a refutation explaining why he's wrong and, while we're at it, a primary source that details exactly why you're wrong
The incident in your primary source is totally comparable to this other thing that happened, also pay attention to this article which I also got from a random internet source
It is not comparable and I would be very surprised if anything in American history was comparable to a debate among the political elite about whether to murder 400 innocents in the face of public outcry and rioting that concluded that they should and used the army to impose it.
But Ryan Stevens said I was right. That makes you wrong.
What Ryan Stevens is saying is taken out of context (in which it is self evident) in your argument and some of his claims are unprovable.
The Broaden Journal wouldn't just print any old thing without checking it!!!!
The Broaden Journal doesn't print anything, it's not a real journal, it's an e-journal with no speciality or readership produced by students to put on their resumes
But Ryan Stevens was published in it, why would he be published in it if it wasn't a real journal
Ryan Stevens isn't an authority on any subject, certainly not ancient history, which, by the way, is not the subject of this not a journal
Then why does my argument rest on Ryan Stevens being an unquestionable authority
Nobody knows
|
United States5217 Posts
Tacitus didn't know of American slavery, and thus cannot compare the two. John Warry has also talked a lot about the difficulty in believing ancient sources, because the idea of objectivity and accurately reporting things as factually as possible wasn't quite as important as telling the story from their point of view.
And you're darn right that I Google Search his articled. And it was because I knew it to be true. Just like I would Google Search that Magna Carta was signed in 1215 and send the source to you if you doubted it. Perhaps it is just common knowledge in America that American slavery was far harsher than Roman slavery. But you can think what you want. If you don't think that racism adds another layer of harshness to slavery, that is fine. To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
Here is some more for you:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/umem33&div=19&id=&page=
And he is a distinguished law professor.
But thanks for the discussion.
|
United States42673 Posts
No, but Tacitus didn't try to describe American slavery. He just described that which he was familiar with, the history of Rome, on which he is an excellent source. Where your guy went wrong is that he attempted to describe the same, on which he is a less good source, in fact, not any kind of source.
On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
I am up against an intellectual heavyweight here.
Well, if it sounds like it could be true to you then I guess you certainly am.
You've still skipped the part where most scholars agree but I wouldn't am you to am your point.
In case you ever want to talk at a grown up table. You can't argue about something and use your personal belief that you are absolutely right as evidence. Otherwise it goes like this.
"I think this is definitely the case, damn your primary sources"
"Do you have any evidence for this?"
"You mean aside from my absolute belief that it is the case?"
"Yes"
"Well no, but I'd have to be some kind of idiot to argue with this kind of passion about a subject I have no knowledge about without any evidence for my conclusions."
"Exactly"
"And I'm not an idiot and therefore I must be right"
"...."
|
United States5217 Posts
Opps I just posted a link with J-stor account opened... hope no one clicked it...
Anyway, now your just trying to embarrass me. You argued that the Civil War was a war over physical resources, argued that wars don't escalate from ideological ideas.. ect..
You gave up arguing each point in turn as I proved them wrong, but then you find a problem with a source of mine, and you claim victory and try to embarrass me? The problem here is, we haven't settled the discussion. I'm still producing sources and you still have dealt with the fact it is common knowledge that American slavery was crueler than Roman slavery.
I am seeing is a big GG from you and a lot of BM...
|
United States42673 Posts
Your source wasn't a source. You didn't even read where it was from which led to you mistakenly lying about it in this topic. You made an argument from authority in which you told me that I must be entirely wrong and you entirely right because Ryan Stevens said something which you misconstrued into agreeing with you. You built your entire argument for several posts upon the fairly shaky shoulders of Ryan Stevens without even seeing if he was anyone. You're a moron.
See this post
+ Show Spoiler +See the problem here is that he said that in a peer reviewed article that was published. Thus, a group of professors who are experts in the field looked at his claims and fact checked them. It is a serious article. University's don't publish crap, if they do they lose legitimacy. The peer reviewed journal industry is serious business, you publish something false knowingly, and you'll be hit with academic dishonestly and be expelled if you are a student or fired if you're a professor. And that is why most University's only allow you to quote peer reviewed articles when writing papers.
And the fact he didn't even have to provide a source for the claim that most scholars agrees shows even more than it is common knowledge. You don't need to quote a source if you say Magna Carta was signed in 1215, that is common knowledge. The same thing is happening here.
However, your statement was not peer reviewed by a group of professors who are experts in the field and it was not published in a university journal. You need to provide some real evidence, preferably from peer reviewed journals.
Nothing but condescending outright lies from someone who didn't even have the intellectual rigor to check whether the random article he googled (because God forbid you actually own the books on these things like I do) actually was that which you claimed it was. Go back to youtube comments.
|
United States5217 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:
Your source wasn't a source. You didn't even read where it was from which led to you mistakenly lying about it in this topic. You made an argument from authority in which you told me that I must be entirely wrong and you entirely right because Ryan Stevens said something which you misconstrued into agreeing with you. You built your entire argument for several posts upon the fairly shaky shoulders of Ryan Stevens without even seeing if he was anyone. You're a moron.
And what was your argument built upon?
It was built upon nothing. You know what, forget Ryan Stevens, let's say you're right about him, it doesn't matter. Let me produce more sources (I'm trying to figure out a way to post sources from J-stor without people being able to access my account). Check the last source.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true.
|
United States42673 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true.
They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God.
|
United States5217 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God.
Fact is that line is peer reviewed and is stronger than anything you've brought up. But I gave it it up, please move on this source:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/umem33&div=19&id=&page=
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God.
Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor.
|
United States5217 Posts
On January 27 2013 07:59 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God. Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor.
That article is based on student. The book is from a law professor. No claiming, it is.
On January 27 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:
Nothing but condescending outright lies from someone who didn't even have the intellectual rigor to check whether the random article he googled (because God forbid you actually own the books on these things like I do) actually was that which you claimed it was. Go back to youtube comments.
You guys are getting really angry, why so much rage? There doesn't need to be so much rage.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 27 2013 08:00 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:59 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God. Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor. That article is based on student. The book is from a law professor. No claiming, it is.
Yes but he is a law professor not a history professor. It's like saying climate change isn't happening because one geology professor says so.
|
United States5217 Posts
On January 27 2013 08:03 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 07:59 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God. Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor. That article is based on student. The book is from a law professor. No claiming, it is. Yes but he is a law professor not a history professor. It's like saying climate change isn't happening because one geology professor says so.
My objective here is to give you enough sources so that you accept that American slavery was harsher than Roman slavery, and that it is common knowledge, which I know. The sources can come from anywhere as long as they are reliable.
Perhaps the best evidence for what I am arguing is to compare Roman slave law to America slave law. And who better to consult that a law professor? Read the article from the book.
|
United States42673 Posts
I take it you're referring to this line
"The Atlantic slave system was not slavery as usual (note, term not clarified). More than that, the United States government gave crucial life to the system"
At this point I'm forced to hazard a guess at what your point might be because you've skipped the part where you form an argument.
If it's that it was not usual, usual is a meaningless term unless defined. It was indeed unique, the migration involved was transcontinental for example and it was remarkably recent.
If it's that there was state involvement, there it gets more tricky. The degree to which there was state involvement is actually considerably less than that of Rome in which the main source of slaves was through the military activities of the state and the management of slave revolts and such was the job of the state. You'll get nothing similar to the events of 61 AD in American history, nor the vast slave armies owned by the Roman state for the maintenance of public infrastructure such as the water supply.
We must of course remember that the author, as a product of intense American apologism, is subject to his own bias and preconceived notions which can often be seen by random idiots on the internet googling beliefs which they themselves admit to be both baseless and absolute.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 27 2013 08:05 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:03 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 08:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 07:59 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God. Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor. That article is based on student. The book is from a law professor. No claiming, it is. Yes but he is a law professor not a history professor. It's like saying climate change isn't happening because one geology professor says so. My objective here is to give you enough sources so that you accept that American slavery was harsher than Roman slavery, and that it is common knowledge, which I know. The sources can come from anywhere as long as they are reliable. Perhaps the best evidence for what I am arguing is to compare Roman slave law to America slave law. Read the article, he shows the clear distinctions of why it is more harsh.
Except sources can't just come from anywhere. If you source something from a student or from a professor in a different field it doesn't add much credibility to your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
