The Hundred Years' War on Palestine
A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017 by Rashid Khalidi
A landmark history of one hundred years of war waged against the Palestinians from the foremost US historian of the Middle East, told through pivotal events and family history.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] They both apply. I have absolutely read Khalidi. It’s a fine text but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about logical fallacies.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I don't want to converse about logical fallacies. I'm more interested in debating the correctness of Khalidi's title, which was the topic a few posts back, when you jumped in.
@Kirilov @argumento @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
Yes, and saying you expect a rigorous work from an historian with good academic credentials is not a logical fallacy.
If we followed your logic, we should discard all opinions coming from experts renowned in their particular field, because that would be an appeal to authority.
Basing one's assessment on solid work is not the same as citing a public figure with no expert knowledge on the issue.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] It is clear you don’t understand how logical fallacies work. I implore you to read about them.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Why don't you illuminate us with an explanation of how a fallacy of authority fits the statement "I know Rashid Khalidi has good academic credentials as an historian, I expect his work to be rigorous". I'd be delighted to read your explanation.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/index.html
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
You implore me, I comply. The link you provided say the same thing I just told you, the logical fallacy you mention consists in appealing to people with no expert knowledge on the issue, and therefore does not apply to this particular case, as I keep telling you, since Khalidi is a qualified expert.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Kirilov just blocked me, LMAO.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I don't want a link bro. Don't be a coward, defend your point with your own words. I dare you.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I don’t have time to waste with trolls. Educate yourself