Originally Posted by vanzandtfan:
“Of course it was politically motivated. However I think its somewhat different for a layman to post a politically motivated statement, than it is for an expert who some people will take as fact simply because of their status”
Well firstly I disagree that Beard was in any way politically motivated in what she said, I saw nothing political in her tweets, she's simply sticking up for her subject. And whilst Arron Banks id a layman, this isn't just any guy who spouted something on twitter, he's an important UKIP donor who was using the example of the Roman Empire to have a pop at immigration as it stands today. And many people will take what he says as fact simply by virtue of who he is. He also stated it as bald fact and many people might not realise that he was a layman given the way he made his assertions.
Originally Posted by vanzandtfan:
“First, why do you think his opinion was baseless. Do you think the barbarian migrations didn't play a role in the fall of the western empire? That's pretty far fetched IMO. The last book I read on the subject put it as one of the primary causes.
Second, you miss the point I was making. Beard has every right to disagree with banks, it's the way she went about it which I object to. She made no effort to debate the facts, no counter arguments, no "you should try reading the latest research by x who demonstrated that x was the cause of the fall of the western empire". Nope none of that. Just I'm right and your wrong. That's not rational debate, it's just appeal to authority, a blatant logical fallacy.”
It was baseless because he had no sound reasoning for it. His argument was based on something he might have remembered from a teacher over 30 years ago who may have gone to Cambridge and studied classics. And the barbarian migrations were not immigration in the sense that we understand it either. He also claimed that it was the only cause of the collapse which of course isn't even remotely true.
And why should Beard engage with him? Banks wasn't trying to start a debate, he was stating bald and incorrect facts. If he wanted to debate or start a discussion that's what he would have done but he first of all tried to defend himself and then backed down when faced with someone with much more expertise. That's not someone who either wants or who you can engage with properly so why should Beard waste her time other than to say that he's wrong? And twitter isn't exactly the best place for any of that anyway.
Originally Posted by vanzandtfan:
“Of course it's complicated, and I'm more than happy for beard to disagree,its the way she went about it that I think was wrong.
Anyway, I've spent enough of my time defending someone I think is a bit of a part, against someone I respect, so I'll bow out now.”
Fair enough although I think she did the right thing.