Poll: Why do some southerners try to pretend TX is the South? (Dallas: to live in, educational)

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by solytaire

What kind of sense does this make?...Just like all states "have trees", ALL states have residents with poor dental hygiene..so why are YOU using THAT (dental hygiene) as a qualifier for southern states?...lol..are you kidding me?...Even if I didnt think Texas is Southern, and even if I didnt think you were a clown, the overarching problem is that you still seem to put forth the most feeble minded reasoning for your arguments, and you even contradict those....you are an absolutely horrible debater dude...lol

Well, you have to consider that his only reason for the original post in the first place was to stir up trouble.

[txguy2009]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

LMAO In denial?

Oh well, you are once again, shifting your position to suit (which is not surprising). Your original point was not that Catholics outnumber Baptists, but that "Texas as a whole is Catholic." And that Texas was a "Catholic state." It isn't, as Protestants easily outnumber Catholics.

As it is though, now that you bring it up? According to this data, Baptists alone -- with Southern Baptist the largest affiliation -- indeed do outnumber Catholics (this is in the 2008-2009 Texas Almanac):

http://www.texasalmanac.com/religion/religion_chart.pdf

As you well know, I never made that claim initially (only that Protestants outnumber Catholics) and such can easily be verfied. But -- at least going by this source (which is apparently reliable enough to be included in the official state almanac) --Baptists alone do in fact hold a slight plurality.

The Bible Belt issue is an aside, but where did you come by your seeming position that only Baptists count? It is largely based on where in the country is generally fundamentalist/evangelical protestant churches are most common. Baptists are a major part of it to be sure, but in the South so are Methodists, Pentacostals, Church of Christ, etc.

Also, Texas is part of the Bible Belt and no one denies it.

Reliable data on numbers of religious aderents are not done by phone either, but by membership and attendence lists. Although, however, it does appear that the map data you provided was based on a phone survey (not saying there is anything wrong with that if the methodology is reliable). On the other hand, the table I gave appeared in the latest Texas Almanac and was done by a research center (Glenmary Research Center Glenmary Research Center-Religious Maps/Demographics/Congregations/Census) whose purpose are a study of religion in the United States).

2000 =/= today. Interesting southern baptists are only 3.5 million I'd have though they were more, almost a million more catholics even by that poll.

Maps of the bible belt do not show it completely encompassing TX.

[txguy2009]

Originally Posted by solytaire

What kind of sense does this make?...Just like all states "have trees", ALL states have residents with poor dental hygiene..so why are YOU using THAT (dental hygiene) as a qualifier for southern states?...lol..are you kidding me?...Even if I didnt think Texas is Southern, and even if I didnt think you were a clown, the overarching problem is that you still seem to put forth the most feeble minded reasoning for your arguments, and you even contradict those....you are an absolutely horrible debater dude...lol

Somebody failed logic 101.

The point isn't that all states don't have residents with poor hygiene. The point is that only southern states have X% residents with poor hygeiene > Y%.

Also, you're confused. The tree example was me parodying (in the mathematical/logical sense) Reb's argument using faulty reasoning. He was making an argument of the form "X is a trait of all southern states, X is possessed by TX, therefore TX is southern." I was pointing out that the logic doesn't go like that, because as the tree example shows, you get absurd result. The logic properly goes "X is a necessary element of southern states (i.e. is lacked by no southern state), X is NOT possessed by TX, therefore TX is not southern."

A more compelling argument against my line of reasoning would be to point out that any elements within the set of southern states could be shown to lack a trait the others possessed. We are making implicit assumptions about what sort of traits are "important."

Can you grasp these distinctions?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

Somebody failed logic 101.

The point isn't that all states don't have residents with poor hygiene. The point is that only southern states have X% residents with poor hygeiene > Y%.

Also, you're confused. The tree example was me parodying (in the mathematical/logical sense) Reb's argument using faulty reasoning. He was making an argument of the form "X is a trait of all southern states, X is possessed by TX, therefore TX is southern." I was pointing out that the logic doesn't go like that, because as the tree example shows, you get absurd result. The logic properly goes "X is a necessary element of southern states (i.e. is lacked by no southern state), X is NOT possessed by TX, therefore TX is not southern."

A more compelling argument against my line of reasoning would be to point out that any elements within the set of southern states could be shown to lack a trait the others possessed. We are making implicit assumptions about what sort of traits are "important."

Can you grasp these distinctions?

The distinctions you try to make are illogical. You parodying? Don't flatter yourself. If anything, the parody being made was of your original points.

But lets let you dig your hole deeper. You claim (operative term) that my approach was to say X is a characteristic of all Southern states, Texas possesses X, therefore Texas is Southern. Right?

First of all, there is no valid distinction to be made between the above and your own rationale which goes X is a characteristic of all Southern states. Texas does not possess X, therefore Texas is not a Southern state.

For one thing, you fail to prove that any of the characteristics you list are "necessary characteristics" other than, not suprisingly, you just decided to say they are and expect it to be taken as objective truth? Loss of natural teeth is a "necessary characteristic" of a Southern state? Oh gawd...

The religious data as you presented it -- not how you tried to hedge later --has been refuted. And besides, even if it had not, then X factor you speak of as being true of all Southern states would fall apart because Louisiana is a Catholic state by your own measure.

The carefully worded voting thing you brought up was highly ambiguous, questionable at any rate, and if you were to make voting patterns a criterion then Texas is clearly a Southern state.

The comparative wealth factor? Well, Georgia (and Virginia) are "middle income" states too, so I guess the X as being a "neccessary element" of all Southern states falls short too.

In other words, you fail to make a case even by your own standard that X must be true of all Southern states! Not withstanding that you even never do say exactly why this handful of items you used are indeed "necessary elements" of Southerness.

But backing up just a bit, my whole point with the death penalty and corporal punishment was indeed to be absurd. To demonstrate the absurdity of your own logic. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say a formula which goes: "X is a necessary characteristic of Y. A does not contain X, therefore A is not Y" is valid...but call it illogical to say "X IS a necessary characteristic of Y, A contains Y, therefore A is Y.

The dental issue is a perfect example. Even if there was merit in the "necessary criteria" factor, you are essentially saying your case is made that Texas isn't Southern because it ranks higher in overall dental health care (or something like that) than many of the others? However, it is fallacious to use the same logic in reverse by showing the connection between Texas and other Southern states in an even broader health care scope? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway, I think both are silly unless there is general agreement on the relevancy of X anyway...and X is very well defined.

Let's see too. You said: The point isn't that all states don't have residents with poor hygiene. The point is that only southern states have X% residents with poor hygeiene > Y%.

Well, you conveniently do not define exactly what X actually equals in terms of percentages. And what is the rationale for the particular numerical figure? Regardless, between South Carolina and Mississippi, are Kansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Can we logically conclude they are Southern states too since they rank below South Carolina in terms of oral hygene? Makes just as much sense as the trees and New York tale brought up.

Oh well, gotta get back to work.

[txguy2009]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

The distinctions you try to make are illogical. You parodying? Don't flatter yourself. If anything, the parody being made was of your original points.

But lets let you dig your hole deeper. You claim (operative term) that my approach was to say X is a characteristic of all Southern states, Texas possesses X, therefore Texas is Southern. Right?

First of all, there is no valid distinction to be made between the above and your own rationale which goes X is a characteristic of all Southern states. Texas does not possess X, therefore Texas is not a Southern state.

For one thing, you fail to prove that any of the characteristics you list are "necessary characteristics" other than, not suprisingly, you just decided to say they are and expect it to be taken as objective truth? Loss of natural teeth is a "necessary characteristic" of a Southern state? Oh gawd...

The religious data as you presented it -- not how you tried to hedge later --has been refuted. And besides, even if it had not, then X factor you speak of as being true of all Southern states would fall apart because Louisiana is a Catholic state by your own measure.

The carefully worded voting thing you brought up was highly ambiguous, questionable at any rate, and if you were to make voting patterns a criterion then Texas is clearly a Southern state.

The comparative wealth factor? Well, Georgia (and Virginia) are "middle income" states too, so I guess the X as being a "neccessary element" of all Southern states falls short too.

In other words, you fail to make a case even by your own standard that all must be true of all Southern states! Not withstanding that you never do say exactly why this handful of items you used are indeed "necessary elements" of Southerners

But backing up just a bit, my whole point with the death penalty was indeed to be absurd. To demonstrate the absurdity of your own logic. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say a formula which goes: "X is a necessary characteristic of Y. A does not contain X, therefore A is not Y" is valid...but call it illogical to say "X IS a necessary characteristic of Y, A contains Y, therefore A is Y.

Personally, I think both are silly unless there is complete agreement on the relevancy of X anyway...

No, LA is not a Catholic state, look at the map, it's plurality Baptist.
And I'm not sure I'd classify VA as southern, anymore than I would FL or TX. It's more a mix of Southern/Northeast/rust belt in my view. NoVa has nothing to do with the South for sure, as anyone who's lived there can attest to.

I realize you were trying to show absurdity in my logic. But you didn't, because the form you used is different.

The distinction between "A is necessary to B, X lacks A, therefore X is not B" and your form of "A is necessary to B, X has A, therefore X is B" is logically VERY significant, because of the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions (which you seem to implicitly be confusing). Just because X is a necessary condition for Y , the fact that an object Z possesses X does not logically ENTAIL that object being Y. It does not show it is sufficient - and sufficient =/= necessary.

Now here is the crucial part: But if you use logical NEGATION to show something LACKS a necessary element, you have logically demonstrated that the object cannot logically be a member of the set. This is because, by definition of necessary, something which lacks a necessary element cannot be a member of that set.

Example: "Containing ice is a necessary element to being ice cream. Object X does not contain ice. Therefore it is not ice cream." Is logically valid.

"Containing ice is a necessary element to being ice cream. Object X has ice. Therefore it is ice cream." Is not valid logic. It is possible to contain the necessary element and not be a member of the class "ice cream." This is because while necessary it is not SUFFICIENT.
This is the form of logic your attempted parody of my reasoning used, and is therefore not a sound attack on my logic. My logic followed the above pattern.
You must have been implicitly confusing the concepts of "necessary" and "sufficient".

So the two logical analyses are quite distinct, and one is invalid while mine is valid. Whether I **applied** it correctly in the empirical sense (e.g., whether my argument is sound) is another story.

Do you see it yet?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

2000 =/= today. Interesting southern baptists are only 3.5 million I'd have though they were more, almost a million more catholics even by that poll.

Maps of the bible belt do not show it completely encompassing TX.

It is the latest data available and from the same year as your earlier maps. Main thing is though, it refuted your original point that Catholics are a majority.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

No, LA is not a Catholic state, look at the map, it's plurality Baptist.

So is Texas, apparently. And certainly majority protestant, which you originally claimed otherwise.

I realize you were trying to show absurdity in my logic. But you didn't, because the form you used is different.

The distinction between "A is necessary to B, X lacks A, therefore X is not B" and your form of "A is necessary to B, X has A, therefore X is B" is logically VERY significant, because of the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions (which you seem to implicitly be confusing). Just because X is a necessary condition for Y , the fact that an object Z possesses X does not logically ENTAIL that object being Y. It does not show it is sufficient.

Now here is the crucial part: But if you use logical NEGATION to show something LACKS a necessary element, you have logically demonstrated that the object cannot logically be a member of the set. This is because, by definition of necessary, something which lacks a necessary element cannot be a member of that set.

Example: "Containing ice is a necessary element to being ice cream. Object X does not contain ice. Therefore it is not ice cream." Is logically valid.

"Containing ice is a necessary element to being ice cream. Object X has ice. Therefore it is ice cream." Is not valid logic. It is possible to contain the necessary element and not be a member of the class "ice cream." This is because while necessary it is not SUFFICIENT.
This is the form of logic your attempted parody of my reasoning used, and is therefore not a sound attack on my logic. My logic followed the above pattern.
The only way your argument works is to implicitly assume the traits you use is sufficient for showing membership in the class, which nobody would seriously argue.

So the two logical analyses are quite distinct, and one is invalid while mine is valid. Whether I **applied** it correctly in the empirical sense (e.g., whether my argument is sound) is another story.

Do you see it yet?

I took all this X=Y =A stuff to a math teacher and he agreed with the distinctions, but at the same time supported my overall point as one is just as good as the other in proving a point in this realm...which is not an excercise in pure mathematical logic , but how it can be applied to socio-cultural geography and regionalism.

Which was my whole point. I was not trying to turn this into a mathematical equation. We can let others decide on that aspect of it (the logical and/or lack of in one as opposed to the other in a purely mathematical sense).

No, the main thing is that you don't make your case even by the logic you claim is valid. For instance, you never explain why X is a "necessary element" at all! Take your ice-cream example. Ice cream IS a necessary ingredient for ice cream. However, you have yet to state/explain why loss of teeth is necessary for being a Southern state. Or why a state must be poor? The difference is I never made a claim my examples were a necessary component of being a Southern state, therefore they cannot be used in the contrast you presented above.

Instead, my approach was to demonstrate that if one attempts to make a case by disassociating certain states in certain realms to prove one doesn't belong with the others, then it is just as logical and valid to link them to make the casethey do. There was no "necessary ingedient" aspect at all in mine. Which is why it holds up as a valid comparisson.

On the other hand, you base your claim one is logical and other other isn't on the assumption of the existence of an intrinsic component you call X. Then, you not only fail to show why it is indeed intrinsic, but attempt to debunk the other by applying the same standard which, in fact, was never a part of the latter approach. Which is another reason the ice-cream example doesn't apply.

Do you see it yet?

But anyway, no time to keep this up. Got other business to attend to, so further comment will probably have to just wait. In the meantime, once again, I am perfectly content with letting others be the judge of what is the better case (and the more consistent one), by reading the original thread and this one.

[txguy2009]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

It is the latest data available and from the same year as your earlier maps. Main thing is though, it refuted your original point that Catholics are a majority.

Link to me saying Catholics were a "majority?"

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

Link to me saying Catholics were a "majority?"

I never said you did, although yes, I can see how my earlier remark (And certainly majority protestant, which you originally claimed otherwise.) could be taken that way by implication.

What you did say was that "Texas is a Catholic state" and that "Texas as a whole is Catholic." Neither is true.

On a related tangent, you said:

No, LA is not a Catholic state, look at the map, it's plurality Baptist.

Not according to this source. Note these contrasts between Texas and Louisiana (click "select state" then submit to see other states)

http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/r...te/22_2000.asp

According to this source -- and assuming the figures are valid -- Catholics outnumber Evangelical Protestants in Louisiana, so obviously they would outnumber Baptists.

http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/r...te/48_2000.asp

On the other hand, Evangelical Protestants outnumber Catholics in Texas (and as mentioned earlier, Baptists alone do as well).

My only point with this is to show that Louisiana wouldn't fit the bill as being Southern either by your standards on religious adherents.

Anyway, it really is time to call it an evening...

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

Somebody failed logic 101.

The point isn't that all states don't have residents with poor hygiene. The point is that only southern states have X% residents with poor hygeiene > Y%.

Also, you're confused. The tree example was me parodying (in the mathematical/logical sense) Reb's argument using faulty reasoning. He was making an argument of the form "X is a trait of all southern states, X is possessed by TX, therefore TX is southern." I was pointing out that the logic doesn't go like that, because as the tree example shows, you get absurd result. The logic properly goes "X is a necessary element of southern states (i.e. is lacked by no southern state), X is NOT possessed by TX, therefore TX is not southern."

A more compelling argument against my line of reasoning would be to point out that any elements within the set of southern states could be shown to lack a trait the others possessed. We are making implicit assumptions about what sort of traits are "important."

Can you grasp these distinctions?

You got that right..your logic is remedial at best..lol..glad you can at least admit that.


I can grasp the distinctions but you arent clearly making them...Newsflash: The logic that you dont subscribe to ("X is a trait of all southern states, X is possessed by TX, therefore TX is southern.")

Is the same superficial "logic" YOU use in contending that TX is NOT a Southern state...Interchangeably: Poor Dental hygiene is a trait of all southern states - Texans dont have poor dental hygiene, ergo Texas is NOT southern..

Thats the SAME exact "logic" you used in your initial assertion.