Is this book still making Yea Forums mad as fuck for no reason?

Probably not, but you’ll whip out your magnifying glass

i wasn't making an argument.

kys tripshit

Kiss yourself goodnight in the mirror

Attached: E0231F4C-A63C-4387-9A57-3DC414FA8DF1.jpg (319x310, 43K)

fine as far as pop history goes, but why read her when you can read Goldsworthy?

>implying I give a fuck about buffer solutions

if the boss wants to make mistakes I just let him

>defer to someone who actually knows about a chosen subject due to the field being their life's work

>ur just being fallacious!!!

Call out fallacies is one of the shittiest ways to argue. It's just parroting with zero substance where some asshole can smugly go, "gotcha" and feel intellectually superior despite offering nothing at all to the debate or conversation.

There's a very good long negative review on Amazon explaining why.

top bait

even better bait

Can you link it or something?

The problem is anglos/americans reading books on foreign topics written by their dumb academics. The historical literature about Rome has some excellent authors, but they're Italian and they certainly don't embrace the libcuck leftist cause to sell more copies.

>women
>even being able to read in the first place

Can we just acknowledge that literally everything women do besides fucking/sucking/mothering/cooking is insufferable. When they start pretending they're smart or can make art, it's annoying

>embrace the libcuck leftist cause to sell more copies
And how was it embraced in this book?

Women are equal and they deserve respect. Just kidding they should suck my dick.

>they should suck my dick
All at once?

I just looked, and any of the reviews that are negative (2 or 1 stars) and fairly long, are all each good reasons why it's a bad book.

Like this one.

Attached: uninformative.png (1080x1721, 442K)

After casually dismissing a couple hundred years of the history the book is supposed to cover, she devotes an entire chapter to the struggles of the Roman Proletarian. Then a chapter devoted to life in the provinces. Then she wraps up trying to justify ending the history where she (kind of did) because everything is the history of Roman citizenship.

The book generally lacks a solid structure, The book effectively ended with Augustus formally transforming the republic into Empire. The core of the book is the growth and the transformation of the republic from about the time of the "social war" to the establishment of the new system under Augustus. Everything else is mostly bloat or essays thrown in on one isolated point or another.

A better editor might have made a better book out of this. Someone needed to curb her excesses and to hold her to a more tight narrative structure. Her excesses on occasion took the form of talking about subjects she didn't know much about (military issues in Rome). being absurdity dismissive of authors/works (an example being her attack on the works of Marcus Aurelius) or the occasional floating of theories like her economic theory of a "credit crunch" in ancient Rome.

amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AE4WQXFN2YYSWBO2GHLM3DWM6ZXA/ref=cm_cr_getr_mb_gw_btm?ie=UTF8

my gf likes it, avoid?

Attached: 1399758710961s.jpg (250x241, 10K)

It's clearly a libcuck leftist book.

lmao libturds btfo epic style lol

Scullard is GOAT though, even if dry

based and redpilled

Gonna start using this one.

>expert historian and Oxford professor Mr Readsbooks gives solid data to support thesis
>pfft, nice appealing to authority, FAG!

Being a Professor at Cambridge means shit. Pic related.

goddammit

Attached: bateman.jpg (636x382, 26K)

What is that?

Victoria Bateman, professor of economics at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge. Her latest book is about how it was women that made the west rich and successful (take that, Jared Diamond!).

Thanks

The appeal to authority fallacy is also, itself, an appeal to authority.

Give foot, tranny

reason is not an authority, it just exists and you can use it or not

"Reason" didn't come up with the "appeal to authority fallacy." Some authority on reason did. Borrowing his standards for debate is appealing to his authority

>I assume evidence that would challenge my beliefs doesn't exist
>and if it does you were looking too hard to find it

Ah yes, this loser. She obviously disguises a fetish for public nudity as some sort of noble cause

I once ordered a copy of Crime and punishment and a copy of War and peace online. I got the package and I took out Crime and punishment and the other book in the package was clearly much bigger. Makes sense: War and peace is over two and a half times as long as Crime and punishment. I took out the book and in my hand was SPQR a history of ancient rome by Mary beards. Moreover, I wasn't allowed to return it, because the servers thought I had received the book over a month ago, even though it was just 15 minutes. So I called customer support and I got a free copy of War and peace sent to me anyway and didn't have to return SPQR. I read half the book and thought it was quite good, but I lost interest halfway through, like I do with all non-fiction.

He’s a jackass Tory Anglican, with all the same dumb Christian opinions of each Roman leaders. Dull mind of tradition