Zone1 The Value of Links?

[jwoodie]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think with my own mind and don't need anybody else's.

What I have found is that the more a poster uses the word "we" to indicate their status as unquestioning prole, the more they link to endless opinion pieces.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility?

There is no we.

Of course, "They'' and ''Them'' understand fully well that the most dangerous mqn in the world is one who can think for himself.

So, then, ''They'' and ''Them'' make such an exercise ''illegal''

It's all about the pronouns and check boxes, bro. Or so they say...

 

[playtime]

i always have back up to what i say with unbiased credible verifiable links based on what universities will accept as sources in research papers.

& i so love it when i can shut someone up with true factual facts that are truthful.

 

[Rye Catcher]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

"journalists"? Real journalists don't come with quotes. They have ethics; those who post on the Internet are tabloids, and mostly malfeasant.***

***a person who engages in an act that is illegal, legally unjustified, or harmful, especially a public official or person in a position of public trust.

 

[Rye Catcher]

i always have back up to what i say with unbiased credible verifiable links based on what universities will accept as sources in research papers.

& i so love it when i can shut someone up with true factual facts that are truthful.

Yeah, they're - unbiased credible verifiable links - in the members here who are faux conservatives and (maybe) graduated from High School.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Yeah, they're - unbiased credible verifiable links - in the members here who are faux conservatives and (maybe) graduated from High School.

You are not the arbiter of truth xxxxxxxx. Edited for Zone 1. No Name Calling.

 

[toobfreak]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information.

I place little value in links unless they are both from historically reliable and unbiased news sources AND can be corroborated by OTHER historically accurate and fairly unbiased sources!

The forum here wants you to link to something somewhere basically just to show you're not making it up and it is based on something or someone else's opinions or reporting.

I personally put far higher weight in what I see or hear reported by people directly, if not directly in real life, usually on TV in an interview where they are intelligently questioned, but it can be embedded in video in a website, etc., so long as it isn't just statements in PRINT just saying or claiming this or that.

 

[toobfreak]

i always have back up to what i say with unbiased credible verifiable links

REALLY? I've never seen that once in over six years here! You're one of the least credible people here! Including the statement above!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

A Link Is Part of a Chain Used to Control the Public's Mind

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

One should be able to support the claims they make, it is that simple. If they claim something is a fact, then they should provide evidence to support that fact

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One should be able to support the claims they make, it is that simple. If they claim something is a fact, then they should provide evidence to support that fact

Like Daily Kos and Huffpo, you say?

 

[sparky]

yup, welp, good luck on this soul suckin' device then......~S~

 

[DudleySmith]

You want links go look them up yourself; it's not like search engines today can't provide you with thousands of them. If you think somebody's a liar why discuss anything with them at all? How about doing a search on a topic before posting in a thread on that topic? especially before sniveling for a 'link' and calling people liars before you know if they are or not.

The above applies to serious discussions, not anything posted by deviants, commies, PC Police from left and right wing shill sites, and of course any Democrat; it's just a given they're lying, no need to waste time with them, it's a 100% certainty.

 

[SweetSue92]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

We are mostly old. That's the problem.

Demanding links is an old practice of the old internet, when having three or four tabs opened would crash everything and Googling would slow your connection.

People here like Golfing Gator who demand links all the time are either ancient or purposely clogging up the works. Unless the information I'm presenting is quite obscure, links should not be required. A microsecond internet search should verify for anyone.

 

[DudleySmith]

In the past people cited books and news articles and magazines. But that was back in the dinouar age when people actually read detailed info and professionals actually were credible for the most part, except for the 'mental health' con artists, who were already lying and faking data, and of course political 'news', which never had credibility. Now even over a third of Ph.D. theses in science are known to use faked data.

We're essentially in a new 'dark age' where every institution is corrupted and dishonest. This is what losing culture wars to deviants and sociopaths creates.

 

[DudleySmith]

People here like @Golfing Gator who demand links all the time are either ancient or purposely clogging up the works.

Of course; then they either never read them and try and shift the topic, or they snivel about the source, or they ignore the info entirely.

Many threads die when somebody posts the facts. lol

 

[beautress]

One should be able to support the claims they make, it is that simple. If they claim something is a fact, then they should provide evidence to support that fact

Your words have a good ring to them. Sometimes, sources we trust make mistakes. In the case of the Steele Dossier, it started an irreversible source of error that only a handful of people knew about. Its effect on politics divided many debates that laid a groundwork for ending prosperity. It also validated David Horowitz's buried works of journalism like nothing else could have. The kicker is that Mr. Horowitz's books offended half the people who read them due to politics. Even so, he had the courage to continue on even if half the world hated him. To this day, I have no idea what he could have done differently, but he knew fully he would stand by his truth when some influential people were outraged. I'm not elaborating further, because I doubt that it would not be convenient for people to search for his books that were stopped being published more or less 20 years ago.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We are mostly old. That's the problem.

Demanding links is an old practice of the old internet, when having three or four tabs opened would crash everything and Googling would slow your connection.

People here like Golfing Gator who demand links all the time are either ancient or purposely clogging up the works. Unless the information I'm presenting is quite obscure, links should not be required. A microsecond internet search should verify for anyone.

Yep, it is only us old folks that expect people to be label to support their claims, people like you just want to be able to post anything and everything and never back up a damn fucking thing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your words have a good ring to them. Sometimes, sources we trust make mistakes.

This is also one of the reasons I often ask for links, I want to see the source. When people refuse it is often due to them being embarrassed by the source, thus what they posted can be dismissed.

In the case of the Steele Dossier, it started an irreversible source of error that only a handful of people knew about. Its effect on politics divided many debates that laid a groundwork for ending prosperity.

Politics was hugely divided long before the Steele Dossier, and as far as ending prosperity, sorry you are suffering, but we have never done better. It is best to not let politics determine your prosperity