Zone1 The Value of Links?

[Dogmaphobe]

Yeah, they have a strong bias toward evidence and truth. There are a few exceptions. Alan Dershowitz is a loon.

Were you intending this for the satire section and just slipped up.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

not at all. opinions & theories are supposta be questioned. i never said otherwise. what i SAID - was FACTS are FACTS. there are no 'alternative' facts.

opinions are not facts. theories are acceptable if there are no facts to prove otherwise.




never said that either. that is why i used the word ' exact '.

no matter how you slice it , dice it, & sprinkle it with fairy dust ...

1 + 2 will always equal 3 & that is a fact, jack.




yep.




lol ... sure.

i don't think he was, based on all the factual scientific data that is out there. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............

i'm gonna play devil's advocate here, m'k?

remember when i said medicine is NOT an exact science?

well.... ^^^ that ^^^

I agree facts are facts.

1+2=3.. fact
XX = female/woman.. fact
XY = male/man.. fact

Why are so many educational institutions teaching anti-factual lesson?

so much of education nowadays isn’t facts.. it’s activists teaching warped ways of interpreting them

 

[elektra]

Links, it is like people are playing cards, with the GOOGLE deck

Some people, have an opinion formed from watching a political speech, watching CNN, then they search the internet, not realizing that the person who gave the speech, or CNN, already bought/paid for their opinion/article/website to be found when you search a keyword they used in the speech or news program.

 

[forkup]

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.

I'm in 2 minds about links. A link doesn't garantee accuracy. In fact, most of the links provided here lead to highly biased or outright lying sources.

On the other hand. Most people on this board form their opinion based on these highly biased or lying sources. In order to have an honest conversation ( not that that is common here) it is vital that you at least know where the information comes from.

On a personal note. My practice is to try to find primary sources when I can. When I can't I will make it a point to distinguish between what I know I can prove,and what I suspect. It is time-consuming, and almost invariably met with dishonesty. Making it a futile effort. But it's not like I didn't know that when I decided to go on a message board.

 

[sartre play]

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.

Links are no longer related to facts, We are saturated with lies and propaganda.

 

[Resnic]

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.

If you're going to make a claim something happened then you need to show a link to a source that backs that up. "Because I said" doesn't cut it. Even a unreliable source is better than no source. Also a lot of time even a unreliable source will link to the original source. Or it might have a video or pictures adding credibility.

If you're going to produce an opinion then no link needed, unless you're giving a opinion based off something that happened then you should still provide a link.

The world has over 8 billion people, why should we all just take internet strangers word for something? A journalist of any caliber has more credibility than just some random person on the internet does.

If you make a claim it's your job to prove it. It's not the readers job to go research what someone else says. No one wants to waste their time researching what someone else says.

So it has little to do with journalist credibility or anything, but has everything to do with showing your work so to speak.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trolls like this should be removed.

From the gene pool?

 

[jwoodie]

A journalist of any caliber has more credibility than just some random person on the internet does.

Link?

 

[DudleySmith]

t 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.

If nobody will agree on facts, no debate is possible; it's just two people talking about different things at that point. That's why it is so destructive when academics and scientists spew fake data and sell themselves to whatever entity that is paying them to 'study' anything. As I said, we're essentially in a new Dark Age re reliable info. Colleges don't even bother to fake any pretenses to objectivity any more.

 

[forkup]

If nobody will agree on facts, no debate is possible; it's just two people talking about different things at that point. That's why it is so destructive when academics and scientists spew fake data and sell themselves to whatever entity that is paying them to 'study' anything. As I said, we're essentially in a new Dark Age re reliable info. Colleges don't even bother to fake any pretenses to objectivity any more.

It's not the fault of scientist or academics that people don't accept any information that doesn't fit their narrative. To me reliable information is a primary source. If I'm talking legal, I'll show a court order. If I'm telling what a person said. I'll show you the person actually saying it. Etc. etc.

The problem is that most people on here don't give a flying fuck about whether or not a source is reliable. The only thing they care about is that the source confirms their preconceptions. I'm pretty sure that that applies to you.

 

[playtime]

I agree facts are facts.

1+2=3.. fact
XX = female/woman.. fact
XY = male/man.. fact

it is also a fact that every embryo starts out as XX. sometimes it sticks, sometimes it changes but the BRAIN is where sexuality always starts.

Why are so many educational institutions teaching anti-factual lesson?

you mean like liberty U? or perhaps bringham young U? notre dame?

<psssst>

here's an even MORE radical idea! don't register at any of 'em. *

so much of education nowadays isn’t facts.. it’s activists teaching warped ways of interpreting them

*

 

[playtime]

Links are no longer related to facts, We are saturated with lies and propaganda.

it depends on where you go. fact checking isn't all that difficult.

 

[playtime]

From the gene pool?

^^^

 

[Mr. Friscus]

it is also a fact that every embryo starts out as XX. sometimes it sticks, sometimes it changes but the BRAIN is where sexuality always starts.

That has nothing to do with the fact that XX and XY dictate sex, and those have clear proven differences in behavior (aka the brain)

Did you think that would actually work or something? What a pathetic attempt.

you mean like liberty U? or perhaps bringham young U? notre dame?

<psssst>

here's an even MORE radical idea! don't register at any of 'em. *

Why are you focusing on private colleges? Let’s talk tax payer funded public elementary schools.

why are you continually shifting the goal posts here?

 

[playtime]

That has nothing to do with the fact that XX and XY dictate sex, and those have clear proven differences in behavior (aka the brain)

really? so just how much can you be persuaded to hook up with a dude?

Did you think that would actually work or something? What a pathetic attempt.

lol ...

Spectrum:

used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.

Why are you focusing on private colleges? Let’s talk tax payer funded public elementary schools.

okey dokey ... then home school or enroll little biff & buffy in a private school

why are you continually shifting the goal posts here?

i'm certianly not.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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 require links to try and ensure accurate information is being given. Anyone can write anything on the Internet. That doesn't make it true. I can start a thread right now that says Trump had slippers custom made out of kittens. Does that make it true? Of course not, but that's the kind of stuff that used to pop up before we had that rule. People hear a rumor or have an opinion they think is true, but isn't, start a topic on it, and then it turns into a food fight. Requiring a source for your "facts" cuts down on that, but obviously doesn't make it perfect. Just because some third party blogger writes a story doesn't make it true. CNN has been caught multiple times misreporting the news. However, a source is going to be more accurate than not.

 

[DudleySmith]

It's not the fault of scientist or academics that people don't accept any information that doesn't fit their narrative. To me reliable information is a primary source. If I'm talking legal, I'll show a court order. If I'm telling what a person said. I'll show you the person actually saying it. Etc. etc.

The problem is that most people on here don't give a flying fuck about whether or not a source is reliable. The only thing they care about is that the source confirms their preconceptions. I'm pretty sure that that applies to you.

I'm pretty sure you're just projecting, like all the rest.

 

[DudleySmith]

it depends on where you go. fact checking isn't all that difficult.

It is for you. In fact, it's impossible.

 

[DudleySmith]

t's not the fault of scientist or academics that people don't accept any information t

Of course it is their fault. So many have been blatantly lying they've discredited their entire professions. Some are worse than others, like the so-called 'mental health' industry and 'Economics' and 'Sociology'. The medical 'profession' has always been corrupt to a large extent.


We're pretty much left with Astronomy and Physics as moderately honest professions. Some would include Math, but it has been declared 'racist' now, so it's out. lol

 

[playtime]

It is for you. In fact, it's impossible.