Requirements for “links” violate rights and freedoms

[rupol2000]

Firstly, we have the right to our own opinion and are not obliged to cite any source.

Secondly, it violates the American principle of individualism: independence of opinion and authorship, original thoughts should be encouraged.

Thirdly, it leads to anti-American fascist collectivism.

Fourthly, it is inconvenient because it makes communication difficult. Illiterate fools demand references to what literate people know. No one is obliged to teach fools, even if they are moderators.

Fifthly, this is a loophole for scammers, they can selectively close topics for political reasons, hiding behind the “forum rules”

This is a vicious and illegal practice that must be abolished.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Here are some special links just for you. All pork, too!

 

[Woodznutz]

Demanding sources for well-known facts is a time-honored debate tactic. Those that demand it are usually too lazy to look them up themselves. Also, they often attempt to debunk those sources if they don't agree with them. Also noteworthy, when a legitimate source is presented, they often disappear from the discussion.

 

[Magnus]

Firstly, we have the right to our own opinion and are not obliged to cite any source.

Secondly, it violates the American principle of individualism: independence of opinion and authorship, original thoughts should be encouraged.

Thirdly, it leads to anti-American fascist collectivism.

Fourthly, it is inconvenient because it makes communication difficult. Illiterate fools demand references to what literate people know. No one is obliged to teach fools, even if they are moderators.

Fifthly, this is a loophole for scammers, they can selectively close topics for political reasons, hiding behind the “forum rules”

This is a vicious and illegal practice that must be abolished.

Yeah, how dare they ask for source?

 

[rupol2000]

Demanding sources for well-known facts is a time-honored debate tactic. Those that demand it are usually too lazy to look them up themselves. Also, they often attempt to debunk those sources if they don't agree with them. Also noteworthy, when a legitimate source is presented, they often disappear from the discussion.

linking a source doesn't mean anything anyway because the source might be a lie.

 

[Magnus]

Demanding sources for well-known facts is a time-honored debate tactic. Those that demand it are usually too lazy to look them up themselves. Also, they often attempt to debunk those sources if they don't agree with them. Also noteworthy, when a legitimate source is presented, they often disappear from the discussion.

Well, that means they have nothing to counter it with. Happens to me all the time when I present a legitimate source.

People want to make up stuff? Go ahead. But, don't be surprised when you are called to back it up with facts.

 

[rupol2000]

The fact that moderators close threads, citing the fact that there are supposedly no sources, suggests that this is illegal censorship. Ultimately, links can be provided upon request.

 

[Meister]

Firstly, we have the right to our own opinion and are not obliged to cite any source.

Secondly, it violates the American principle of individualism: independence of opinion and authorship, original thoughts should be encouraged.

Thirdly, it leads to anti-American fascist collectivism.

Fourthly, it is inconvenient because it makes communication difficult. Illiterate fools demand references to what literate people know. No one is obliged to teach fools, even if they are moderators.

Fifthly, this is a loophole for scammers, they can selectively close topics for political reasons, hiding behind the “forum rules”

This is a vicious and illegal practice that must be abolished.

You do have a right to YOUR opinion. But, you don't get to use unsourced facts as part of your opinion.

 

[Meister]

The fact that moderators close threads, citing the fact that there are supposedly no sources, suggests that this is illegal censorship. Ultimately, links can be provided upon request.

That's not how it works, rupol. You state facts, you are required to link those facts.

 

[rupol2000]

Well, that means they have nothing to counter it with. Happens to me all the time when I present a legitimate source.

People want to make up stuff? Go ahead. But, don't be surprised when you are called to back it up with facts.

But they close topics instead of demanding confirmation of facts.
Moreover, not every link is a confirmation of facts.

 

[rupol2000]

You do have a right to YOUR opinion. But, you don't get to use unsourced facts as part of your opinion.

How did Newton verify the “fact” that supposedly “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”?

Or maybe there are separate rules for Jews?

 

[rupol2000]

That's not how it works, rupol. You state facts, you are required to link those facts.

Where did I state the facts? If I say something like “I assume that...” is that a “statement of fact?”

How do I know which “facts” need to be supported by references? Why don't you clarify this?

 

[Meister]

How did Newton verify the “fact” that supposedly “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”?

Or maybe there are separate rules for Jews?

Well, first of all, you're not Newton, okay? Second, there is not a separate rule for Jews. So stop with the victim card.
You have an opinion? You state an opinion without ANY facts. Once you state facts you need a linked source to
back up those facts. This isn't rocket science, and those rules are for all who posts on this board.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, that means they have nothing to counter it with. Happens to me all the time when I present a legitimate source.

People want to make up stuff? Go ahead. But, don't be surprised when you are called to back it up with facts.

If someone rejects popular sources, they are left with your opinion, and without a legitimate source of their own cannot debunk it.

I once did a study on how close to my tree stand a deer would venture, and how long they would remain, trying to identify what I was. The average distance was about 16 yards, and the average time duration was about ten seconds. Since there is no other 'link' for this information one must take my word for it.

 

[Magnus]

But they close topics instead of demanding confirmation of facts.
Moreover, not every link is a confirmation of facts.

LOL Of course not. The key word is "legitimate" source. Meaning - you can't bring in your 13-year-old nephew's blog as a source unless the topic is about Anime.

And true, not every link is a confirmation of facts but at least you can back up your argument with some basis. If you put out a story that monkeys have an advanced knowledge of AI, do you really think we are going to let you get away without a source?

 

[Meister]

Where did I state the facts? If I say something like “I assume that...” is that a “statement of fact?”

How do I know which “facts” need to be supported by references? Why don't you clarify this?

Show me one of YOUR many threads where you stated that you "assumed" anything?
I can show you where you are giving statements of facts and not opinions.
YOU go back and look at YOUR threads OP's and reread them.

 

[Woodznutz]

Here are some special links just for you. All pork, too!


View attachment 853604

Mmmmmmmm...sausages. -Homer Simpson

 

[Magnus]

If someone rejects popular sources, they are left with your opinion.

I could care less that someone rejects my sources. I care more about not making up false stories or perpetuating them.

 

[rupol2000]

Well, first of all, you're not Newton, okay?

No, not ok.
What does it mean?
Am I better or worse?

You have an opinion? You state an opinion without ANY facts

The penultimate topic that you closed, talked about the difference between the positive scientific method and scholasticism, the speculative method. What other facts are needed here? Don’t literate people know about the facts of the existence of positivism and scholasticism? Do you need the fact that there is a branch of positivism? Why can't you find it yourself if you don't know it?

 

[rupol2000]

This isn't rocket science, and those rules are for all who posts on this board.

Forum rules cannot violate the constitution. We are guaranteed freedom of speech and we are not obliged to "link" anywhere