Do links matter? (illegal, politicians, biased, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whenever somebody makes an argument, almost on que, the other side wants to see a link. Normally when that link is presented this is usually what happens:
1. the person from the other party dismisses it because its a partisan website
2. Spins the facts to justify their opposite opinion
3. Calls the person an idiot who created the article an idiot
I mean really, has anybody presented a topic that goes against your views, provided a link, and you said to yourself "you know what, that poster is right"
1. the person from the other party dismisses it because its a partisan website
If a source is biased in its presentation of information, then it's not a valid source. I wouldn't trust a Nazi-run website's article on "Normal Jewish Behaviours", for instance.
When it comes to studies, I prefer to see the actual study, not somebody's interpretation of it.
Now, if an interpretation is all that is available, multiple links from a variety of sources is appreciated. If not, I'll end up doing it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
2. Spins the facts to justify their opposite opinion
It depends on what is actually being presented in the link. More often, than not, I see people refuting the statements of a link with links of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
3. Calls the person an idiot who created the article an idiot
If the article's author is an idiot, then he or she is an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
I mean really, has anybody presented a topic that goes against your views, provided a link, and you said to yourself "you know what, that poster is right"
Yes, actually. More recently, on the thread about the lesbians being denied at a Vermont Inn, I originally said that if there's no law against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, then they'd (sadly) just have to suck it up. Another poster posted up Vermont law showing that discrimination based upon sexual orientation was illegal and I owned up to being corrected.
If you're wrong, you're wrong. You learn and move forward.
Whenever somebody makes an argument, almost on que, the other side wants to see a link. Normally when that link is presented this is usually what happens:
1. the person from the other party dismisses it because its a partisan website
2. Spins the facts to justify their opposite opinion
3. Calls the person an idiot who created the article an idiot
I mean really, has anybody presented a topic that goes against your views, provided a link, and you said to yourself "you know what, that poster is right"
There is one little Kitty Kat on this forum whose signature is "link". I think she is related to Jimmy Dean or something.
The problem is that so many no longer think critically or have the ability to discern truth from fiction, and to separate emotion and logic.
If Fox reported the debt as $16 trillion some people here would claim it really isn't simply because of the source. In other cases, because so many are ignorant in finance and business, they can't differentiate between fact and misinformation. They simply make decisions based on the source that is aligned with their "side".
The politicians know this and use it to their advantage. HuffPo frequently posts information that is blatantly wrong. There are conservative sites that do the same thing. I generally validate or filter what I read and educate myself. Most people are too lazy.
I consider this board more of a release valve than a debate society.
i'm starting to realize that which is why I'm creating threads questioning the validity of all these debates/arguments. It just seems like people go back and forth, but nothing ever gets setled.
If someone states something as a fact that includes numbers like "25% of ...... hate ......" then i'd like to see a link with it or might ask for one but on the whole I don't think people look at them. Especially if they think it'll prove them wrong.
Whenever somebody makes an argument, almost on que, the other side wants to see a link. Normally when that link is presented this is usually what happens:
1. the person from the other party dismisses it because its a partisan website
2. Spins the facts to justify their opposite opinion
3. Calls the person an idiot who created the article an idiot
I mean really, has anybody presented a topic that goes against your views, provided a link, and you said to yourself "you know what, that poster is right"
I think that depends on what you're posting. If it's just opinion not necessarily but it certainly helps if you have references to support your opinions. On the other hand linking to yet another opinion piece really isn't helping your argument at all.
If you're trying to state facts then providing a reference for them in the post or when requested is necessary unless you want the information provided to be discounted. Keep in mind when people ask for references it's not always a challenge, I've asked for references many times just becsue I was interested.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
