nemafakei Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Please can people stop going on and on about whose source is better, whom not to trust, and often at the same time using dubious facts, with links or no.We don't all have time to look at every link anyone posts, let alone explain in detail why the source is biased, or why it is not.The best way to get a coherently accepted and proven point(provided the person on the receiving end is prepared to listen) is to start with something which is generally accepted, then move on from there, with logical steps. If you start with a source, then the its reliability and relevance will likely end up a major weak point of the argument, and something that gets debated on needlessly and frustratingly for too long.eg'Given that we all agree that Saddam Hussein is a sadistic dictator, we should not fund him.'And develop on from there...Moreover, avoid quoting data that is not actually relevant, like 'The economy went to pot under Major, therefore, he is not a nice person.' being a more obvious example; more subtle variants occur throughout.Note also the difference between bias and reliability. I'm sure the site which Edric often refers to, www.marxists.org isn't the most unbiased source in the world, but it is very reliable for things like getting hold of the Communist Manifesto - usually this is why Edric links to it.People are messing around with sources continually, and often misusing them without realising it, and discussion over it just gets petty. So please try to base the backbone of your argument of what is agreed, rather than what is in doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Please can people stop going on and on about whose source is better, whom not to trust, and often at the same time using dubious facts, with links or no.We don't all have time to look at every link anyone posts, let alone explain in detail why the source is biased, or why it is not.The best way to get a coherently accepted and proven point(provided the person on the receiving end is prepared to listen) is to start with something which is generally accepted, then move on from there, with logical steps. ...'Given that we all agree that Saddam Hussein is a sadistic dictator, we should not fund him.'And develop on from there... ... So please try to base the backbone of your argument of what is agreed, rather than what is in doubt.what if nothing in your argument is agreed upon?"Presdient George W. Bush of the United States of America is an honest, decent man". THis is my sincere opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 ""Presdient George W. Bush of the United States of America is an honest, decent man". THis is my sincere opinion."But don't base your argument on it. No matter what your opinion is. You could say 'assuming Bush were decent, honest, and so on'. If you're trying to put forward a case that Bush is good, then don't start with that assumption! Start with finding what makes a good politician, then show a decent link between that and Bush (preferably excluding the possibility that he is a bad one by examining what makes a bad politician and finding a way of making a logical division between it and Bush). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 But then again, honest and decent can be about anything. Those qualities are relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 ""Presdient George W. Bush of the United States of America is an honest, decent man". THis is my sincere opinion."But don't base your argument on it. No matter what your opinion is. You could say 'assuming Bush were decent, honest, and so on'. If you're trying to put forward a case that Bush is good, then don't start with that assumption! Start with finding what makes a good politician, then show a decent link between that and Bush (preferably excluding the possibility that he is a bad one by examining what makes a bad politician and finding a way of making a logical division between it and Bush).fair enough criteria. i understand Nema. So when someone says "America is imperialists" we should not start with that either...right? Or if they say "America causes third world poverty" is that not also a bad starting point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Indeed; we should first show a link between imperialism and America, or America and the poor."But then again, honest and decent can be about anything. Those qualities are relative"Another good point. We should always try to quantify what we are talking about. I could say "Russians drink vodka"- but I should say "there is a relatively high proportion of vodka-drinkers among the Russians, and often, but not always, drinking in excess", to be totally precise. It just depends on the context and common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I agree with Nema.emprworm, my discussions with for example, have nothing to do with the fact that you admire Bush. It's your right to do so and I will never question you for that. The discussion is about how you back up the things you say, act the way you do and like Nema stated, the way you seem to fence with the fact that you think Bush is a holy man and use that as an thing to back up what you state. Again, there's nothing wrong with you liking Bush, it's your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.