Misinformation

It's fine you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

"Magazines, newspapers, periodicals are on microfilm and available at libraries. Using sources available you can almost always find usable information if you learn how to search for it."
Provide source.

"This topic was started by 13th_Redneck as a complaint about misinformation. Now you have the same people who complain, trying to support misinformation because they are to lazy to search for valid sources."
Provide source. Prove that what I said is a lie.

"Everyone here would probably agree that there is a lot of misinformation available. It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work."
Provide source. Prove it.

"First I would not need to prove water existed or that it was drinkable. Whether it was poison or not does not matter."
What if I don't believe you? Provide source.

This is true but if a source can not be provided then rather than get into arguments about supplying one it is easier to make a comment from memory.
For example rather than saying "there was a poll in 1984 where 94% said they would do X" you simply state that "I seem to recall a poll around 1984 where an overwhelming majority said X".

Now I understand some people find that wishy washy but one of the beauties of the English language is in its flexibility in this case to move a categorical statement with points that require confirmation to a general comment that does not.
 
Whatever. I have nothing I need to prove.
u-fail.jpg



MontyB, you're right about that.
 
Your post, TOGs, and 13th_rednecks give excuses for not providing sources for your statements. They are not valid reasons.

It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work.

This is true but if a source can not be provided then rather than get into arguments about supplying one it is easier to make a comment from memory.

There should not be an argument over supplying sources when requested it is a rule of the forum.

It is easier for lazy people to spout gibberish from memory rather than do a little work.

Just add yourself to the list of those who make excuses for not providing sources for their statements. They are still not valid reasons.


People should not complain about receiving misinformation if they are a willing partner in it.

If you can not find a specific source you think may exist than find another to support your point.
 
By saying we're being party to misinformation, you're stating that we're lying. Prove it.

If you want to have a source, I'll get you one.
If I tell you that it's from a primary source and you don't like it, that's not my problem.
 
Last edited:
Misinformation in Politics and Accuracy of some News Reporting

You know I was really disappointed at the ... behavior and misinformation campaigns (in politics) ... Seriously guys, how can you ever believe that "OUR SIDE GOT IT ALL RIGHT AND NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!" ... Remember that your party gets it right and your party also gets it wrong. You have to be fair about it ...

Say Red, I hear you on this topic of debate and politicians creating a stir over subjects, sometimes so much it distract from the subject and accurate information.

A few months ago, I saw a bizarre movie online, named something of the effect, The Power Behind the President. I did not get it, (will go back and look for a link).

There was some over-dramatics with music and looked like a propaganda piece, but then about 30 minutes into the film I saw a part about how big money is behind both candidates, and they both work for the same master or boss.

Is that misinformation or do you think it could be true?


 
I think that's a simplified model.
But the President does get his campaign money from certain people and he does have to return the favor.
I have to watch the movie to make a final conclusion but from what you said, it seems over simplified maybe even exagerrated.
 
There should not be an argument over supplying sources when requested it is a rule of the forum.

It is easier for lazy people to spout gibberish from memory rather than do a little work.

Just add yourself to the list of those who make excuses for not providing sources for their statements. They are still not valid reasons.


People should not complain about receiving misinformation if they are a willing partner in it.

If you can not find a specific source you think may exist than find another to support your point.

I disagree, if I say something as fact then I agree I should back it up with sources but if I say something relevant to the discussion but from memory then it can not be backed up with sources unless you have some qualifications as a mind reader.
This is why it is important to word responses in discussions in such a way as the two systems can be differentiated.

Further to this there is a lot of information that is not available via the web and therefore can not be linked as a source for example information from books or subscription websites.

There is also the problem that at some point information has to be accepted or rejected at face value for example if you tell us a cat peed on your rug should we sit here demanding pictures, DNA tests and signed/ notarised declarations that this actually happened (Lets not forget the requirement to validate all of your downstream witnesses etc.) or should we just say "ok it matches the stain" and move on.

I would also like to point out that if I say such things as:
- In my opinion the sky is purple.
- I believe that cats lay eggs.
I do not have to provide a source as they are views not necessarily formed from fact.


There is of course one other option available to you, if you do not believe something posted is accurate then you can provide sources as to why it isn't.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, if I say something as fact then I agree I should back it up with sources but if I say something relevant to the discussion but from memory then it can not be backed up with sources unless you have some qualifications as a mind reader.
This is why it is important to word responses in discussions in such a way as the two systems can be differentiated.

Further to this there is a lot of information that is not available via the web and therefore can not be linked as a source for example information from books or subscription websites.

If you wish to make a point from memory and present it as fact then you need to support your contention. If you can remember your point accurate enough to present it, you would remember where it came from. If you can't remember where it came from you probably don't remember it clearly enough to state it correctly.


There is also the problem that at some point information has to be accepted or rejected at face value for example if you tell us a cat peed on your rug should we sit here demanding pictures, DNA tests and signed/ notarized declarations that this actually happened (Lets not forget the requirement to validate all of your downstream witnesses etc.) or should we just say "OK it matches the stain" and move on.
I think most people would understand that a statement like above would not need support.
Of course you are getting ridiculous suggesting DNA tests, signed/notarized statements are needed. Even if they might give stronger credibility to your statement. The better and stronger your source the less likely it can be refuted.

I would also like to point out that if I say such things as:
- In my opinion the sky is purple.
- I believe that cats lay eggs.
I do not have to provide a source as they are views not necessarily formed from fact.
I have not said that statements of opinions need sources. But if you stated or alluded to your point being fact then sources could be requested. It could then be left to a moderator to determine whether a source was needed.
Stating "in my opinion" does not give a free ride to someone to make statements of fact without supporting them.

There is of course one other option available to you, if you do not believe something posted is accurate then you can provide sources as to why it isn't.
Two things wrong with the above statement.
1. Why should anyone be required to do someone else's homework.
2. The person disagreeing may want to spend their time looking for a rebuttal.
A lot of people who don't like to supply sources a more interested in arguing than debating, or don't understand the difference.

I know here in the US there are a lot of complaints about our public school systems, but I would be surprised if anyone here could graduate High School with out having to do a term paper. People are taught how to pick a topic, state their opinion/position and supply facts and sources to support that position. That is what needs to be done here to make intelligent informed discussions. Otherwise we will need to be satisfied with misinformation.

One thing that rings extremely hollow in this discussion is that sources can't be found on the INTERNET. Why? Because topics brought up on this forum are almost all based on INTERNET information. If it is not it quickly dies from lack of interest.

People who complain about supplying sources just want to spout their opinions and can't be bothered to support them with facts.

I am probably spoiled in forgetting that free public libraries were available in the US before it was a country. And live in a country were the right to free speech is so important. I forget free libraries may be available in some countries, but their content may be restricted by what the government wants people to know or the libraries are not available to everyone.
 
Seriously guys... how can you ever believe that "OUR SIDE GOT IT ALL RIGHT AND NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!"???
Remember that your party gets it right and your party also gets it wrong. You have to be fair about it or else the value of the words from your mouth are meaningless propaganda.

+1!

I personally am much more conservative with many of my views, but I don't think it's necessarily a good way for the government to be run. It's just my personal views.

Middle without extreme left or right-wing ideas is always a good thing.

Good post!
 
Back
Top