Misinformation
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Chukpike
Banned
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
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:
telluride
New Member
Misinformation in Politics and Accuracy of some News Reporting
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?
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?
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
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.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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:
Chukpike
Banned
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.
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 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.
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.
pixiedustboo
Redfidelboo
+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!