Back up your claims with links not just your opinion.

a reply to: boymonkey74

i agree, if someone wants to make claims they should back it up with valid links. if they refuse to do that, i just dismiss every single thing they say from that point on. this is especially true when someone writes an OP before researching anything at all, takes what he/she wants out of context and tries to pass it off as fact...that has happened numerous times in the recent past and shows no sign of stopping that i can see.

people like to post total crap and get the whole site in a frenzy, at each others' throats, etc. and when someone with some simple common sense actually reads (or watches, or both) the info that is in the link, they try to set people straight about what is actually fact instead of sensationalist language carefully tweaked for the purpose of getting some gold stars. i am one of those people, because i cannot stand inconsistency...it bothers me when things don't add up. as a result of me trying to talk sense into the OP and/or the people who have not even read the info and just showed up on the thread because it's the cyber version of a good bar fight, i have had some of the most vicious accusations leveled at me and been called so many names (from behind the safety of a computer screen in their momma's basement, of course) that it is really quite astonishing. it's like reliving kindergarten all over again.

and no, the troglodytes never provide any links beyond a half-assed wiki page or something equally as unreliable. isn't there a fiction section on this site? i think people who refuse to back up their words should have their posts directed to it, posthaste, and see how many sparkly gold stars they earn for their drivel there.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Back your 'links' with opinions.

This is a dialogue venue, not a pissing contest via 'links' of those with similar views as your own. Most of which, cannot be verified/confirmed in any event.

There's so many 'vested interests' out there behind these 'links' that discussion should trump links, IMO. ( at least generally ).

Logic trumps talking points in my lexicon which seems to be in short supply at times on ATS....

Wiki can be good for definitions anything more than that I'm always curious if the person doesn't know what a credible reference actually is.

That being said as a commenter of a thread I don't feel its inappropriate to give a thought or suggestions on there being more views on a topic than the OP focused on.

Honestly it's not a worry of thread drift for me, my poor thumbs just want me to be reading not typing sometimes. So I will give others the same things I like. The keywords and technical jargon to keep looking into the topic.

It was brought up in a thread today that the actual information being referred to in a link required payment. I detest that! Google scholar is your friend in that case if you haven't just decided the topic wasn't interesting enough to require so much effort.

This is a dialogue venue, not a pissing contest via 'links' of those with similar views as your own. Most of which, cannot be verified/confirmed in any event.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I can't speak for the OP here, but I can say that as for myself, I am referring to people who have drastically different opinions on issues and base it all off of things they are taking out of factual context without bothering to get the whole story. Or people who continue to insist that something is a fact, when it is not. Facts are already proven, so there is no burden of proof on the people who state them; opinions based on blind assumptions however, are something altogether different.

People don't just come on this site to find entertainment and light discussion of opinions. They come here to learn information and find answers to things that they cannot explain, to be abreast of things that are actually and factually going on around the globe, and to share info that they have found so others can be informed as well. If I state something that I know to be factual in opposition to something that another person is saying, I would back it up with at least some form of source to validate my argument. That is the way it should be in a debate, which is exactly what we are having on these threads the vast majority of the time.

a reply to: tigertatzen

While I get you point, facts change. If only we could ask Galileo how he feels about facts.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I understand your views and basically agree.

I would point out, however, your excellent response is 'dialogue', explains your position and sites examples that are easily relatable.

Being a bit older, I'm not a great keyboard/site expert, enjoy the sharing of views and base most of my opinions off of empirical/life experiences.

I trust in those far more than secondary media links and quotes.

Even 'facts' are often taken out of context of other related facts and are either over or under stressed depending on the slant of the poster, that's where the 'dialogue' factor comes in, I suppose.

As usual, balance is key...again something that could improve on this site...myself included! LOL.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

I don't mind people giving their opinions because its nice to get an alternate perspective here and there but I also understand that sometimes an opinion can come across as someone accidentally stating a fact. I agree that if you state something as a fact, you should back it up with a half decent source otherwise bite the bullet.. Telling someone to use the search engine to back up mine or even your facts is nothing more than lazy to me.

If people have time to jabber on about their facts, they have time to look up the source they got that information from also even if it takes a day or so... I'm the same as you, I enjoy learning something new that I haven't come across before regardless of whether I agree or disagree with it. It's all part of the learning....

a reply to: boymonkey74

I used to scour the internet for links and articles to backup my 'claims' but just ended up not doing so.
If people don't want to believe what I say is true, they can easily just go find out for themselves. It's rare that I get involved into a discussion without me saying something that I have read or seen with facts and evidence attached.
And if it's not 'scientific' and just pure opinion, do I really need to come up with links and articles?

For some of my more outrageous input I will post links, but even at that people still get all up in arms with the validity of the links. Sometimes, just can't win.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: boymonkey74

Where's the link to prove this monkey nuts

Cody

That's just mean ........ wind up merchant

Yeah I know
I've known monkey nuts for years, he knew when he posted that, that I wouldn't miss the chance.
And he was enough old school ATS to take the joke and not edit it.

Cody

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Somehow I think he would have illustrated the difference between a fact, a theory and an hypothesis, and maybe would have tossed in the meaning of opinion while at it.

There is the scientific method, which is still alive and well today. Works well, more people should consider using it.

There are differences.

a reply to: DarknStormy

As you know. I've made the same mistake myself. I try to prefix a point as an opinion when it's appropriate.

Your view of it is correct. Modified with the apparent IQ of the person one is dealing with, the respect level, the importance one views the subject, whether the individual is agenda driven and, of course, the time involved with your 'clarification'.

As you are one of those I hold in higher esteem than most, I would make the effort. Others? On an individual basis, I suppose.

Off the top, I'd view ATS as closer to conversation than correspondence, generally. Yet, I would treat it as perhaps a barbershop discussion or a lounge get together.

The only modifier to that would be the potential viewers of the post and how important one feels it is to ensure a solid basis for your point.

Courtesy is also a factor.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Hahahahahaaaa, a very valid point indeed
2nd.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Yes but at least we can study them and their authors.

The same "circle" of authors though, every time!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Even 'facts' are often taken out of context of other related facts and are either over or under stressed depending on the slant of the poster, that's where the 'dialogue' factor comes in, I suppose.

As usual, balance is key...again something that could improve on this site...myself included! LOL.

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected..."fact" is not always exactly that. I guess I should have said "verifiable info" instead, because that is far more accurate a term, especially these days...everything is subjective. Hell, some days I'm not sure if I'm actually real, much less anyone or anything else, LOL Thank you for the excellent dialogue

originally posted by: tigertatzen
i have had some of the most vicious accusations leveled at me and been called so many names (from behind the safety of a computer screen in their momma's basement, of course) that it is really quite astonishing. it's like reliving kindergarten all over again.

I think there is an awful lot of internet cowardice these days. I would love to see these brave people tell a grieving family member, to their face, that they are a lying actor!

and no, the troglodytes never provide any links beyond a half-assed wiki page or something equally as unreliable. isn't there a fiction section on this site? i think people who refuse to back up their words should have their posts directed to it, posthaste, and see how many sparkly gold stars they earn for their drivel there.

Interesting idea. I wonder if some kind of symbol instead of a star could be awarded and with enough the thread auto posts to the BS section. I think a hairy testicle would be an appropriate symbol !

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I really wish people would back up certain claims they make on ATS.
I have asked a member twice today to back his claims up with links etc and twice he has told me to use a search engine.....No I want to see YOUR links and not just a you tube video made by some nut.
So NO If you make a claim it is your job not mine to back those claims up.
It really grinds my gears when members do this.
Anyhow I hope people understand my rant.
Rant over carry on.

If you don't believe the claims, it's your duty to find information about it.
The poster believes those claims, he probably even has first hand experience with the subject. Must he absolutely find someone else on the internet, with the same OPINION, that took the time to create a web page for his claims to stand?

No.

Why would I find other people with the same opinion than mine for it to stand? I don't need others to tell me whats the truth about what I personally experienced.

It's YOUR problem if you don't believe the claims. If the poster doesn't feel like he needs to rely on others web pages to backup his claims, well that's his decision.

Oh and, the reliability of the sources is, from what I see on ATS, totally subjective.

Some claim Wikipedia is good, some spit on it like it like it's all lies
Some will claim that eeeeverything on youtube is bs, when, for all we know, maybe that "tube video made by some nut" is actually the truth.
RT, Natural news, MSNBC, CNN ...some will immediately refuse those sources.

So let's say someone backs up his claim with one of those "subjectively untrusted" source, he will immediately won't believe the claim when maybe, that exact same claim is in one of HIS subjectively trusted source.

So no, I don't feel people NEED to backup their claims with their own source. The poster doesn't need exterior opinions to believe his own claims and he doesn't need to justifiably "prove" his claims because someone out there doesn't believe the material. It's that persons duty to justify the claims because if he already doesn't believe, usually in that case, no one else but himself or his deductions will make him believe.

Just the fact that you would ask, instead of searching by yourself, for particular links that fit your biased opinion making process, clearly shows your lack of interest and your disbelief. Why you the poster waste time on making YOU believe in his claims when others are already joining his discussion?

Just the idea of ASKING for somebody else subjective proof than the poster seems more like a bear trap to me or a psychological manipulation than a real question. If you really want to make yourself believe, it's easy.

Use a search engine, go see the sources that YOU believe and then make your opinion about it.
If you still don't believe, well thank god the poster didn't waste HIS time to make YOU believe.

Must I add more?

a reply to: theMediator

Applause...

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Hahahaha!!! Somehow I think there are some out there who would sport that symbol with pride...ATS could make a separate tally for those:

Average number of hairy testicles per post:

And I agree...most of the nasties that frequent this site would never have the guts to say half this rubbish to someone in person, although I'd love to see it too.

a reply to: theMediator

I didn't take it that the OP was related to opinions, but rather issues that are factually based. If a post is an opinion post, then all you can do is express a different opinion. If you have data that supports your counter-opinion, then you present it.

In the case of opinion I would not feel a need for the OP to submit supporting sources. He is just expressing an opinion.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I agree with you.

I hate it when some people demand links & the response back is "look it up yourself, I'm not doing the research for you" & then they turn around & demand links.

I made a thread recently & people would only say it was false & not provide any informational links to back their claims. Apparently word of mouth counts as proof these days for some ATS members. When I called them out on it, they said that my article wasn't valid therefore they didn't need to provide any proof. ((Again, all word of mouth claims that it was invalid)) It drove me batty so I just stopped going to that thread.