What is the biggest lesson that employment has taught you?

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

595 comments

because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics.
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
- ...as opposed to what or who?
  I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
  I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
  
  as opposed to what or who?
  What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
  I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation.
  We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
  So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable.
  Which I then answered. Are you dense?
  Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources.
  Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
  What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources?
  I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
  could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
  Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
  
  I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
  Questioning a source isn’t going “well I just don’t trust it”. It’s pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying “well I’ve been told they’re untrustworthy.” You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc.
  My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
  I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
  
  This is going in circles.
  If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
  I'm not saying that, I've taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.
  I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
  This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
  I've already gone thru why "well this is a famous brand" is not a good foundation for "what makes a source good for a given claim", but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.
  This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you've been.
  
  I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim.
  There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
  Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it...
  Haven't I?
  ...based on a factual basis.
  Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
  I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
  
  Disengage
  
  ...as opposed to?

595 comments