My posts are the unpaid, unaffliated work product of my research and reasoning. By unaffiliated, I mean I’m not even a registered Republican. I am a long term and still registered Democrat who is seriously concerned over the direction Radical Leftists are attempting to take my Party and this country. I hope my posts will stimulate thoughts and discussions on important topics and I see my efforts as part of responsible citizenship. How do you think a unbiased person reading your post history might characterize it? How do you characterize my posts?
Well, your post in question could stimulate a lot of discussion about unsupported opinions. But I submit that we already have enough opinions. First, there is no such thing as an unbiased person with respect to politics, imo. You are either OK with killing fetuses, or you're not. Etc. etc. I've seen ladies that, to me, were butt ugly. Yet, they had a husband. IOW, different people will characterize anyone's post history according to their eye. Beauty, and ugliness, is in the eye of the beholder. Well, I like to judge each post by the content. I don't judge all of your posts the same. I can only go by my recall; and my judgment happens in real time, I have never looked up your past posts. That said. I recall thinking: Your posts are long. Sometimes your posts seem like they are made by two different people. You are pro-Trump. I shouldn't have to say this, but I will: I haven't read all of your posts.
Thank you for your thoughts. Going by the partial list of criteria you provided on what makes a good source and that your post in another thread mentioned you are trying to make your case to undecided viewers on ET who do not post, would it not be fair for them to apply the criteria you listed before coming to a conclusion who is a good source? As well as, hopefully, a few other criteria of their own? By source, I mean anyone from professional news reporter and expert in their field to amateur bloggers. By extension, since you are trying to influence opinions, doesn’t that make you a source? A source of information, whether reasoned, true, or not? In the end, it is the sum total of voter’s reasoned opinions, or not, that will dictate the direction our country will take for the next four, or longer years. Hopefully, reasoned opinions will win out.
Yes, that would be a fair application. Yes. Yes, anyone that can be quoted, can be considered a source. Yes. Here's the flaw in your hope. Reasoning, like beauty, is also in the eye of the beholder. "Reasoned" according to whom: you? me? In most everyone's mind, they are a reasonable person, or being/thinking reasonably. Hitler also had his reasons and "reasonsings." INB4 Godwin's law
If Donnie hates this country so much, he should get the fuck out... . . after serving his prison sentence
The point I’m making is for people to make a decision with their power to vote based on identifiable and validated reasons, not a source who attempts to instill an emotional reaction in people through nefarious means. Let Hilter be Hilter, and US voters be thinking voters. Edit: I need to reword “Let Hiltler be Hilter”. Came out wrong.
The source that supplies facts and options, is fine for the average adult who can separate the two. The source that only supplies facts is, of course, fine. The source that supplies options, with no supporting facts/evidence, should be rejected. The last point brings us full circle, to my original question to you, "source?" And, setting forth options as facts, can likely be considered nefarious.
I usually present facts, references to facts, or my reasoning in support of my conclusions. As can be seen in most social media, many people simply regurgitate something they’ve heard elsewhere. For example, based on your post history, where would you say you stand in that regard? What is the point of using references to facts? References to facts include: “Influence Peddeling”, “Justin Smollett”, Christine Ford Blasey”, “Covington kids”. My not presenting a specific link to a source that may be biased may be considered more credible because it suggests to the reader to do their own research if they have a question, or to ask. As it is, there is plenty of content in my posts where I have often gone through the process of researching several sources, both pro and con, and reached an conclusion based on what holds up. The fact that I often argue against Trump’s official positions gives me credibility that I’m not a unthinking parrot. My beliefs are based on principle, not on Party or political philosophy dogma. You are asking me to reproduce citiations like seen on research papers on a social media blog when you don’t do the same yourself? Do that really sound reasonable to you? A research paper often has pages of citations. If a social media blogger posts a article or link, it is usually a single, biased source that confirms the poster’s opinion. Other than propaganda, what good is that? I leave my thought process out in the open to be challenged by anybody. Kudos to you are being the rare poster recently who will challenge me. Again, I read various sources of information and attempt to apply principles based on foundational information related to the subject. This is far more than most posters do, right? If you disagree with my facts, references to facts and or conlcusions, you are welcome to try to disprove them. Indeed, based on response speed by some of the posters on here, it appears there are “File copies” of biased sources maintained for frequently contested issues. All, or nearly all of my posts are done by hand as an idea comes along in response to someone else’s post. It is through the diverisity of principled ideas, especially if contested, that we may better understand our often ambiguous reality. There are various reasons why people read political blogs. It may be for validation, justification, money, or self flagellation. Hopefully, our well thought through posts will stimulate some ideas, cause independent research, and ultimately informed action by the reader.
LOL! Wait a minute...You cannot claim you are in before Godwin's law when it is your post that would invoke it! Dirty pool!
It depends on the nature of the particular conversation, and more so, the post I'm responding to. Verifiability, reliability, believability, etc. I asked you to cite a source. I said nothing about how to cite a source. And I do, in fact, cite sources if I want my post to be taken as fact. I disagree with your allegation regarding my posts, so I can't deem that that, sounds reasonable. Facts are facts. Opinions may be biased. If the source is biased, then the source may be an opinion, and therefore, it is not good for much. I am without knowledge as to the assertions made in your question. You have stated opinions, not facts, at least in regard to your first original assertion--the specific assertion where I asked you to cite your source. Had you cited a trusted source, then perhaps I would have agreed with you. The onus is on the one making the allegation, to submit evidence in support of that allegation. The onus is not on the reader to disprove unsupported allegations. Had you supported your allegation with evidence; then the onus shifts to the reader to refute that evidence, and/or offer opposing evidence. We can hope.