NationStates Jolt Archive

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.

Well, HK, here in NSG, when you're making a claim we always say "Back your shit up". That's the reason proof is demanded.

Well, HK, here in NSG, when you're making a claim we always say "Back your shit up". That's the reason proof is demanded.


Can you proof this? :p

Can you proof this? :p

Yes, I can.:wink:

Can you proof this? :p

Back your shit up.











There you go.

Back your shit up.











There you go.

Let us summon Neesika. She has a cool way of saying it. :tongue:

Yes, I can.:wink:

I was once on some MSNBC (yes, I know...) forum and some guy was demanding proof for anything anyone said. He was hiding himself behind the same dogma "back up your own shit". In the mean time, it was clear he was not interested in your claim or your proof. :)

quite often having some kind of quote--esp when its a news item of the day--keeps everyone else from having to look it up. quite often (if cat-tribes gets involved) that link will be used to prove that you are an idiot who cant read well.

the rest of the time its useless and about things that dont require any sort of proof.

People are naturally sceptical creatures when presented with new ideas and want to see the evidence associated with it. Even if the idea isn't new, if they know little about it or have seen no proof that validates that idea or concept, they will demand it.

quite often having some kind of quote--esp when its a news item of the day--keeps everyone else from having to look it up. quite often (if cat-tribes gets involved) that link will be used to prove that you are an idiot who cant read well.

the rest of the time its useless and about things that dont require any sort of proof.

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

What is a reality for you is not one for some.

People are naturally sceptical creatures when presented with new ideas and want to see the evidence associated with it. Even if the idea isn't new, if they know little about it or have seen no proof that validates that idea or concept, they will demand it.

First they crack your idea, laugh with you.

Then, they will kill you.

Later, they say they always knew it was like you told first.

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

Well, you've met some people here. Their reality can be... quite.... well.... removed.

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.


That is all valid for IRC, but this is not IRC, this is a discusion forum.

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums.

Got any evidence for this absurd assertion?


They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.


Uhuh, am I supposed to accept this proposition without proof? Don't be silly, stop making unsupported claims.


First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.


Back this shit up, show your position isn't unfalsifiable, otherwise your assumptions are worthless and I shall ignore everything you say.


Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?


I demand proof that you actually asked this question, why should I accept this sentence actually exists without proof? That would be a monumental leap of faith.


Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.

I didn't just quote this whole last section because I couldn't be bothered to quote every single sentence, even though it looks like that. Believing what you see is again, an irrational leap of faith, I demand a source to show that I was actually too lazy to quote each sentence, otherwise such an idea is empirically false!

Except within the realm of mathematics and fairly basic facts you will find "proof" very rare indeed.

What one usually has is "evidence," the strength of which is often in the eye of the beholder. I guess that's why we have so many lawyers. :(

I was once on some MSNBC (yes, I know...) forum and some guy was demanding proof for anything anyone said. He was hiding himself behind the same dogma "back up your own shit". In the mean time, it was clear he was not interested in your claim or your proof. :)

So, on a discussion forum, you'd rather people just string together a load of unsubstantiated assertions? Sorry you don't like the concept, but if someone's going to post something controversial just to get people upset, there's a word for that. Troll.

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

Aw, poor you. You couldn't be bothered to link to an online copy of your nations laws? I understand how difficult that must be. Click, click. Whew, that's tough work.

Yeah, people should just accept out of hand anything anyone says on the internet! I mean, no one would lie, misrepresent, or completely make shit up on the internet - you can take people with made up names on keyboards from who knows where at their word! There isn't any reason whatsoever to be skeptical about the things people say on a forum, asking for independent verification is just silly...

Asking for proof is good.

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

Er... that logic is a bit... erroneous. What can be a reality for you (eg. marijuana is legal where you live) is not the reality of say, someone living the US. Marijuana isn't legal there. Do you see what I mean?

I was once on some MSNBC (yes, I know...) forum and some guy was demanding proof for anything anyone said. He was hiding himself behind the same dogma "back up your own shit". In the mean time, it was clear he was not interested in your claim or your proof. :)

Still, it is your responsibility to back your claims so you don't end up looking like a fool in front of people who are truly interested in the topic, your claim and why you say it.

Harg vlust bliez ertyqw poikilok dedegrebaba zwzwzwzaaa some truth gnvlknmprszt ey ohakaqaca!

... BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense...

Proven. :D

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.
I don't see what's silly about it at all.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.
Keep you busy? Why would that be a factor? I can take as long as I like to write up a reply, unless the thread has died and I'm not adding anything to it.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?
It strengthens one's argument. If I were to say that some drug or other has some manner of side effect and post a link to a study that determined this, or a report on that study, then my claim has credibility. I can reasonably expect people to believe it.

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?
Which is why people don't ask for evidence of those things, generally.

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?
Why would we want to?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.
Spam you mean? Against the rules. There's other places for that.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.
If I don't believe your words and you can't back them up I'll just disregard anything you say.
I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

Because your being able to buy it in a coffee shop doesn't make it legal.

unlike a bar, here you have a wider range of people. All of whom post without their Identity known. Thus anyone can claim anything from 9/11 being perpetuated by the US Government to statistics on Lung Cancer is made up by anti-Smoking lobbists and everyone can claim they are a scientific expert thus their word should be taken as facts.

Without proof all forms of debate/discussion will devolve into "Yes it is" / "No it isn't" arguments and that's not even going into the flamefest that would occure. Here it's encourage to attack the post and also to defend your claims. the only way to do so is with proof.

Oh waaaaa. I don't get to make all sorts of claims and assertions without someone insisting I back myself up! How unfair! Don't you all know who I am!? You should take my words as gospel!

Or, we could you know...accept that in the real world, wild claims don't count for shit, and it ain't really that hard to prove what you assert. In the process of looking, you might even find out that you are *gasp*...wrong!

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Hairless Kitten is a pedophile and serial rapist. Under your stringent standards of debate, I am in no way compelled to defend the previous statement. I hope this little example can demostrate somewhat why demanding that statements be supported with evidence is a beneficial thing.

In the process of looking, you might even find out that you are *gasp*...wrong!

Oh now that's just ridiculous. I'm never wrong. Papal infallibility.

Oh now that's just ridiculous. I'm never wrong. Papal infallibility.

Ha, I've caught myself a few times furiously typing up a reply to something,checking sources and then going...um, ok, nm then *delete delete delete*.

Glad I checked first.

Let us summon Neesika. She has a cool way of saying it. :tongue:
Hmmmmm....
Oh waaaaa. I don't get to make all sorts of claims and assertions without someone insisting I back myself up! How unfair! Don't you all know who I am!? You should take my words as gospel!

Or, we could you know...accept that in the real world, wild claims don't count for shit, and it ain't really that hard to prove what you assert. In the process of looking, you might even find out that you are *gasp*...wrong!

You're right. Neesika has a cool way of saying it. :D :hail:

I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...

Ha, I've caught myself a few times furiously typing up a reply to something,checking sources and then going...um, ok, nm then *delete delete delete*.

Glad I checked first.

I find this happens most when I type my furious indignation first, then right before hitting send I go get my source, or read the rest of the article, or realize there is a follow up, or something else I didn't see in the google search and realize I was about to step in it hard. Then I'm forced to write, "Alright, this isn't what I thought it was...but you're still a dick...[/sour grapes]" I hate that, but I'd hate for someone else to find that for me far, far, FAR more.

I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...

do you mind if I just sit back and savor that image? :D

http://mormonmd.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/img_fewgoodmen.jpg

"You can't handle the proof!!!"

Ha, I've caught myself a few times furiously typing up a reply to something,checking sources and then going...um, ok, nm then *delete delete delete*.

Glad I checked first.
Invest in one of these (http://robjo.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/pope_card.jpg) bad boys. You'll never be wrong again.
I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...

When are you ever sitting here with underwear? :confused:

International law says that every person must pay to persons named Steven Bullshitclaimson $9,500 US.

Oh, and my name is Steven Bullshitclaimson.

What, you want me to back those up?!?!

International law says that every person must pay to persons named Steven Bullshitclaimson $9,500 US.

Oh, and my name is Steven Bullshitclaimson.

What, you want me to back those up?!?!

well isn't that a coincidence... that's also my name!

well isn't that a coincidence... that's also my name!

His name is my name too.

http://mormonmd.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/img_fewgoodmen.jpg

"You can't handle the proof!!!"

Quality.

Asking for proof is good.

No it's not. And very unscientific to boot.
Asking for evidence that the claim is testable and sofar not disproven is much better.

No it's not. And very unscientific to boot.
Asking for evidence that the claim is testable and sofar not disproven is much better.

But being a pedant is the best :D

What is a reality for you is not one for some.

Not so in this case, Kryozerkia. The legal status of cannabis in the Netherlands is a hard fact. It really is. Regardless of anyone else's state of mind. Granted the guy who said that needs to learn that "proof" is a noun and "prove" is its associated verb. But use of cannabis is indeed legal in the Netherlands, as I can confirm after numerous visits.

Not so in this case, Kryozerkia. The legal status of cannabis in the Netherlands is a hard fact. It really is. Regardless of anyone else's state of mind. Granted the guy who said that needs to learn that "proof" is a noun and "prove" is its associated verb. But use of cannabis is indeed legal in the Netherlands, as I can confirm after numerous visits.

His saying it, your saying it, or it being one of those things everyone knows doesn't make it true.


Admittedly it is, but that's not the point.

Not so in this case, Kryozerkia. The legal status of cannabis in the Netherlands is a hard fact. It really is. Regardless of anyone else's state of mind. Granted the guy who said that needs to learn that "proof" is a noun and "prove" is its associated verb. But use of cannabis is indeed legal in the Netherlands, as I can confirm after numerous visits.

The point is that your say-so does not constitute evidence. It may, in this case, be true, but it's true based on more than a guy on an internet forum saying it's true.

I demand proof that a^n + b^n = c^n has no nonzero integer solutions for n>2!

(Fermat's Last Theorem FTW!)

Not so in this case, Kryozerkia. The legal status of cannabis in the Netherlands is a hard fact. It really is. Regardless of anyone else's state of mind. Granted the guy who said that needs to learn that "proof" is a noun and "prove" is its associated verb. But use of cannabis is indeed legal in the Netherlands, as I can confirm after numerous visits.

Oooh - Baaadddd example.
Cannabis is NOT legal in the Netherlands. It is just tolerated.
However, it is very likely that a judge would forbid acting against sellers of cannabis due to it being tolerated for so long.

Oooh - Baaadddd example.
Cannabis is NOT legal in the Netherlands. It is just tolerated.
However, it is very likely that a judge would forbid acting against sellers of cannabis due to it being tolerated for so long.

Nope, use of cannabis is legal in the Netherlands, just growing, selling or owning too much of it isn't.

I demand proof that a^n + b^n = c^n has no nonzero integer solutions for n>2!

(Fermat's Last Theorem FTW!)I was going to but it wouldn't fit in the side margin of the forum.:p

It's actually a couple hundred pages long.

I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...

Uuuhhhh. She's here and with no undies.:fluffle:

I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...I demand that you prove that! Pics or it didn't happen!

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)
i dont deal with those people. if they want me to prove the status quo they arent worth talking to. they either know nothing about the subject at hand or they are playing the "prove everything" game. either one is too freaking tedious to bother with.

I was summoned? No wonder I'm sitting here with no underwear...

*Homer drooly sound*

"I must perfect the NSG-reverse-monitor-vision goggles!" He said, typing with one hand.

"Off to the lab!"

*dashes into basement*

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I think the burden of proof is upon you.

Quality.
http://anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/loki8.gif
Uuuhhhh. She's here and with no undies.:fluffle:
Like you ever wear'em! http://anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/jump31.gif
Pictures or it didn't happen.
I second this notion! http://anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/happyhappy.gif

I once had to proof that marihuana was semi-legal in my country and that you can buy it in coffee shops.

Why should I proof something which is real reality for me? :)

Oooh - Baaadddd example.
Cannabis is NOT legal in the Netherlands. It is just tolerated.
However, it is very likely that a judge would forbid acting against sellers of cannabis due to it being tolerated for so long.

Nope, use of cannabis is legal in the Netherlands, just growing, selling or owning too much of it isn't.

and here is where Proof would be useful. ;)

The thing that sometimes bothers me is the phrase, which I admittedly see less and less of these days, 'wiki is not a source'.

Well, it's reasonable enough and if you don't accept it then the burden shifts to you to debunk the source presented.

I was going to but it wouldn't fit in the side margin of the forum.:p

It's actually a couple hundred pages long.

I think I'll just start giving links here (http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/flt/wiles.pdf) whenever someone asks for proof. If they don't understand the source, that's his problem.

Oh, and jelly beans cause skin cancer.

See, this is a DEBATE forum. You need to provide proof in a debate. Linking to a source instead of just rambling off nonsense tells us whether your pronouncements are worth consideration.

The thing that sometimes bothers me is the phrase, which I admittedly see less and less of these days, 'wiki is not a source'.

Well, it's reasonable enough and if you don't accept it then the burden shifts to you to debunk the source presented.
It's still not a primary source for research papers.... but most online discussions should accept it.

I'll accept Wiki as a source if the article is merely being quoted for convenience because it contains a reference to what I want to reference, or if it is a good overview of an issue and that's all I need. ALSO, if it is a decent article with lots of links to external sources that are not crap. Or if the topic is trivial (like a discussion of hot celebrities or something).

However, I will not use or accept a wiki article if I'm not impressed by its source links, or if I am trying to support a specific point. For instance, if I wanted in an abortion debate, to counter the assertion that pregnancy is safer than abortion for women, I would not turn to wiki for that, but rather to a real medical journal or medical information site, preferably associated with a hospital, health organization or university. They might give me the same info Wiki would (if it quotes them), but I would protect my argument from accusations of being based on bad data from a questionable source. It is harder to dismiss the WHO than Wiki.

Whether Wiki is okay depends on what you want to use it for.

Like you ever wear'em! http://anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/jump31.gif

But this ain't about me.:D
True, I detest wearing undies.

Uuuhhhh. She's here and with no undies.:fluffle:

*blink*

Er... that logic is a bit... erroneous. What can be a reality for you (eg. marijuana is legal where you live) is not the reality of say, someone living the US. Marijuana isn't legal there. Do you see what I mean?

Most people around the world, really know that it is ok here.
Many people even think you can buy all kind of drugs in regular shops here. Cocaine, heroine, xtc... And no, it isn't :)

I don't like to proof something and providing proof for something which is commonly known is just not fun. It takes out the speed of the conversation.

Again, if they don't believe me, so what? If they are really interested, they can take their board and surf on their own.

I don't have to proof own concepts and beliefs. If people don't like the idea, they'll certainly fire back (they can't help it :p) and thus maybe influence my concept or idea about something.

When I'm posting real news facts, written in some newspaper, website or whatever I easily add a link. Not to reward it with a 'stamp of proof', no, it's just for the people who are interested in more.

Why should I lie about real news facts? Even the biggest dumb ass can handle Google and discover your lie in 2 minutes.

Most people around the world, really know that it is ok here.
Many people even think you can buy all kind of drugs in regular shops here. Cocaine, heroine, xtc... And no, it isn't :)

I don't like to proof something and providing proof for something which is commonly known is just not fun. It takes out the speed of the conversation.

Again, if they don't believe me, so what? If they are really interested, they can take their board and surf on their own.

I don't have to proof own concepts and beliefs. If people don't like the idea, they'll certainly fire back (they can't help it :p) and thus maybe influence my concept or idea about something.

When I'm posting real news facts, written in some newspaper, website or whatever I easily add a link. Not to reward it with a 'stamp of proof', no, it's just for the people who are interested in more.

Why should I lie about real news facts? Even the biggest dumb ass can handle Google and discover your lie in 2 minutes.

Sorry for stealing your post, Kat.
See, this is a DEBATE forum. You need to provide proof in a debate. Linking to a source instead of just rambling off nonsense tells us whether your pronouncements are worth consideration.

HK, read this a few times. Maybe your OP will finally have an answer and you'll stop asking us the same silly thing. Other posters have tried, in a number of ways, to explain to you why you must provide proof of your arguments on NSG. If you still don't get it, well... must be something in you.

/shrug

Sorry for stealing your post, Kat.


HK, read this a few times. Maybe your OP will finally have an answer and you'll stop asking us the same silly thing. Other posters have tried, in a number of ways, to explain to you why you must provide proof of your arguments on NSG. If you still don't get it, well... must be something in you.

/shrug

I understand it rather well and some have even good arguments...

...but I'll not change my point of view.

What's next? Can you proof the proof? :)

Come on lads, we are not building a nuclear bomb, we are not lawyers, judges or suspects in a courtroom.

This is just a forum loaded with people who have some time left to chat about serious and really sick things. That’s it, nothing more.

Besides, proof is for pussies. :)

I understand it rather well and some have even good arguments...

...but I'll not change my point of view.

What's next? Can you proof the proof? :)

Come on lads, we are not building a nuclear bomb, we are not lawyers, judges or suspects in a courtroom.

This is just a forum loaded with people who have some time left to chat about serious and really sick things. That’s it, nothing more.

Besides, proof is for pussies. :)

Still not getting it huh.

When a mod outlines it for you, you can be sure that is the behaviour expected here.

Most people around the world, really know that it is ok here.
Many people even think you can buy all kind of drugs in regular shops here. Cocaine, heroine, xtc... And no, it isn't :)
Most people are aware that marijuana is legal to some degree in Holland. But what most people think is true isn't always true. Most people will tell you to wait an hour after eating before you go swimming, or you could get a cramp and drown. There is, however, no evidence that this is the case.

I don't like to proof something and providing proof for something which is commonly known is just not fun. It takes out the speed of the conversation.
Forums are inherently slow anyway, especially international ones. If I'm posting late at night and I decide to go to sleep I'll drop out of a thread until the next day.

Again, if they don't believe me, so what? If they are really interested, they can take their board and surf on their own.
As Kat said, this is a debate forum. If we don't believe you then nobody will seriously respond to you. You're basically just talking to yourself. You can if you want, but the rest of us will be over here having an actual debate.

I don't have to proof own concepts and beliefs. If people don't like the idea, they'll certainly fire back (they can't help it :p) and thus maybe influence my concept or idea about something.
You can't prove your opinions and beliefs to be true, obviously. And nobody is seriously going to ask you to.

When I'm posting real news facts, written in some newspaper, website or whatever I easily add a link. Not to reward it with a 'stamp of proof', no, it's just for the people who are interested in more.
Posting a link is a common courtesy, so we can see if there's anything you've left out of the article you quoted, or if it's from a reputable source.

Why should I lie about real news facts? Even the biggest dumb ass can handle Google and discover your lie in 2 minutes.

Lots of people misrepresent the truth to make a point. See: politicians everywhere.

I understand it rather well and some have even good arguments...

...but I'll not change my point of view.

By your own statement you really do not understand.

What's next? Can you proof the proof? :)

Come on lads, we are not building a nuclear bomb, we are not lawyers, judges or suspects in a courtroom.

We're all trying to be good debaters.

This is just a forum loaded with people who have some time left to chat about serious and really sick things. That’s it, nothing more.

Besides, proof is for pussies. :)

No, proof is for responsible people.

By your own statement you really do not understand.

I think I still do. Most, if not all, people here consider it as a forum rule, as being polite and a good sport. No?



We're all trying to be good debaters.

Me too. To be honest, not that many people here ask continuously for proof.


No, proof is for responsible people.

Can we agree that proof is for responsible pussies? :)

I think I still do. Most, if not all, people here consider it as a forum rule, as being polite and a good sport. No?

Pretty much.

I think I still do. Most, if not all, people here consider it as a forum rule, as being polite and a good sport. No?

It's about being responsible.

Me too. To be honest, not that many people here ask continuously for proof.

Most people do, in my experience.

Can we agree that proof is for responsible pussies? :)

The pussies reference is not needed.

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.

What I normally do in such a case is source a book I have on the subject. because then to refute it they have to go to the library and read the book.

In either case I win since by the time they respond no one will remember what he is responding to or two i got them to read a book and sue their local library.

What I normally do in such a case is source a book I have on the subject. because then to refute it they have to go to the library and read the book.

In either case I win since by the time they respond no one will remember what he is responding to or two i got them to read a book and sue their local library.
They don't need to remember what they're responding to, they can just go back to that thread and read it.

They don't need to remember what they're responding to, they can just go back to that thread and read it.

Reminds me, that you still have to show proof about that one argument in 1992... ;)

Reminds me, that you still have to show proof about that one argument in 1992... ;)

Back before I joined or NSG existed? :confused:

Back before I joined or NSG existed? :confused:

Wonderful world, isn't ? :)

Wonderful world, isn't ? :)

If it's so irritating to you, why keep reading threads and posting?

I don't like to proof something and providing proof for something which is commonly known is just not fun. It takes out the speed of the conversation....

I understand it rather well and some have even good arguments...

...but I'll not change my point of view.
Then what is the point of joining a debate forum which often focuses on divisive political arguments which require some level of evidence?

If you wish to solely have conversations in realtime, there's plenty of chatrooms available on the web.

i dont deal with those people. if they want me to prove the status quo they arent worth talking to. they either know nothing about the subject at hand or they are playing the "prove everything" game. either one is too freaking tedious to bother with.

Plus I just happen to have the entire law of the Netherlands in my back pocket. Beside they often discount your "proof" anyway or call into question source. If they ask for proof just tell them to take long walk off a short pier!

Yeah, because it's so hard to find the complete penal code of whatever juridiction you need...

And it's so unreasonable for people to mock you for throwing up lame ass blogs as 'sources'.

Sounds more like one big drawn out complaint about how hard it is to be intellectually lazy.

Plus I just happen to have the entire law of the Netherlands in my back pocket.

Well.. it is fully available online. For free :p

Whine all you like about having to provide sources, but be prepared to be disregarded and ignored if you just throw shit out there and pretend that it's gospel when others disagree about the veracity of your claims.

Plus I just happen to have the entire law of the Netherlands in my back pocket. Beside they often discount your "proof" anyway or call into question source. If they ask for proof just tell them to take long walk off a short pier!

Yeah, 'cause linking to an online version of the laws of the Netherlands would take what, 30 seconds? Get over yourself.

Whine all you like about having to provide sources, but be prepared to be disregarded and ignored if you just throw shit out there and pretend that it's gospel when others disagree about the veracity of your claims.

Or god forbbid *gasp* prove you wrong, HK.

They don't need to remember what they're responding to, they can just go back to that thread and read it.

by then the whole conversation has moved on. sort of like that person replying to things on page 1 in 20 page thread.

Or god forbbid *gasp* prove you wrong, HK.

Quite :wink:

Yeah, because it's so hard to find the complete penal code of whatever juridiction you need...

And it's so unreasonable for people to mock you for throwing up lame ass blogs as 'sources'.

Sounds more like one big drawn out complaint about how hard it is to be intellectually lazy.
Laziness is an art that is difficult to master and is terribly underappreciated. Do you realize how often I get yelled at for just sitting around on my ass, messing with the internet all day long, when it took me whole minutes to prioritize the list of things I wouldn't be doing that day? It's galling to have my efforts ignored like that, it really is.

And intellectual laziness is an even harder row to hoe. Here a person is, reasonably intelligent and able to put together arguments, making a serious effort not to do that. You know, it's not easy to repress the logic reflexes, and even harder to shut off the urge to actually be right. And all they ever hear is criticism and "how hard is it to get a link?" Sometimes I wonder they don't just give up and slide into despair.

Whine all you like about having to provide sources, but be prepared to be disregarded and ignored if you just throw shit out there and pretend that it's gospel when others disagree about the veracity of your claims.

clearly whenever we make a post on this forum it should come with plenty of footnotes so that all the nitpickers will have something more to do, bet they get bored simply saying "prove it!" all the time ;)

People are naturally sceptical creatures when presented with new ideas and want to see the evidence associated with it. Even if the idea isn't new, if they know little about it or have seen no proof that validates that idea or concept, they will demand it.
And when given the proof they asked for they summarily disbelieve it in favour of their existing view claiming its either biased, incomplete or that the source is outright incredible - Not by trying to counter the proof itself, naturally.

Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, has ever won an Internet debate by giving someone the facts of the matter.

Internet debates are won by public opinion and/or tiring the opposite view out of the thread, not by reason, sanity or - someone's view of - proof.

Requesting a source isn't a problem when the matter under discussion requires substantiation - e.g. an alleged action by a person, or a new piece of legislation.

"Proof or STFU!!!1!!11!" is a problem. Especially when discussing philosophical disagreements. generally, a person's outlook on a matter is rooted in a complex chain of reasoning and tradition that is difficult to express in a forum setting.

And no, I can't prove that :p

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.

Do I need to prove that you're an idiot?

Laziness is an art that is difficult to master and is terribly underappreciated. Do you realize how often I get yelled at for just sitting around on my ass, messing with the internet all day long, when it took me whole minutes to prioritize the list of things I wouldn't be doing that day? It's galling to have my efforts ignored like that, it really is.

And intellectual laziness is an even harder row to hoe. Here a person is, reasonably intelligent and able to put together arguments, making a serious effort not to do that. You know, it's not easy to repress the logic reflexes, and even harder to shut off the urge to actually be right. And all they ever hear is criticism and "how hard is it to get a link?" Sometimes I wonder they don't just give up and slide into despair.

Thank you, thank you, THANK you for spelling that correctly.

I am god. I need no proof. Everything I say is irrefutably true. Because I say so.

Oh, and by the way, there are loads of people down on Earth who have it totally wrong. They think they're keeping themselves "pure," but the fact is that I'd never let such prudes into heaven. You see, it's a party, and so I don't want such a bunch of downers coming here. I send them somewhere else where they can sit on clouds and pretend to be happy, which seems to be what they're best at. They just think that's heaven. It's true. I said so.

Do I need to prove that you're an idiot?

No, that one is clear. Just like it is clear that you have no good manners at all.

No, that one is clear. Just like it is clear that you have no good manners at all.

Then we're clear.

My whole point is that even if you insist in providing proof, you never can be sure that the proof is really proof.

Sometimes the source could be untrusting without your knowledge. How will an American asses the worth of a European source et vice versa?

And sometimes you need to know more than just reading 'facts'. By instance the body counters for Iraq range from about 100,000 death Iraqis to 1,000,000. Just few of those sources are telling how they count the death people.
From local newspapers, and not the internet, I learned that the low figures are estimated by counting the direct hits, the ones that were killed immediately by a bomb, grenade or whatever.
The high numbers are counting the same people, but extended by the people who die later. And some organizations even extend this one.

So, if you're in a debate about the death bodies, it's rather difficult to proof the digit you provide.

For any proof that the wall is black, another will find proof that the wall is white.

Again, we are not building rockets. We are not in a courtroom. This doesn’t mean you can lie around. When one is busted dozen times in creating lies, few will listen to new statements.

Then we're clear.

It's so easy to say 'You're an idiot' without saying why and without telling something about your own opinion. Or is it cause the lack of any decent argument at all?

At least, I dare to stand up and formulate my way of thinking.

My whole point is that even if you insist in providing proof, you never can be sure that the proof is really proof.

http://forsythe4kc.com/uploaded_images/HeadExplodeBig.gif

When one is busted dozen times in creating lies, few will listen to new statements.

When one makes unsupported claims, few will listen to them.

When one makes unsupported claims, few will listen to them.

I have no proof that I have to provide proof or not. Still 1,228 people viewed this forum.

I guess it depends about what you're yelling.

My whole point is that even if you insist in providing proof, you never can be sure that the proof is really proof.

Sometimes the source could be untrusting without your knowledge. How will an American asses the worth of a European source et vice versa?

And sometimes you need to know more than just reading 'facts'. By instance the body counters for Iraq range from about 100,000 death Iraqis to 1,000,000. Just few of those sources are telling how they count the death people.
From local newspapers, and not the internet, I learned that the low figures are estimated by counting the direct hits, the ones that were killed immediately by a bomb, grenade or whatever.
The high numbers are counting the same people, but extended by the people who die later. And some organizations even extend this one.

So, if you're in a debate about the death bodies, it's rather difficult to proof the digit you provide.

For any proof that the wall is black, another will find proof that the wall is white.

Again, we are not building rockets. We are not in a courtroom. This doesn’t mean you can lie around. When one is busted dozen times in creating lies, few will listen to new statements.

Meh! That don't really matter though as a call to prove your stance is offten just to attempt to understand why you would belive such a thing.

Unless of course you are in the habit of forming beliefs without evidance of any sort?

It's so easy to say 'You're an idiot' without saying why and without telling something about your own opinion. Or is it cause the lack of any decent argument at all?

At least, I dare to stand up and formulate my way of thinking.

Is... that a call for proof to back up his claim? I think it is!:D

Is... that a call for proof to back up his claim? I think it is!:D

No, it isn't.

He is saying nothing, just a little shouting, which isn't adding something to this little debate.

I have no proof that I have to provide proof or not

Almost everyone in this thread has told you that it is expected that you support your claims. This is first hand evidence from people who have been posting here for years.

Meh! That don't really matter though as a call to prove your stance is offten just to attempt to understand why you would belive such a thing.

Unless of course you are in the habit of forming beliefs without evidance of any sort?

No, no, no. I don't believe everything I read.

If I see something which isn't true and the subject is having my interest and I'm in the mood, I will react. But not by saying "show me evidence".

No, it isn't.

He is saying nothing, just a little shouting, which isn't adding something to this little debate.

What debate, you can't have debate with out something to back upyour claims. Otherwise you are just shouting.

No, no, no. I don't believe everything I read.

If I see something which isn't true and the subject is having my interest and I'm in the mood, I will react. But not by saying "show me evidence".

Then if you belive because of the evidance, why are you not propeard to share the evidance that brought you to this belife?

Almost everyone in this thread has told you that it is expected that you support your claims. This is first hand evidence from people who have been posting here for years.

I don't care that *everybody* is telling different. They just do cause it is safe, they are used to the idea and new ideas are always rejected. And people, all people are sheep.

I don't hear that many opinions that could lead to a reconsideration of my opinion.

Basically the same 2 are repeated again and again:

"It's was always like this, get used to it"
So? Once they thought the earth was the centre of the universe.

"You have to proof, else no one will listen to you"
It is not. I post so many things with no proof, still people argue or agree about it

What debate, you can't have debate with out something to back upyour claims. Otherwise you are just shouting.

I think there's a difference between stating "you're an idiot" and saying "companies should have a size limit".

The first is clear shouting, about the second statement you can have a nice debate without any proof at all.

Then if you belive because of the evidance, why are you not propeard to share the evidance that brought you to this belife?

Cause it is sometimes very time consuming
Cause it is something so clear, that evidence is not needed.
Cause some people just say 'show me proof' to keep you busy searching, they aren't interested in your proof or opinion, they just like it that you're working.
Cause this is just an ordinary forum, not a scientific paper or a courtroom.
Cause it is difficult to asses internet based 'proof'
Cause it is not needed to have a nice conservation.

I think there's a difference between stating "you're an idiot" and saying "companies should have a size limit".

The first is clear shouting, about the second statement you can have a nice debate without any proof at all.

Yes the firts is just shouting, as is making any claim without laying down the reason why you belive it.

Incidently I do find it ironic that you would berate a memeber here for his lack of manners, whilst keeping up this refusal to not only play by the forum rules, but also showing no consideration to others by refusing to show us your evidance, despite many, many times being asked.

Do you not consider it unmannered then if YOU engage in such behaviour? Isn't that hypocritical?

Yes the firts is just shouting, as is making any claim without laying down the reason why you belive it.

Incidently I do find it ironic that you would berate a memeber here for his lack of manners, whilst keeping up this refusal to not only play by the forum rules, but also showing no consideration to others by refusing to show us your evidance, despite many, many times being asked.

Do you not consider it unmannered then if YOU engage in such behaviour? Isn't that hypocritical?

Eh no. Is it unmannered to say in the dark ages "The earth is not the centre of the universe"?

Maybe for the people at that time, but not by our standards.

Like I said before, I add mostly a link to news events and stuff.
But I don't do it for my own concepts and ideas.

And when I add a link, it's not for providing 'proof', but to extend the data I provide.

Cause it is sometimes very time consuming
Cause it is something so clear, that evidence is not needed.
Cause some people just say 'show me proof' to keep you busy searching, they aren't interested in your proof or opinion, they just like it that you're working.
Cause this is just an ordinary forum, not a scientific paper or a courtroom.
Cause it is difficult to asses internet based 'proof'
Cause it is not needed to have a nice conservation.

1) Ohh so you are lazy?
2) This is true.
3) Opinion.
4) Not true as I'm sure has been pointed out to you this is not IRC, this IS a debate forum.
5) But not impossible, and anyhow as I have already said offten a call from proof is an effert to understand why a a person belives X rather than Y.
6) This is not a place to have a nice conversation, although admitedly this does go on. Between memebers who have been here and formed relationships applicible to such.

1) Ohh so you are lazy?
2) This is true.
3) Opinion.
4) Not true as I'm sure has been pointed out to you this is not IRC, this IS a debate forum.
5) But not impossible, and anyhow as I have already said offten a call from proof is an effert to understand why a a person belives X rather than Y.
6) This is not a place to have a nice conversation, although admitedly this does go on. Between memebers who have been here and formed relationships applicible to such.

1) A little. But I do prefer to do things which are fun.
2) Thanks
3) No, it is not. Such creatures are described on forum Warrior pages.
4) And a debate forum isn't a paper or a courtroom
5) Almost impossible. Like I pointed out in my little Iraqi example
6) Why not? They promise ‘For discussion and debate about anything.’ That's what I do. I talk sometimes about serious stuff, other days about silly things.


Maybe the problem is that some people are taking themselves too serious, no? :)

Eh no. Is it unmannered to say in the dark ages "The earth is not the centre of the universe"?

No it is not, but when asked to show the evidance that such a belife was prevalent in those times, and refusing to do so dispite the providing of such evidance being nomal for any sort of debate, then yes that is unmannerd.

Maybe the problem is that some people are taking themselves too serious, no? :)


No the problem is that you are not playing nice.:D

No it is not, but when asked to show the evidance that such a belife was prevalent in those times, and refusing to do so dispite the providing of such evidance being nomal for any sort of debate, then yes that is unmannerd.


Even if you showed the evidence, they would have killed you in those times.

I don't care that *everybody* is telling different. They just do cause it is safe, they are used to the idea and new ideas are always rejected. And people, all people are sheep.
Then you're a sheep, clearly.

I don't hear that many opinions that could lead to a reconsideration of my opinion.

Basically the same 2 are repeated again and again:

"It's was always like this, get used to it"
So? Once they thought the earth was the centre of the universe.
That's not why we expect people to back up their claims. We expect people to back up their claims because anonymous people on the internet have very little credibility.

"You have to proof, else no one will listen to you"
It is not. I post so many things with no proof, still people argue or agree about it
It's a general rule, not hard and fast. If you get a reputation for making claims and never backing them up, nobody will ever listen to your claims.
Cause it is sometimes very time consuming
Yet you suggest that if we're interested we can check out your claims ourselves. So basically, you're just lazy?
Cause it is something so clear, that evidence is not needed.
In which case nobody will ask for evidence. If they do it's generally because it isn't that clear.
Cause some people just say 'show me proof' to keep you busy searching, they aren't interested in your proof or opinion, they just like it that you're working.
Bullshit, why would we care if you're working or not?
Cause this is just an ordinary forum, not a scientific paper or a courtroom.
It's not an ordinary forum, it's a debate forum.
Cause it is difficult to asses internet based 'proof'
Not really.
Cause it is not needed to have a nice conservation.
If you want to have a nice conversation you came to the wrong place. Try a chatroom, then you can spout all the nonsense you like.

Even if you showed the evidence, they would have killed you in those times.

Okay so did I not make myself clear or have you purposely misread me?

No the problem is that you are not playing nice.:D

Have to go, see you later Peep.

1) A little. But I do prefer to do things which are fun.
If you don't like debating then why are you on NSG?
3) No, it is not. Such creatures are described on forum Warrior pages.
Doesn't make it fact. Why would we care if you're working?
4) And a debate forum isn't a paper or a courtroom
Nobody said it was. But in a debate you're expected to have evidence to support your argument.
5) Almost impossible. Like I pointed out in my little Iraqi example
Depends greatly on the topic. Body count in a war is difficult to determine. But not everything is analogous to determining the body count in a war.
6) Why not? They promise ‘For discussion and debate about anything.’ That's what I do. I talk sometimes about serious stuff, other days about silly things.
It's a quick description of the forum, not a promise of guarantee.


Maybe the problem is that some people are taking themselves too serious, no? :)
Or maybe you're not taking it seriously enough.

Thank you, thank you, THANK you for spelling that correctly.
You're welcome -- and thank you for not busting me for the split infinitive in that same post. :D

What the hell do they teach in school these days? Do you seriously not learn how to critique sources of information at all, ever, even once in your entire educational career? Or did those lessons just not sink in?

What continues to astonish me is the complete idiocy displayed on this forum in terms of evaluating sources. It's like some of you really don't understand how a peer-reviewed journal is a superior source to a blog entry. It makes me despair, it honestly does. Do you remember to chew your food before you swallow?

And intellectual laziness is an even harder row to hoe. Here a person is, reasonably intelligent and able to put together arguments, making a serious effort not to do that. You know, it's not easy to repress the logic reflexes, and even harder to shut off the urge to actually be right. And all they ever hear is criticism and "how hard is it to get a link?" Sometimes I wonder they don't just give up and slide into despair.

depends on the topic. sometimes you can only fine the information a book.
Or other times you get a link but the person your debating with has not access to JSTOR.

depends on the topic. sometimes you can only fine the information a book.
Or other times you get a link but the person your debating with has not access to JSTOR.
And that's why you don't just give up and slide into despair?

Do you remember to chew your food before you swallow?

I wish some of you wouldn't.

I wish some of you wouldn't.

that's why i drink everything all my calories.

What the hell do they teach in school these days? Do you seriously not learn how to critique sources of information at all, ever, even once in your entire educational career? Or did those lessons just not sink in?
I can't speak for Hairless Kitten's country, but in the US, no, they don't teach that. Hell, sometimes education officials even have huge angry debates (that read very much like this thread, in a way) about whether it would be good or bad to teach "critical judgment" in schools at any grade. We live in a Golden Age of Dumb, where thinking apparently is bad because it's hard.

What continues to astonish me is the complete idiocy displayed on this forum in terms of evaluating sources. It's like some of you really don't understand how a peer-reviewed journal is a superior source to a blog entry. It makes me despair, it honestly does. Do you remember to chew your food before you swallow?
I actually know people who don't. And some of them have college degrees. Just goes to show -- acing the tests and cranking out papers to form doesn't mean they're learning anything.

I can't speak for Hairless Kitten's country, but in the US, no, they don't teach that. Hell, sometimes education officials even have huge angry debates (that read very much like this thread, in a way) about whether it would be good or bad to teach "critical judgment" in schools at any grade. We live in a Golden Age of Dumb, where thinking apparently is bad because it's hard.


I actually know people who don't. And some of them have college degrees. Just goes to show -- acing the tests and cranking out papers to form doesn't mean they're learning anything.

they teach it in my school.
poli sci courses are largely peer reviewed journals and studies for sources of papers.
History courses are mostly primary sources.

Everything I learned about having my ass handed to me for not using sources properly, I learned in a first year Uni history course. With a man unfortunately named David Duke. Oh it hurt. It hurt soooooo good. I haven't slipped up since.

Everything I learned about having my ass handed to me for not using sources properly, I learned in a first year Uni history course. With a man unfortunately named David Duke. Oh it hurt. It hurt soooooo good. I haven't slipped up since.

That poor man.

But I'm better than you, because I learned all about having my ass handed to me for shoddy intellectual work in the fifth grade of elementary school (in front of a classroom audience, no less). :hail: > Mr. Isidore Zimmler, the greatest teacher EVAH!!

That poor man.

But I'm better than you, because I learned all about having my ass handed to me for shoddy intellectual work in the fifth grade of elementary school (in front of a classroom audience, no less). :hail: > Mr. Isidore Zimmler, the greatest teacher EVAH!!

Pfft. Grade five. When I nearly got expelled for taking a Latin American topical essay too seriously, turning in a research paper on the Regan administration's involvement in covert operations in dictatorships in that area. I think my sources were pretty good actually, but it never got as far as examining them...they were disturbed by my 'militant stance'.

Idjuts. My godmother was a nun who joined the Sandanistas, come on now.

Pfft. Grade five. When I nearly got expelled for taking a Latin American topical essay too seriously, turning in a research paper on the Regan administration's involvement in covert operations in dictatorships in that area. I think my sources were pretty good actually, but it never got as far as examining them...they were disturbed by my 'militant stance'.

Idjuts. My godmother was a nun who joined the Sandanistas, come on now.
You, of all people, should know that personal anecdotes don't count as supporting evidence in most cases. ;)

EDIT: Also, you weren't in my 5th grade class. That man had us doing what I later learned was second-year college work.

I love this place
P.S. I will not prove this.

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.

If people do not believe my words, so what? Make my day.

Yay for truthiness

Everything I learned about having my ass handed to me for not using sources properly, I learned in a first year Uni history course. With a man unfortunately named David Duke. Oh it hurt. It hurt soooooo good. I haven't slipped up since.

Ahhh there you go then. I never learned any such thing at school, nor did I get to uni. Also 'peer reviewed' meant nowt to me until I was well into my adult years and started reading science magazines. So I guess the answer to your question is no, not until higher education are these things taught, and of course the perctage of people that go into higher education is really not that high.

You're welcome -- and thank you for not busting me for the split infinitive in that same post. :D

I was too overjoyed by your awesome correctness (correct awesomeness?) to notice.

I can't speak for Hairless Kitten's country, but in the US, no, they don't teach that. Hell, sometimes education officials even have huge angry debates (that read very much like this thread, in a way) about whether it would be good or bad to teach "critical judgment" in schools at any grade. We live in a Golden Age of Dumb, where thinking apparently is bad because it's hard.


I actually know people who don't. And some of them have college degrees. Just goes to show -- acing the tests and cranking out papers to form doesn't mean they're learning anything.

Amen twice.

"Consider the source" has been stamped on my mind since at least high school, so yeah, they USED to teach it. And if it hadn't sunk in then, my professor for Methods of Musical Research, Dr. Margaret Gries (the first woman to get a doctorate at Yale in Aesthetics) made damn sure it did in grad school.

It’s so silly when they ask that one on forums. They demand proof for some statement, idea, concept or whatever.
Whether it's a statement, idea, or concept is hardly "whatever"; that makes a difference to how relevant proof is. Some things are so subjective they wouldn't necessarily rest on proof; things one would claim are facts probably might more so, depending on how commonly accepted they are.

First of all, in general they just ask it to keep you busy. They aren’t interested in your proof at all.
Oh really, and how would you know? Are you a mind reader? If not, how could you claim to know how why people ask for proof? Some of them, I guess, might not be interested in the proof, but that wouldn't necessarily reflect on everyone who asks for proof. I tend not to ask for proof much, myself, but I think it's ridiculous to claim to know what the intentions of those who do are.

Secondly, what’s the worth of the proof anyway?
It gives people more reason to believe a claim; "someone on the Internet said so" isn't considered a good reason nowadays.

Thirdly, some stuff can’t be proved. Is god real or not?
And this is the problem with religion; it has a favoritism of one set of unprovable claims over other sets of unprovable claims. "Is god real or not?" is something interesting to speculate over, but it becomes harmful when specific groups claim enough authority over their "god" existing and being exactly as they say he/she is and end up having society in their chokehold.

Fourthly, how will we measure which stuff we should proof and which stuff we shouldn’t?
What do you mean?

IMHO, just post and talk, even when it’s entirely dumb nonsense. BTW, sometimes there’s some truth in the nonsense.
Of course, but it's just that depending on the nature of the claim, some expect people to back it up.

If people do not believe my words, so what?
Ok, so as long as you don't mind that people don't believe your claims, at least you're being consistent... but even then, if you say "so what" about it, why the post about the concept of proof?