Results 11 to 15 of 32
April 2nd, 2013 08:59 PM #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
Personally, things like the name discrimination that was brought up and cultural appropriation are two topics that are near and dear to me for a number of reasons, but you are very correct - there are just certain topics that have been discussed to death. Utilization of the "search" tool should be more common, lol.
April 2nd, 2013 09:01 PM #13Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
April 3rd, 2013 01:30 AM #15
This site isn't particularly based on mainly fact, imo, so it's not surprising a lot of posters don't post citations. Also, when you're browsing a site one can't always be bothered to go hunting for that one article they read three summers ago.
However, when it's easier then yes, it'd be lovely if links could be posted.Laurel - 2O - Aries - Slytherin - University of Toronto
Newest thoughts for little ones: Angelo - Caspian - Eden | Isabela - Brisa - Gisele
April 3rd, 2013 01:52 AM #17
It's amusing how much I irritate you. You do know that ad hominem attacks are technically fallacious, right? They serve to make you look illogical and petty, and cast a pall over anything you say. As one of the more blunt, plainspoken, occasionally hostile members on this site, who has been told repeatedly in multiple threads that her feedback is unjustifiedly harsh, it is a little... interesting... that you feel so very passionately about tempering ones rhetoric.
As an aside, I think one should be able to actually back up any objective claim one makes. It doesn't mean laying out an exhaustive bibliography each time you discuss a more objective topic, but if you're wading into controversial waters and you want to make sure the message is heard loud and clear, not muddled by however people feel towards the messenger, be able to cite sources.
This comes up in two main arenas, I think: socio-political topics and any medical stuff that ventures into culture wars territory. I feel very, very strongly that there is a great deal of literally dangerous misinformation in certain domains of obstetric practice and infant health, but (ad hominem again!) simply stating the counterfactual without providing real, objective, easy to understand proof doesn't accomplish anything if people think you're just mouthing some tired, discredited party line. Being able to dissect and (in)validate opposing sources is necessary, too, in weighing the evidence. I don't think these are pissing matches but rather very high-stakes topics where, for example, babies' lives are literally at stake.
In the sociopolitical arena, there are subjective and objective statements. Saying "such and such is offensive" is nearly impossible to invalidate, but factual claims ("one billion Indians died during the British Raj") can and should be verified if people care and ask.
One a personal note: I don't like lying and liars and wasting time, and will continue to try to nip time wasters in the bud. I think nameberry is much more pleasant in their absence.
And if anyone opens hostilities towards me, I am not a gentle 'turn the other cheek' person and absolutely will give as good-- probably better-- as I get.
Last edited by blade; April 3rd, 2013 at 02:07 AM.XY: Antoine Raphael (3.1.2012)
XX: Cassia Viviane Noor (11.30.2013)
April 3rd, 2013 02:32 AM #19
I'm getting popcorn and pulling up a chair. This should be interesting...
| Eloise & Matilda | Sylvie & Faye | Alice & Elliot |
| Jules & Ivan | Marigold & Juniper | Atlas & August | Marlowe & Cordelia |
| Dashiell & Roscoe | Simon & Wallace | Jane & Iris |