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.
