There's a reason I don't post my sources. Do your own research.

Liberals everywhere

Providing a source is really just the first step in having a serious, fact-based discussion. The next step, as antithesis says, is assessing the quality of that source and actually closely reading and discussing the information presented.

In that regard, not all news outlets are created equal. Some of them have simply a greater commitment to the truth than others. You'll find those clustered around the center of this chart. The farther you get to the edges, the more likely the news outlet's agenda will take over and you'll be presented with a skewed or outright false story.

Of note, this chart is just about news sources: Encyclopedias, history books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, etc. are generally even more reliable sources.

But they don't operate on the 24-hour news cycle. It takes additional time for those kinds of sources to be researched, written, edited, and published. They're not always available for making decisions in real-time.

So no, just because someone disagrees with your source, that's not the end of the discussion. If they bring their own valid information to the table, then you need to be prepared for the possibility that your own source is missing something or is just wrong.

Can't wait to watch you not live up to this standard you set for everyone else:

"So no, just because someone disagrees with your source, that's not the end of the discussion. If they bring their own valid information to the table, then you need to be prepared for the possibility that your own source is missing something or is just wrong."

Says the dude who dismisses all my charts and citations out of hand, and provides a source of his own, oh, about once every two months or so.

I still remember that one time probably 4 months ago now when you cited an opinion article as if it established the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that was a fun one

Bahahahaha

lol

I can't think of any time I simply dismissed your source. However, I can think of a few times your source did not *actually prove the point you were offering it to establish.* Different thing.

Like when you quoted Volokh in the republic vs. democracy debate. Indeed, Volokh called the U.S. a constitutional republic, but -- according to the very quote you cited -- he acknowledged it had democratic elements and even direct democratic processes at the local level. And he stopped short of making the bold claim America wasn't a "democracy." Volokh is on the right but I don't think even he would say that.

In that same conversation, I cited the dictionary in support of the proposition that America is, in fact, a democracy. I have several other sources as well.

Pretty sure you dismissed ZeroHedge multiple times because "they doxxed someone" and you "didnt like that"

Pfft ZeroHedge is one dude in his basement going under the name Tyler Durden peddling conspiracy theories and, when he’s not doing that, just recapping what other news outlets have said, it appears

He would be somewhere around here on this chart

And yeah: accusing a doctor of starting coronavirus and then doxxing them is just not what legitimate news outlets do

He needs to do a lot more to earn my respect

There we go dismissing sources and it's clear you don't anything about the site.

It's not one dude, dummy. The website hires independent writers, but all post are under the penname "Tyler Durden".

"And yeah: accusing a doctor of starting coronavirus and then doxxing them is just not what legitimate news outlets do"

Bahahha. No "legitmate news outlets" accuse children of being racist biggots. Then settle massive lawsuits as a result.

So like you said, "So no, just because someone disagrees with your source, that's not the end of the discussion. If they bring their own valid information to the table, then you need to be prepared for the possibility that your own source is missing something or is just wrong"

Now, live up to your own standard, you little bitch.

Whether it’s one dude in his basement or a dozen different dudes in their own respective basements going under the same dumb edgy Chuck Palahniuk-inspired pseudonym:

If they’re citing Bloomberg, then what they’re saying is probably okay

If they’re doxxing doctors, no

Happy?

As for the Sandmann thing: Left twitter went crazy overboard with that incident, but all I saw was CNN pointing the cameras and shooting. Am I missing something?

Obviously CNN did more than just "pointing cameras and shooting" or else they wouldnt have settled a hundred million dollar defamation lawsuit b

Oh come on. Surely you remember when the President taught you this?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/trump-campaign-lawsuits-settlements/amp

Lol.

There you go again, this is not exposing hypocrisy. It's whataboutism. It's a smokescreen.

You haven't exposed hypocrisy because I haven't taken a position to go back on.

I highlighted CNN settling the Sandman lawsuit. You turned that into "that's not an admission of guilt, what about all these settlement's Trumps campaign made".

First, I never said CNN was guilty of anything. I said they settled a huge defamation lawsuit, which means they obviously did a little more than "point their camera and start shooting". And this is obvious because CNN points their cameras tens of thousands of times per year in the US and they never settle a $100 million defamation lawsuit.

Second, your link goes on to show that campaigns settling lawsuits is common, as they highlight the Obama campaign did the same thing. So you using Common place settlement's (in many cases low dollar amounts) in election years by campaign to distract from highly uncommon defamation lawsuits against news outlets that were in the nine figures.

It's whataboutism.

And you are stupid whataboutism continues.

Yeah: if you’re a Trump supporter, then I guarantee settlement = fault is not exactly the principle you want to truck with

I think it is your fault if you are in fact picking trash sources.

There are trash sources that don't report fact, that is true. However, if the sources are political in nature and you just don't agree with the source material because you have a difference in political opinion, then the problem isn't the source, it's you.

And for the record, I'm using you as a generic example.

No, see, that's not it - it's not that you're using sources that are political in nature; it's that you're not applying critical thinking to the information you're reading.

Hilarious.
When it comes to critical thinking, you are a quadriplegic. My source is your Imgflip posts and comments, by the way. So aim your pending libtard rage at the author of that lunacy. (that's you)

Study the chart my man

Do you think anyone actually clicks on these little charts and whatnot to read them? LOL
I don't. Your opinion is invalid, irrelevant and absurd. Go back to your pathetic loser safe space.

Hope this helps

See you tomorrow

Don't flatter yourself. Outside of that echo chamber of lies you built to shelter snowflakes from truth, you haven't a shred of credibility. Not out here in the real world, loser.

If the source I'm producing gives actual facts, then it is indeed a good and accurate source and therefore shouldn't be questioned. Otherwise, you're just ignoring the facts and forming your own idea of what the facts are, statistics be damned.