You linked two things. One of these is an article about literal ancient history, and the other is an article about three Christians who all lived and died long before the country we're discussing existed. Please, please explain to me how your "sources" are in any way relevant to the topic at hand.
Your circular logic is as follows: The DPRK is isolationist. We know it's isolationist because they don't let people in. We know they don't let people in because they're isolationist. No, I won't pay any attention to the hard fact that they do, in fact, let people in, and that it is in fact their enemies who do not let people into their country.
Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
Also, my sources explain how the two Koreas manifested themselves in the past. Your counter sounds a lot like the old “the Roman republic was not the Roman empire” which isn’t true. They weren’t called North and South Korea at the time. Names change. Governmental systems change. It happens.
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
Anyway, we're at an impasse here. You've decided that the DPRK is not a distinct country and that all you need to know about their laws can be extrapolated from the ancient history of the Korean peninsula, and that anything modern which contradicts your juvenile interpretation of ancient history must simply be made up. I have no idea what species of brainworm is responsible for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, and I am not qualified to exterminate it.
I don’t see it, whether in your passage or out of it. Maybe because I never said it. Neither did I say the DPRK wasn’t its own country, or that modern history is made up, at most I was saying its customs of isolating go back to earlier manifestations of North and even South Korea. I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia. They said what I said before I did. What do you bring to the table?
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
This is you saying the thing you said you didn't say.
I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia.
"Giving sources" isn't just mentioning them. If that's the case then I can back up the other user by saying they have their data from Reuters, the UN, the CIA, CNN, AP, internal military documents made available by FOIA, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
"Providing a source" means you give a reference to a specific text which supports the claim you're making - in other words it's it's linking to them, providing them as references. You've only done this for the aforementioned ancient history and three christian dudes.
Listen to Blowback season 3, it would do you some good.
“The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbors. And again, it predates the Romans. There’s nothing in my comments that make it circular, what I say is intertwined with multiple sources, some unseen, combined which wouldn’t allow me to be circular.
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well. Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it? How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
You're saying the same thing twice there. The fact you say it isn't, doesn't mean anything when the actual statements are functionally the same. No matter what they both place this issue at the feet of the Koreans, which is what the disagreement was about.
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbor
So you are saying they are isolationist. Super. ut that has already been argued with you and instead you moved the goalposts to be about proving you said something you thought you didn't say, which you are now once again saying
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well.
As we have already gone thru, you've hyperlinked to two things. Do you not understand how references work? Do you need everything explained twice? Yes please provide your sources for god's sake this is the third time I'm telling you how sources work.
Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it?
You do - you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
Yes this is called being critical of your sources. It's an inherent part of any dissemination of information - not to just blindly accept statements presented by others. All of the things you mention help evaluate wether the source might have a bias, though the really big thing is cross-referencing claims. Interests of conflict and bias are helpful when conflicting narratives occur.
Do you not get the point of references? Why do you think we are taught from an early age to engage sources with skepticism?
You are putting words in my mouth to claim that I imply a nation’s policy reasoning by mentioning the timeline of said policy. If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth. It is the fallacy fallacy.
you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria, let’s see if we can both follow it.
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth.
"Having the result of my actions pointed out to me is putting words in my mouth". Don't ask questions if you don't want them answered.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria,
Get it thru your dense skull: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY GOOD SOURCE. You need to be critical of ANY source, but the only way you can do that is by PRESENTING IT so it can be studied. THIS IS BASIC SHIT. Have you never learned source critique?
When we speak about "good" and "bad" sources, it's generally common parlance to describe media that is known to lie or which had a heavy bias - Breitbart, Infowars, Epoch Times, Radio Free Asia, Wikipedia - these are all examples of being "bad". This is not to say that they cannot present useful information, but you should be extremely wary of taking anything presented by them at face value - again you should be wary of all sources, but even moreso one that has a proven track record of a bias.
A source might be good for one thing and bad for another. You wouldn't trust the press secretary oval office dismissing accusations of sexual assault made by the same press secretary, but you would probably trust it with statements about wildfires in the US. You wouldn't trust the Japanese government with statements about it having no connection to the moonies, but you'd probably feel safe in trusting it's statements about shinto shrines or whatever.
You investigate your references for bias, for lies, for truth, you cross-reference with your other references in order to gather a more complete picture, and when you encounter conflicts you weigh the validity of each reference - In large part here the question of "who to trust" should in part be answered by "who do I know has lied before?"
You linked two things. One of these is an article about literal ancient history, and the other is an article about three Christians who all lived and died long before the country we're discussing existed. Please, please explain to me how your "sources" are in any way relevant to the topic at hand.
Your circular logic is as follows: The DPRK is isolationist. We know it's isolationist because they don't let people in. We know they don't let people in because they're isolationist. No, I won't pay any attention to the hard fact that they do, in fact, let people in, and that it is in fact their enemies who do not let people into their country.
Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
Also, my sources explain how the two Koreas manifested themselves in the past. Your counter sounds a lot like the old “the Roman republic was not the Roman empire” which isn’t true. They weren’t called North and South Korea at the time. Names change. Governmental systems change. It happens.
Sure! It was right here.
Anyway, we're at an impasse here. You've decided that the DPRK is not a distinct country and that all you need to know about their laws can be extrapolated from the ancient history of the Korean peninsula, and that anything modern which contradicts your juvenile interpretation of ancient history must simply be made up. I have no idea what species of brainworm is responsible for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, and I am not qualified to exterminate it.
I don’t see it, whether in your passage or out of it. Maybe because I never said it. Neither did I say the DPRK wasn’t its own country, or that modern history is made up, at most I was saying its customs of isolating go back to earlier manifestations of North and even South Korea. I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia. They said what I said before I did. What do you bring to the table?
They literally quoted you...
This is you saying the thing you said you didn't say.
"Giving sources" isn't just mentioning them. If that's the case then I can back up the other user by saying they have their data from Reuters, the UN, the CIA, CNN, AP, internal military documents made available by FOIA, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
"Providing a source" means you give a reference to a specific text which supports the claim you're making - in other words it's it's linking to them, providing them as references. You've only done this for the aforementioned ancient history and three christian dudes.
Listen to Blowback season 3, it would do you some good.
“The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbors. And again, it predates the Romans. There’s nothing in my comments that make it circular, what I say is intertwined with multiple sources, some unseen, combined which wouldn’t allow me to be circular.
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well. Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it? How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
You're saying the same thing twice there. The fact you say it isn't, doesn't mean anything when the actual statements are functionally the same. No matter what they both place this issue at the feet of the Koreans, which is what the disagreement was about.
So you are saying they are isolationist. Super. ut that has already been argued with you and instead you moved the goalposts to be about proving you said something you thought you didn't say, which you are now once again saying
As we have already gone thru, you've hyperlinked to two things. Do you not understand how references work? Do you need everything explained twice? Yes please provide your sources for god's sake this is the third time I'm telling you how sources work.
You do - you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
Yes this is called being critical of your sources. It's an inherent part of any dissemination of information - not to just blindly accept statements presented by others. All of the things you mention help evaluate wether the source might have a bias, though the really big thing is cross-referencing claims. Interests of conflict and bias are helpful when conflicting narratives occur.
Do you not get the point of references? Why do you think we are taught from an early age to engage sources with skepticism?
You are putting words in my mouth to claim that I imply a nation’s policy reasoning by mentioning the timeline of said policy. If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth. It is the fallacy fallacy.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria, let’s see if we can both follow it.
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
"Having the result of my actions pointed out to me is putting words in my mouth". Don't ask questions if you don't want them answered.
Get it thru your dense skull: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY GOOD SOURCE. You need to be critical of ANY source, but the only way you can do that is by PRESENTING IT so it can be studied. THIS IS BASIC SHIT. Have you never learned source critique?
When we speak about "good" and "bad" sources, it's generally common parlance to describe media that is known to lie or which had a heavy bias - Breitbart, Infowars, Epoch Times, Radio Free Asia, Wikipedia - these are all examples of being "bad". This is not to say that they cannot present useful information, but you should be extremely wary of taking anything presented by them at face value - again you should be wary of all sources, but even moreso one that has a proven track record of a bias.
A source might be good for one thing and bad for another. You wouldn't trust the press secretary oval office dismissing accusations of sexual assault made by the same press secretary, but you would probably trust it with statements about wildfires in the US. You wouldn't trust the Japanese government with statements about it having no connection to the moonies, but you'd probably feel safe in trusting it's statements about shinto shrines or whatever.
You investigate your references for bias, for lies, for truth, you cross-reference with your other references in order to gather a more complete picture, and when you encounter conflicts you weigh the validity of each reference - In large part here the question of "who to trust" should in part be answered by "who do I know has lied before?"