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?"
Well, you can stop with your “logical conclusions to my statements” because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics. Nobody can speak for what another person intends or what they mean, just what is perceived. I laid out a clear difference.
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices (some of which you at first overly deny) in the exact same way you accuse me of giving into bias about North Korea. So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use? Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Well, let's start with the first step, which is citing a source at all. They have asked you to follow through on your offer to cite sources to back up on your claims multiple times, and you just keep getting bogged down in these wacky circular semantic arguments. Currently you are failing to produce any source of any strength or bias.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
If it's because you think these sources are too biased, that itself is a part of my question you quoted, being what defines bias here? In a world where anyone can point to something and make a case that it must be biased, I'm here asking where the line is drawn between something tolerable and something intolerable.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
You've posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you've finally posted one single reference, to which I've asked if that is your totality of references. I've asked this because 1. A single article isn't exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I'd rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.
Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn't what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.
You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.
The medieval kingdoms are past manifestations of North and South Korea. If you studied Korean linguistics, I doubt you’d be questioning that they the manifestations even have different names.
I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article.
And you wonder why I hesitate as well as bring up the whole criteria question amidst you at other times asking for an increased quantity of sources rather than increased quality), especially as what you’re saying is more derailing.
I did not claim they weren’t isolationist, nor did I say it was for any reason aside from it being one of their cultural values/habits. Is this not you using the straw man fallacy? Would you be arguing against the point I’m not making as if I made it if you were able to come to terms with the fact I didn’t make it, or would you be praising the fact that I in actuality agree with you on that point?
Jesus Christ you really are just going in a roundabout. You claim history from middle ages is relevant, but moderns history is spurious, okay good whatever. By that logic the us if a fascist slave state, as is every single European country.
Sure it's a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you, that's what a strawman is allright. Wanting to engage with your sources is whataboutism or whatever. You still haven't engaged in any source critique. You speak of studying history and linguistics, but you fail the very base-level tools of both of those studies.
Yeah good some website says they're isolationist, because they say they are.
This is due to the nation's strict closed-country policy: not many outsiders have visited there and not many North Koreans have traveled to the outside world.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us. Here's your favorite source Wikipedia here's the state dep websitehttps://www.state.gov/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-sanctions/.
It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you're not American https://www.youngpioneertours.com/north-korea-tours/
this has already been argued with you, which you refused to engage with, which is how we ended up in this semantic rabbit hole. You keep arguing they're isolationist because of culture or medieval history, completely ignoring modern history and current affairs. But this has already been pointed out to you.
It’s a strawman to say I said things I didn’t say in order to make it seem as if there is something I’ve said which can be argued against, which is exactly what you’re doing by saying “ it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you”. If I perceived you as saying something, and you clarified what you meant and revealed I was perceiving it wrong compared to what you intended, I would respect this.
Yeah good some website says they’re isolationist, because they say they are.
...as opposed to? It’s not pointing out a contradiction or hole or exposing a lie simply to dismiss the article’s claim.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us.
...based on?
It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you’re not American
You say that like being restricted to one area when you visit and needing a supervisor is that much better.
Allright you're just going in circles, it's obvious you refuse to engage with anything I put in front of you, and you keep behaving as if I haven't gone into every single one of your arguments. You're wasting both of our times by willfully choosing to be obtuse, so I am going to disengage from this conversation
because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics.
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation.
We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable.
Which I then answered. Are you dense?
Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources.
Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources?
I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
Questioning a source isn’t going “well I just don’t trust it”. It’s pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying “well I’ve been told they’re untrustworthy.” You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc.
My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I'm not saying that, I've taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
I've already gone thru why "well this is a famous brand" is not a good foundation for "what makes a source good for a given claim", but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.
This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you've been.
I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim.
There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it...
Haven't I?
...based on a factual basis.
Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
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?"
Well, you can stop with your “logical conclusions to my statements” because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics. Nobody can speak for what another person intends or what they mean, just what is perceived. I laid out a clear difference.
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices (some of which you at first overly deny) in the exact same way you accuse me of giving into bias about North Korea. So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use? Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
Well, let's start with the first step, which is citing a source at all. They have asked you to follow through on your offer to cite sources to back up on your claims multiple times, and you just keep getting bogged down in these wacky circular semantic arguments. Currently you are failing to produce any source of any strength or bias.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
If it's because you think these sources are too biased, that itself is a part of my question you quoted, being what defines bias here? In a world where anyone can point to something and make a case that it must be biased, I'm here asking where the line is drawn between something tolerable and something intolerable.
You've posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you've finally posted one single reference, to which I've asked if that is your totality of references. I've asked this because 1. A single article isn't exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I'd rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.
Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn't what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.
You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.
The medieval kingdoms are past manifestations of North and South Korea. If you studied Korean linguistics, I doubt you’d be questioning that they the manifestations even have different names.
And you wonder why I hesitate as well as bring up the whole criteria question amidst you at other times asking for an increased quantity of sources rather than increased quality), especially as what you’re saying is more derailing.
I did not claim they weren’t isolationist, nor did I say it was for any reason aside from it being one of their cultural values/habits. Is this not you using the straw man fallacy? Would you be arguing against the point I’m not making as if I made it if you were able to come to terms with the fact I didn’t make it, or would you be praising the fact that I in actuality agree with you on that point?
Jesus Christ you really are just going in a roundabout. You claim history from middle ages is relevant, but moderns history is spurious, okay good whatever. By that logic the us if a fascist slave state, as is every single European country.
Sure it's a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you, that's what a strawman is allright. Wanting to engage with your sources is whataboutism or whatever. You still haven't engaged in any source critique. You speak of studying history and linguistics, but you fail the very base-level tools of both of those studies.
Yeah good some website says they're isolationist, because they say they are.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us. Here's your favorite source Wikipedia here's the state dep websitehttps://www.state.gov/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-sanctions/. It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you're not American https://www.youngpioneertours.com/north-korea-tours/
this has already been argued with you, which you refused to engage with, which is how we ended up in this semantic rabbit hole. You keep arguing they're isolationist because of culture or medieval history, completely ignoring modern history and current affairs. But this has already been pointed out to you.
It’s a strawman to say I said things I didn’t say in order to make it seem as if there is something I’ve said which can be argued against, which is exactly what you’re doing by saying “ it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you”. If I perceived you as saying something, and you clarified what you meant and revealed I was perceiving it wrong compared to what you intended, I would respect this.
...as opposed to? It’s not pointing out a contradiction or hole or exposing a lie simply to dismiss the article’s claim.
...based on?
You say that like being restricted to one area when you visit and needing a supervisor is that much better.
Allright you're just going in circles, it's obvious you refuse to engage with anything I put in front of you, and you keep behaving as if I haven't gone into every single one of your arguments. You're wasting both of our times by willfully choosing to be obtuse, so I am going to disengage from this conversation
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
...as opposed to what or who?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
Which I then answered. Are you dense?
Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
This is going in circles.
I'm not saying that, I've taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.
This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
I've already gone thru why "well this is a famous brand" is not a good foundation for "what makes a source good for a given claim", but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.
This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you've been.
There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
Haven't I?
Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
Disengage