Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
I'm less concerned about reputable, and more concerned with relevant. The information can always be debated, so long as it is relevant to the discussion and not overbearing in volume. Brevity will spur the discussion.
|
Halix...your thread on President 2.0 provides an example of the problem.
It went off course when magictoy offered a post that was completely baseless:
If you do not consider the right to keep and bear arms a freedom you should be enjoying, then Obama is right for you.
If you think that a black child of Michael Jordan is more deserving of a place in college than the white child of Joe Lunchbucket, then Obama is right for you.
Neither claim can be supported with any factual information. Should I have qualified my response by saying anyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts?
Was is a threadjack for me to challenge these false assertions?
When I was further confroted by dk and marv with mocking responses, I provided more FACTS.
Yes, what followed was a further threadjack by all of us, but is it not relevant to set the record straight even if it takes the thread further off course?
What is more important...keeping a thread on the OP topic or shedding light on bullshit when it is presented as factual?
Why should I or anyone who really wants an honest debate bother to contribute if there are restrctions that allow bullshit to go unchallenged?