In the last day and a half, two examples "came up" in discussion which renew my doubts as to whether the information 'filters" of those who take differing positions in discussions here, are "tuned" in similar enough "ways" to permit serious discussion between those of opposing POV.
Plenty of what goes on here is "moderated". If a subject is deemed unsuitable for political discussion, it is pointed out by a mod, and....if it is the foundation for a thread, or for a series of posts, the thread or the group of posts are moved to another forum "genre".....
For example, is this a "news site"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ ? Is it appropriate for threads to be initiated at this politics forum which have "articles" from this site, as a sole source, providing the "details" to be discussed in the thread? I have argued that it is not:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...96&postcount=8
Is this "American Center for Voting Rights ", a "non-partisan" "source", to be cited in our discussions to support a poster's argument?
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=11
Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007
.....Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.
But their influence could linger.
One of the directors of the American Center,Cameron Quinn, who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume
, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The division is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities......
|
"The problem" in our discussions is that, even though "the work" has been done in prior discussions in other threads to convincingly document that a "reasonable person" would conclude that a source is "too compromised", unreasonable, biased, unreliable, to be cited to support a serious discussion, let alone as a sole, supporting citation...there it is... offered again quite insistently by a poster here.
Can we agree on a method to avoid this? Can we agree that anything linked or cited from a
www.worldnetdaily.com web page must be accompanied by a corroborating link to a less biased, more reputable source. (The hope would be that this posting restriction would cause it not to be necessary to link to or refer to the worldnetdaily "version" of the reporting.)
I am accused of posting, too much information, "too many links". It is my belief I posted quite enough documentation to persuade that "facts" supported with links to "material" sourced from "news service", worldnetdaily and from "non-partisan" "voting rights" Org, "American Center for Voting Rights", are not from sources a "reasonable person", could view as "reasonable".
But, in the last day or so, here they are....cited as if they have never been discredited, and defended when it is pointed out that they have been discredited. The sources are then challenged, and not by me alone, and the "process" begins again..... I'm stepping out of "the process", posting this thread to discuss "the problem", because I am sick of it.