This argument about googling sources goes on for a ridiculously long time (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
53 ups - 0 downs = 53 votes
67 comments submitted at 16:05:03 on Nov 20, 2014 by lajoi
This argument about googling sources goes on for a ridiculously long time (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
53 ups - 0 downs = 53 votes
67 comments submitted at 16:05:03 on Nov 20, 2014 by lajoi
> Perhaps read it. Perhaps Google. Perhaps do your own homework. The whole point was to bring forth a balanced opinion. You want a fight. You have decided your truth, but you aren't using all information.
From the guy who doesn't want to provide credible sources for his claim.
Guy who made that comment here. Here's some clarification.
>Look man. The point wasn't necessarily to dispute the guy. I consider my opinion simply a subjective perspective with many sources informing it. It's subjective, it's my opinion, my observation. Not a peer reviewed paper. Knowing my opinion is simply that - my opinion, I suggested if the op wanted a more balanced opinion, he could google. The point in saying it like this is because A) I'm not interested in telling the guy he is flat out wrong. His opinion is ALSO subjective. B) I could never possibly cite all of the sources that inform me since this subject has been a topic since I was very young. Thus, the only useful thing to convey is there is much more information out there that may change your mind. If you are interested in that information informing your opinion, have a look. Do you understand why I was reluctant to give a bibliography? I really wanted to avoid this rabbit hole of animosity, leaving the choice to be informed to the op, and not jamming my opinion down his throat.
I think you're getting a lot of flack because you didn't give a straight answer and when you did provide a source it wasn't credible.
You could've said you couldn't provide sources, you didn't know how, just didn't feel like it, or not replied at all. Asking someone to google the information on their own is not valid evidence to support a specific claim.
edit: Just wanted to add that the credibility of the sources you choose is a reflection of the quality/validity of your argument. This is why "go google it yourself" is a cop-out.
Here we go again. My point was for the op to discover the information on his own. He was adamant that without question everyone knew Jesus existed. I suggested there may be more info available. Additionally, the source I did include WAS credible if you read the article and attached sources.
I just added an edit to my original reply to you addressing why people are giving you grief over sources. My message:
>Just wanted to add that the credibility of the sources you choose is a reflection of the quality/validity of your argument. This is why "go google it yourself" is a cop-out.
Did you happen to read the source?
I did, and none of the sources the article cites are scholarly papers or studies.
We're not saying you're wrong. All you need to do is go to scholar.google.com and do a bit of research. Then if you want to be more discerning, take a look at the publication and see if it's reputable.
You know, I had a feeling you were going to delete your last reply to me so I am glad I took a screenshot.
I didn't delete it because I had a problem with it, I simply copied and pasted the works cited. I deleted this because this has gone on too long for a passing comment that I made with the sole intention of NOT starting a shit storm but also provoking thought.
So to you, /u/fiberOpticBrain and to you /u/Disproves I will be more mindful of my casual suggestions and the callousness suggesting a google search portends.
>Here we go again.
Yeah, you're still pissing in the wind.
My genuine advice - don't bother with this anymore. You exhausted your argument 20 comments ago before you started exchanging insults with a stranger on the internet.
Lifes too short. Go read a book!
It seems you're not quite understanding the purpose of asking for a source. The Internet is filled with tons of misinformation and unreliable information. If someone is making a claim, then presumably that person has a credible source for that claim. Then, there can be a conversation on whether the source is right or not, perhaps by linking other reliable sources which have considered the argument. But asking someone to wade through all the bullshit you get when you google "did the historical Jesus exist" won't let the conversation even start. Nobody knows which of these sources you find credible and which ones you don't. You're basically asking them to go through each link, ask if you believe it's a credible source, and only then can there be a discussion. But why not just cut through all that by providing the source that convinced you to believe something that lots of respected historians say is simply wrong?
Simply because my sources may be inaccurate or incomplete. It was a suggestion to discover. I was saying in effect 'you're smart, maybe see what else is out there'. I was trying to avoid being professorial. I was trying to be respectful to his intellect.
> I think you're getting a lot of flack because you didn't give a straight answer and when you did provide a source it wasn't credible.
"Google it" is a straight enough answer when you even provide the search terms and which results to pick. The only thing better is actually linking the source itself, I don't see it as an attempt to be cagey.
The credibility of those sources is a different matter.
>Thus, the only useful thing to convey is there is much more information out there that may change your mind. If you are interested in that information informing your opinion, have a look
There's a lot more info out there on how the Jews planned 9-11 with help from the alien overlords of Zigiblatz XII but I wouldn't really go searching for that either.
C'mon man. I was trying to disagree with the guy gently. Leave it to him to either dismiss me or go look. Truly, I was simply trying to be respectful. I am not passionate either way - neither of us were there. Is that really so terrible? If I simply pounded my opinion into his head he would never look beyond what informs him. Big difference between scholarly research and truther videos.
> Big difference between scholarly research and truther videos.
Indeed. So why not link him some scholarly research rather than truther videos?
just google it /s
>Big difference between scholarly research and truther videos.
Indeed. I was making a joke about how you want him to google and scholarly research disagrees with you. Which is what truthers sound like.
I gotta say I respect that you entered this thread. Does a user get notified or something when their comment is posted to r/subredditdrama? Either way, I think all of this can be traced back to this phrase in your original comment: >more and more scholars are coming to the conclusion he didn't exist
Without that assertion, I don't think any of this discussion happens. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, but so help me god if you tell me to google something...
Yeah, I got notified.
In any event, know I can see your point and in the future will be careful with what I say. My entire point got veered by careless wording.
Haha yeah it happens. It's just funny how these things can snowball.