Prove it! Backing up what you say with links.

[Behind the Aegis]

Hypothetical: You feel very strongly about a position. You post here at DU. Someone asks you to back up your assertions. You find the "perfect proof." However, this 'perfect proof' is a piece by noted racist David Duke. The topic in question has NOTHING to do with racial issues. Do you still post the piece? What if the author is not racist, but the site where the piece is posted, has racist tendencies/overtones. Do you still post it? Remember, the position you are defending has NOTHING to do with race and neither does your "backup" piece.

If you answer "Yes," please explain.

On edit: grammatical issue

[amazona]

1. i try to avoid giving clicks to people like Duke and FR

My personal choice is not to give the link, because links are clicks and clicks are money in the pocket if there is advertisement on the site.

[sui generis]

2. sounds like a leading question

just tell me which one you want me to vote for.

Actually, the best thing is to admit you're wrong when you have yourself been misinformed (or underinformed) or else incontrovertibly prove that you are right.

okay, now, curious, link please?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Not leading, at least not intentionally.

I am not talking about posting a link to Freeper Central or Nazis-R-Us, I am talking about posting about a topic...let's say gun control...and you find a piece that supports your position, but the author is David Duke or is from a questionable site (NewsMax), would you still post the "proof," or look elsewhere...even if the piece describes your feelings to a "T."

[sui generis]

14. I think I could, but I would qualify it strongly

and not as an endorsement of their other beliefs.

As a more pertinent example, I pick and choose from Nader's points, although as a whole I reject his political strategies.

If David Duke suddenly started backing same-sex marriage, I'd quote him but you can bet I wouldn't be the only one!

However, if my views differed that greatly from everyone else here that I felt compelled to refer to obscure or objectionable resources on a regular basis though, I'd have to reconsider my purpose for being on DU.

[nonconformist]

3. I wouldn't.

A questionable source calls the whole position into question and is frankly too distracting.

[Hugin]

4. A fact is a fact.

Although, I've never seen one from the rubberpukers.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. So, basically you are saying...

...even a broken clock is correct twice a day?

[Hugin]

11. Yes...

If it's as stated in the premise of this poll.

Although, I would strive to back up whatever it was
I was trying to prove with another source.

Wedges are built this way...

[Stinky The Clown]

5. This is **Democratic** Underground .....

you'll be skewered for such a link and your entire message will be lost.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. One would think so.

But, that is not always the case.

[The Straight Story]

7. other

I might use those sources. Example would be if I found something they said to be true after reading their article/rant/whatever.

To further that example: I read it, find it interesting, then research several other sources to verify (which I try to do anyway). Sources like the unclesam searches, news searches, and so on etc. If I could cross verify I may well post the original and give them credit for bringing it to my intention.

Just because someone or some source is 'evil' in one's eyes does not mean they always wrong or lying. I try to be inclusive in my reading and analysis of things - from religion (I was atheist, buddhist, et al at some time in my life and cross studied various faiths) to my politics - Many don't like others being closed minded (or in some cases some may say fundie in the same vein).

I am not sure I answered well enough, maybe after I eat lunch I will be more coherent :)

[johnaries]

10. Question: If the site &/or source are questionable, how can it be "perfect

proof?

If the source is questionable, then the statement of proof would also be questionable. Right?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Thus, the quotes

That is the reason I placed quotes around the words 'perfect proof.' I would think that if the source is questionable, then the statement might then be questionable...however, it seems a few here disagree with that notion.

[johnaries]

13. Ah, I see! The only time I could see where it could be considered

"perfect proof" would be if the questionable source were actually quoting a reliable source. In that case, I would trace the quote back to the original reputable source.

If the "proof" were a conclusion or an opinion statement of the questionable source - KEEP LOOKING!

I would say that I fully agree with your notion.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. kick

[theboss]

16. I don't assert anything I can't back with a credible link

Granted, a lot of people may not find the NY Times or Washington Post credible, but I like them better than "Berkeley Brad's Bodacious Blog" or whatever.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. LOL!

That is pretty funny! "Berkeley Brad's Bodacious Blog"...:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

18. one more for the late night crowd

:kick: