My point was that a statement without a citation is different than a lie. It is, in fact, an unsupported statement.
Unsupported statements and lies are not mutually exclusive. It goes to the intent behind them. I do not believe he has any actual information and it just going off of what he thinks to be true - as in - he made up that statement. I believe that when someone makes up a statement and then passes it off as a truth that constitutes intent to lie. I did say that if he could provide supporting evidence about his statement then it would be a different situation
Your position that everyone that makes a statement with which you disagree must furnish you with a citation while you don't need to support all of your own statements seems to me to be inconsistent.
I have not demanded a source for
all statements I disagree with so there is no inconsistency when comparing it to
all of the statements I have made. I believe the only statements I have made without reference are anecdotal and all others have had a citation.
Do you not find value in debating the foundation of viewpoints? How else are you to properly evaluate the situation and the conflicting views? If someone makes a claim that policy/pay should be influenced because 'for every teachers that puts in longer hours, there are 10 that dont' don't you think it would be important to know if that was true or not?
Perhaps that is where we disagree. I do not take what people say is a fact on the internet as a fact. I have no basis to judge their accuracy due to the anonymity of the internet. If the point is to debate policy and beliefs there is no 'Why should I believe you' basis other than posting history or cited sources. I have found great value in getting source information from posters with opposing viewpoints and have modified my own stances because I found out I was wrong. I believe this has led to a very strong foundation for my viewpoints but I am always (I would hope) willing to re-evaluate my position if there is evidence that my stance is flawed (And - sorry - but someone just posting a sentence on the internet doesn't constitute evidence to me)
But perhaps this is looking at everything through my shoes. Maybe he has no interest in forming opinions and stances based on accurate information. Perhaps he has no interest in his (or my) pre-conceived notions being challenged and being forced to be re-evaluated them. Perhaps instead would like to partake in the 'we dislike teachers' circle jerk. I certainly can't expect him to play by my rules. I do hope to challenge his viewpoint as well as others. I think the best way to do that is by having all of the evidence on the table and discarding all the fluff, noise and distractions and that, if we were able to do that more often, the world would be a better place. I do also believe that if too few people start relying on facts and data to make decisions we are in deep shit which is why I still challenge people. Obviously the rest of the world could just say 'Fuck you' and do as it pleases
And when you call someone that refuses to do your research for you liar, I think that that is arrogant.
Refused to do my research? I never asked him to do research. I asked for the source of their information. There is a key difference.
I just find name calling unpersuasive and unattractive.
I guess its good I wasn't trying to court you then
umm, what state is this? Even the people's republic of RA has guidelines they follow by the credentialing organization.
Michigan. This is separate from credentials and is to be used as a determinant for termination/raises/choosing class schedules
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265830