https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Goldstein#Views_on_religion
The only claim I'm making in this post is that this wikipedia article exists and that it contains text, Dom.
In his 2004 book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, Luke Ford wrote about a conversation with Goldstein, in which Ford asked Goldstein why Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the porn industry. He answered, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged." Ford then asked, "What does it mean to you to be a Jew?" To which Goldstein responded, "It doesn't mean anything. It means that I'm called a kike."
See, this is the problem with you. You view me challenging your claims as "defending" anyone. And you automatically assume that the goal this guy had is "subversion", rather than making money. (Later on, you say that his book sheds light on this, but I haven't reviewed it.)
Not my job to substantiate your claims, it's yours.
Wikipedia is garbage. No one should cite it. I've been guilty of it myself, but I always point out what a vile thing I'm doing.
I'm at the point of admitting that I did a great and proper thing.
I'm not. Anyone watching that Ted Cruz interview needs to have a fried brain to not realize that there is something deeply wrong with the influence a foreign lobby has over America... and Europe too. But it doesn't mean I think Jews are automatically bad people, or that Jews can be scapegoated for everything that goes wrong.
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. How on earth are you getting downvotes on a comment on a threat that's months old?
Well, it's nice to see which part of your tude are mechanical and which are contextual. I was wondering if the narrative implications you have accepted lately came with any sort of revelations about past behavior, as I remember feeling quite humiliated when I realized my place in some arguments I had taken part in in the past. I once tried to argue that magazine restrictions would reduce shootings because there were "less bullets available on the field" during an incident and when the guy followed up with me years later I was at a total loss and had to apologize for my ignorance and the hilarity of my mental gymnastics, and beg him to chalk it up to age.
I very much dont care about being downvoted. You of all people must understand. Maybe one of us has profile stalkers. It shouldn't be me, though. I post like 2x, 4x a week. It was a dick reply that deserved to be downvoted anyway.
In the context of our old argument, I satisfied the burden of proof by informing you of the source- period. I am not logically responsible for downloading/purchasing & delivering you with materials to work around your own choices, even if it is a deliberately obstinent choice, like refusing to view or confirm a proof that was already provided
This stuff works on some people because it takes 500 words to disassemble a good fallacy or con. This is part of why legal systems become so bloated- it takes a lot of care to handle bullshit in a proper way. The system is obligated to untangle the tangle and so it becomes an easy way to x10 the money and time spend on an argument. Lots of cases are settled in favor of the bullshit due to the expense and the tangle-time expansion effect is often applied deliberately to that end. What you did is what I would call "source-fagging" online because I am an internet creature, but in the context of work it is more often about the legal responsibility of response to an official notice which the person claims to have been blissfully ignorant of, or refuses the legitimacy of.
I've had the same feeling at times, particularly when I've been deceived - lied to and then lied to others as a result. Not that often on this topic. Maybe buying the agitprop that Hamas had its base under a hospital, for them to show underwhelming evidence as absolute proof - this was very early on.
I need to study this topic more. Believe it or not, I actually was listening to both sides even before Israel forced me to change my mind with its attack on Iran, but maybe our human frailty leads us to reject evidence that doesn't suit us even when we try to pretend that we're open-minded. I have stumbled on some alleged facts that I have to verify, and which will make me feel very stupid if they turn out to be true.
Eh, I've seen way worse. Just thought it was very strange for such an old thread to receive downvotes.
And while I don't care about downvotes, I do have my doubts about the maturity of people who downvote you when you're having a conversation with them.
Yeah, I really don't think that this is how things work. The least someone can do when citing a source is to actually cite the part that he thinks pertains to his argument. Looking quickly at the argument, it doesn't seem that you even provided the name and author of the alleged source. I can say that you're wrong as proven by Smith 1994. There's only one copy of this book. You're responsible for going out and getting it.
This is particularly the case because I knew where you got the 'source'. It's one thing if you read a book, noticed something, and cited that. It's quite another to link to Wikipedia slop, written by an anonymous nobody, then use the footnotes provided there as proof for that.
I'll counter you by saying that while the left goes overboard with "why shouldn't you cut your own nuts off", the right goes overboard with not wanting to provide valid sources for its claims at all.
People get VERY mad when you ask them where they got the information they spout. As if you're a villiain for trying to check it or to see if they haven't made it up. (Clearly, this wasn't the case with you, but just making a point.)
Man I'm feeling sorry for being such a dick to you in the past. As far as the argument, I read that argumentation as "i refuse to use google, because I know I would find the source, and that it would support my opponent's argument, and I lack the motive to do that". Refusal of footrubs isnt lack of source. Usually you can answer source by naming it. When it is named, it is provided as a source. No one is obligated to purchase/print/mail a book in order to discuss a book with other online.
Take for instance academia, where a source notation is simply a line of text which DIRECTS the reader to a source. Never was there any expectation that a paper would be delivered to the reader with the actual physical sources. This is the standard for professionals, but it is the same even in casual debate. For instance, there has never been an expectation that in order to claim something about LOTR that I must supply you with LOTR. Your awareness and accessibility to the material are sufficient.
For the record, I think I know that you know I'm right. That I don't really believe your heartfelt investment in your argument is a compliment, though. Only weak people fold entirely, it is in the nature of a good or decent or unbroken man to resist.
Appreciate it, but don't be, I have a thick skin.
I've had the experience far too often that someone will just throw out something, put all the burden on the other party - and when you do put in the effort to address and refute it, he just effortlessly move to the next thing.
So that is how I deal with image memes, Wikipedia and other very dubious sources. And the standard defense is, of course, that Wikipedia 'cites sources'. The problem is that when you use and/or link Wikipedia, you have not actually made an independent intellectual judgment of what the source in question says. You're then reading Wikipedia and accepting it because it provides a footnote. Not objecting to using Wikipedia for the footnotes (because I've also sometimes found the source material to be of value).
And to a specific page number and edition of the book. It is understood that you have read the material in question in its original location. Otherwise, you say "quoted in..." and then where you actually read it. And Wikipedia is not allowed, of course.
I'd have absolutely no problem if you had found your source on Wikipedia, gotten your hand on the original, reviewed the part in question with some context - and then presented it.
I prefer quoting when using evidence, but you are correct here - it is not normally done in academia. Example: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/19BZuGSY5K/reminder-cia-directory-richard-h/
I've often admitted that I was wrong, when I was. Persisting in error is worse than making an error. I just don't think that's the case here. One thing I may have been wrong about is that I thought you were arguing in bad faith, and I had my defenses up as a result. Maybe you were just annoyed that "it's quoted in Wikipedia, the source is also right there so you can go and verify it if you doubt it, why does this guy think that this is not valid sourcing?"