Stop pissing all over some perfectly good posts because someone can’t produce a “cite” for a “fact” that is indeed a fact.
What, do you think we all live in fucking libraries?
Anyway. Not to say that citing isn’t valuable. It just seems that on the SDMB it’s getting to the stage with some people that if they can’t counter an arguement with any facts, they start asking for cites for each and every opposing comment.
Get over it. You don’t need a cite when you state that the majority of people in the world make their money honestly.
Seriously, though, if you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise it’ll remain just that: an assertion.
I do agree, it can go OTT at times. “The sky is blue.” “CITE??!” followed by another post with a link to a Cecil article that shows the goddamn thing isn’t blue after all.
In the instance you quote, I see nothing wrong with Kimstu asking for something to support Adaher’s confident statement that “Most rich amassed their fortunes playing by the rules”.
I don’t want to get stuck into this. If I did I’d go back to that thread and get a-postin’. I just thought it was a little unnecessary and smacked of someone who had nothing left to say.
‘Cite’ often seems to mean ‘My ideology doesn’t agree with your fact, so please provide an author of your ideology so I can dismiss him - and you - as biased’.
I have often seen “cite” used as a convenient and easy way to derail an argument, by forcing the poster to prove every least assertion they make, or to make them prove a point that is only peripheral, or even totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Under those circumstances a polite refusal with an explanation about why it was done is the right thing to do.
Kimstu’s request for a cite for example, would be hard to respond to. Even if most fortunes concealed a crime, it’s pretty likely that the evidence of those crimes would be concealed. I suspect that Balzac was also speaking metaphorically here, and that the “crime” involved might be more in the way of an unethical deed rather than an illegal one. Adaher wouldn’t be likely to prove her contention, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Kimstu is right. It just means Adaher’s assertion is unprovable – as is Balzac’s.
What I find amusing is the assumption that because it’s on the internet, that makes it a fact. There’d be more facts flying around if we did live in a library, rather than on the internet…
Cheers.
