I know I can but if you’ve already got it up that would be easier and I feel it’s common courtesy to cite your sources. But alright, I will look for it on my own.
I like reading dry academic shit, it’s a certain disorder I’ve developed over the years.
As a rule you should just provide the sources you’re quoting from.
Otherwise, it just looks like it’s made up or the source is shitty so you don’t want to share the source because it would undermine what you’re quoting.
Not providing a proper link or proper reference (where link unavailable) is rather dodgy (& bad form) on the web, which was invented to solve this exact problem.
Sending people to go hunting for sources leaves much to chance, and they may fail to locate them.
It’s simply not a logical way to support a claim or convince skeptics a claim is true if you care about your claim.
No one is obligated to care about your argument more than you, especially if you won’t care enough to support it properly.
I provided it for several other people that repeated exactly what you said. At this point I am just considering this an incel brigade and blocking everyone. Cheers!
No, it’s very much a you problem.
You could very easily edit your comment to link a source.
Instead, you created all this wasteful back-and-forth over not doing so.
I link to sources, because I’m not a lazy fuck & I care about my arguments.
But do block away: we don’t need those unwilling to try.
That is pretty insane actually. I’d still like to read the whole article if it’s available somewhere. Thanks.
It is scientific journal stuff, pretty dry read honestly. You can find all this with Google search still. Cheers!
I know I can but if you’ve already got it up that would be easier and I feel it’s common courtesy to cite your sources. But alright, I will look for it on my own.
I like reading dry academic shit, it’s a certain disorder I’ve developed over the years.
Edit: I found this article which an almost identical section but the number in question was 14% rather than 24? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4484276/
14% is literally in the quote I gave you.
Edit: Those were two different studies.
Oh I guess I didn’t realize they were from different ones.
Another reason to provide proper attribution!
As a rule you should just provide the sources you’re quoting from.
Otherwise, it just looks like it’s made up or the source is shitty so you don’t want to share the source because it would undermine what you’re quoting.
Just a thought for you.
Anyone can Google this. Blocked for being obstinate.
Not providing a proper link or proper reference (where link unavailable) is rather dodgy (& bad form) on the web, which was invented to solve this exact problem.
Sending people to go hunting for sources leaves much to chance, and they may fail to locate them. It’s simply not a logical way to support a claim or convince skeptics a claim is true if you care about your claim.
No one is obligated to care about your argument more than you, especially if you won’t care enough to support it properly.
Honestly it’s making me skeptical of their claim entirely.
I provided it for several other people that repeated exactly what you said. At this point I am just considering this an incel brigade and blocking everyone. Cheers!
No, it’s very much a you problem. You could very easily edit your comment to link a source. Instead, you created all this wasteful back-and-forth over not doing so.
I link to sources, because I’m not a lazy fuck & I care about my arguments. But do block away: we don’t need those unwilling to try.