If you find one, you find a group cos like attracts attracts like.

  • syreus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    You would rather win the argument with one person than serve more people the source to read for themselves? If you quote a paper it should be sourced. If you don’t source it then it is suspicious and you are just creating conflict. Methods are important.

    • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      suspicious

      You don’t realize how insane that is to say, because you’re either not conscious or have no connection to material reality.

      would rather win the argumet than

      But then they cite it, which also saves me formatting a link.

      read it for themselves

      The point is that nobody gives a shit and facts to not persuade. They sre not ammunition. Materialists are unicorns. You aren’t one because

      creating conflict

      Says the rape apologist in the thread full of men saying rapists aren’t real and they would totally know if they saw one in spite of all the other people, including OP, pointing out how thats bullshit, including this one beautiful quixotic fool citing a source and bring told ‘nuh uh’ while they’re downvoted to oblivion even when we cite academic studies to back our experiences.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Says the the person who actually advocated not citing sources. People do care, it’s just you like to be right and because reality does not agree with your perceived bias, you can’t find any scientific source to back it up, and therefore cannot source one. Your pettiness is your problem, not ours.