First of all, I am concerned at some of the sources you cite in some of your arguments, as Cracked (as an example) is well known for not being the most reliably accurate source, and draws very grandiose conclusions from seemingly unrelated evidence. Secondly, I am concerned that you quote statistics at all as they may be skewed towards any argument (e.g. the gun rights debate right now).

Asked by

revanprodigalknight-deactivated

So you are not only concerned about certain sources we cite but everything we cite? It’s good to know that the peer reviewed research that we link to on a regular basis is too bias for you. Yes we link to other websites but there are various of scholarly articles that you can reference outside of those websites.

This doesn’t have anything to do with research though. Anything we post scholarly article or not will be brushed off. This happens every time trolls attack the researchers who completed the studies we cite instead of the findings because they don’t really have an argument outside of being prejudice.

-FBP

“Secondly, I am concerned that you quote statistics at all as they may be skewed towards any argument (e.g. the gun rights debate right now).” – has a vaguer statement ever been written? I’m concerned you don’t have any actual argument here, just some pathetic hand-waving in an attempt to make this blog look unsupported, when it’s premises are supported by a much broader and deeper body of unbiased research than arguments that try to, for instance, claim that fat people are diseased, or bad parents, or bad citizens, or bad patients, or that their bodies are behaviors and not ‘honestly’ come by, and so on.

“But – your sources!” whines the troll without providing critical analytical points about why the sources are bunk. Trust me, folks, if there are bunk sources on this blog I’m happy to get rid of them.

-ATL