Agreed. It is nothing more that a request for additional supporting information simply because, as as stated, the poster's statement is not compatible with my current understanding, which I have gained thru careful analysis and evaluation over a period of years. My understanding can change, for sure, but I'll need to see why it should.
If it's a fact, then it's not merely an opinion. You can decide whether to believe it or not. Just as we are considered innocent until proven guilty, in a civil discussion a participant should be considered to be truthful unless shown otherwise. This is a discussion forum. It is neither a debate forum nor an academic report. Demanding someone to cite a source is not only insulting, but it disrupts the conversation. It is common trolling behavior, intended to dissuade participation. If I say something that I believe to be true, you can believe me or not, but don't expect me to go out of my way to prove something to you. Why can't you simply do your own homework to show me that I'm wrong if you can? I can't remember the occasion now but I must have been wrong at some point in my life, and if I'm wrong, I will have learned something from it. It has been my experience, in forum discussions, that whenever someone yields to a demand for a citation, that source will be summarily dismissed and the discussion will fall apart in a battle between sources. No one else will want to join in for fear that they too, will be challenged, and essentially called a liar. This is why it is such an effective tactic when used by forum trolls.
I try to cite sources, provide links, etc so that I can get other eyes on my source data to vet my conclusions. But I've always been that way, and some folks have had an issue with it. Some just like to be told what "the answer" is out of laziness, while others want to avoid any accountability for figuring stuff out. If I'm reading the Chinese Balloon thread, and someone says "The Chinese admitted this was a test run for an EMP and BioWarfare," then such a comment goes beyond "informal chatting," and demands a citation. Sure, I can ignore it. But there are basic standards for responsible conduct. Things like that require an attribution ("The Associated Press says...") at a minimum. Something like this is way different than "I've had good luck with worm castings for my tomatoes," where it would be insulting to ask for comparative pics or a soil analysis.
In a relatively free society, it's the claimant's responsibility to prove their claim. Here's why... If claimant A tells a listener whom they do not know, personally, over along period of time, the listener must trust the intergrity and the analytic ability of the claimant--essentially "is this person honest and is this person smart? I don't know either yet..."--about whom they know almost nothing. So if the claimant insists that the listener believe the claimant on trust, and won't supply support, 8 of 10 listeners will simply walk away from the claimant. It's not in their interest to verify the claim. Further, they may classify the claimant as possible BSer. However, it the claimant wants to be taken seriously by strangers, it is in the claimant's interest to supply support if requested. It will also convince the strangers of the claimant's personal integrity. Anyway, that's how it's worked for me.
If someone mentions an atlatl or an assigai, there's no possible controversy once one undrstands what it is. As you say, one can look it up easily and proceed, if interested. But if one says that history is cyclical, they need to be ready to point to Santayana. And that alone does not prove it, it merely provides a rationale for making the claim. Then discussion follows. My opinion, only.
That has not been my experience on most forums. It could be that I'm a poor fit for this forum. ...and that's a fact.
Pretty much you've hit it on the head. Some topics lend themselves to granting trust for accuracy, and some do not; the greater the potential importance, the higher the burden of proof. The claim you used is a great example of the need for additional information. And the existence of the link does not prove the point! It simply provides more information for analysis and evaluation.
That is what makes this forum so unique, it is not like most run-of-the-mill forums. Most of us here think of each other as online friends, and we like to listen to what we each think about something, and if we want more information, then we investigate ourselves and add whatever we find into the discussion. No one has to be either right or wrong, we are just discussing topics and coming to our own conclusions, all the while respecting each other’s opinions. If I am writing about something, I do often add a link or maybe a video, because it goes into more depth than I have put in my post, and the readers are welcome to either ignore that link, or investigate it and form an opinion from the added information, either pro or con. If we do not listen to something different than we already believe that we know, we often stop our brain from working and learning new things. For me, finding truth is more important than being right about something, so I am always trying to be open-minded and listen to different opinions.
I generally include citations too, but I don't demand them of others. If I don't believe something, rather than calling the other forum member out as a liar, I'll do my own homework if I'm interested enough. Usually, I'll just let it pass. At this very time, in another thread, I stated that when I was a paramedic covering PRCA rodeos, I transported 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, and 16-year-olds who were injured during the bull riding events at PRCA-sanctioned rodeos. Another forum member is insisting that 14-year-olds could not have competed in a PRCA rodeo. He could come back with text from the PRCA rules stating that 14-year-olds are not eligible to compete in PRCA-sanctioned rodeos, and I would still know that I am right because they were indeed competing in PRCA-sanctioned rodeos. I feel no need to prove what I know to be a fact and since I don't particularly care whether the other member believes me or not, I'm not even going to try. I know it to be a fact, so it would be silly of me to refer to it as an opinion. If I continue discussing it, then this will be because I enjoy doing so, but my sense of self-worth is not dependent upon his believing me. If no one believed anything I said, that might be another matter. I said that demanding citations from those who you may disagree with in a forum thread is a common trolling behavior. We all exhibit trolling behaviors from time to time, and they don't necessarily define us.
Yvonne, please note: if you've read my stuff, I seldom ask for links--maybe never on this forum. But in this thread I'm responding to the position that asking for links--apparently ever--is an insult. THAT'S what I'm arguing against. Giving up the possibility of asking for supporting evidence, ever, or being considered rude. That's only a stone's throw from the modern phenomenon of "cancellation", and I'd be very disappointed if people our age cannot see that.
I think that what is being said in this thread is that the discussion should be mostly people’s opinions, and no one should feel forced to provide sources for what they think or believe, @Mitchell Hartwig . If I assert the earth is flat, and someone disagrees, then it is up to them to say why they disagree, and then the discussion progresses. If we have information that we want to add to a discussion to help explain it, then we are always welcome to do so; but it is not necessary to provide proof of everything we assert as our belief. That just turns people into a Google assistant, to provide links, and no discussion.
The overriding issue is tone and intent, possibly tainted by history with that person...and perhaps severity of the topic.