nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Isn't that what education is all about?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
There's a problem when you're getting your best material from YouTube.
holy king
Deity
yeah, it was probably more about the quality of the source than the act of using a source in itself.
holy king
Deity
i for one seldom form my opinion on issues around youtube videos.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
No, most of us don't get our ideas from YouTube, I don't think.
And YouTube material... usually not very impressive. Case in point:
I mean, you can sum that up with "no, everybody can fit in Texas so we're fine because God gave us trees, can we get rid of all the Mexicans?"
If that's what I can expect in a rebuttal consisting of a YouTube link, I'm probably going to stop bothering clicking on them, and, by extension, paying attention to arguments from the poster using them as a source.
(I like that I'm using a YouTube video to make this point.
)But..what about all those threads trashing Bill O'Reilly? Those are frequently just youtube links or worse yet Jon Stewart links.
holy king
Deity
you get a big fat minus for paying attention to youtube comments.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Youtube links are okay for comedy, but picking on O'Reilly is too easy to be funny.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Posting links is good when it is to provide evidence to support your argument. Posting links is bad when it is the argument.
scherbchen
well that can´t be good
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,530
there is a difference between posting a source (in this case a rabid rant by Papa Bear or something making fun of it by JS) and posting 'secondary literature' as it were (somebody writing on the influence of Papa Bear, his rhetoric, his flip-flopping when it suits his... I really don't want to say 'goals', etc.).
when dealing with the former a youtube link is perfectly fine as you get the original material and thus access to what is being talked about (unless it has been edited to suit the poster's needs). when dealing with the latter you are pretty much expected to find something more reliable and credible than, say, The Sun (brits), BILD (Germans), or some random blog (everybody).
scherbchen
well that can´t be good
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,530
don't diss youtube comments per se. the other day I thoroughly impressed my prof by pointing out how 50 odd comments on how a creole "translation" of a popular work of fiction was proof of how it was not standardized since just about everybody disagreed on how the grammar or pronounciation should have been in order for it to be a 'correct' represantation (while making snide comments about youtube comments).
I was rather proud of myself.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I used to think that smoking cigarettes caused cancer until I had it explained to me by this guy. You see, the smoke goes in but it comes back out.
Bwahahaha.
there's plenty of highly scientific stuff on youtube...
like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNteKmew&feature=channel
like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNteKmew&feature=channel
Both are entertainers. So youtube works for them.
I just watched that video about overpopulation. That was horrible. It has to be a joke. It was WAY too dumb. If it's real, which I doubt, then that guy represents the worst in humanity. And another reason that religion is horrible for humans. "god gave us the Earth to do what we want with it. Every other species can go f itself."No, most of us don't get our ideas from YouTube, I don't think.
And YouTube material... usually not very impressive. Case in point:
I mean, you can sum that up with "no, everybody can fit in Texas so we're fine because God gave us trees, can we get rid of all the Mexicans?"
If that's what I can expect in a rebuttal consisting of a YouTube link, I'm probably going to stop bothering clicking on them, and, by extension, paying attention to arguments from the poster using them as a source.
(I like that I'm using a YouTube video to make this point.
There's plenty of original content here. We have genuine philosophers, theologians, neuroscientists, and biologists on this forum. And we do have a numerous amount of people who are smart enough to make arguments without just copying and pasting from other places. Just because a good number of posters aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves doesn't mean that it's best to post links to sites which neither me or anyone else have no intention of viewing, especially not something on Youtube. My attention span is too low to listen to or read something which in high probability will be stupid, which essentially all Youtube videos consist of. If I want to listen to something by a scientist or a real philosopher, I'd listen to podcasts by 'em, not youtube videos. (An Austrian school economist does not count as a "real philosopher")
And I'm sorry, but simply posting in a thread "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS HERE'S A LINK TO AN AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST'S THOUGHTS ON WHY THE FED SUCKS" is unproductive, irritating, and insulting to those who do have intelligence. If all you have is lame aphorisms, there's really no need or you to post at all.
Gilder
Deity
It's okay if you use them as evidence to support your argument. But don't use them as you're arguement. That's just lazy, insulting, and the majority of the people on here will not respect you for it.
I once argued against this one guy who continually posted other forums posts (from other forums no less), and youtube videos as his arguements. He didn't even use videos from more professional sources, and most of the time he just made a fool of himself. Mostly because the videos were made by extreme left-wing nutjobs, who worshipped Ron Paul as if he were Jesus, and anyone who openly disagreed them about him had thier posts promptly removed to a "Spam" forum where it was open game to flame them.
I once argued against this one guy who continually posted other forums posts (from other forums no less), and youtube videos as his arguements. He didn't even use videos from more professional sources, and most of the time he just made a fool of himself. Mostly because the videos were made by extreme left-wing nutjobs, who worshipped Ron Paul as if he were Jesus, and anyone who openly disagreed them about him had thier posts promptly removed to a "Spam" forum where it was open game to flame them.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I feel some of that is directed at me
I just like to make clear that I love ol' Billo. He'd be a great drunken uncle. And they are Daily Show links. Jon Steward is indeed a mediocre comedian ( or should I say, his writers are). The manner in which the Daily Show presents politics I do like, since they often point out the glaring hypocrisy in it. It could have had any presenter which isn't Olberman.
None of them are meant to be used as a serious argument, but rather comic relief.
That's all, thanks for your time, have a nice day.
