I was more thinking along the lines of "The day the music died". I thought today that I perhaps should have made it "Show me your ID". Ahh, the art of witty thread titles.
OK, so some themes can be intimidating. Sure. But how do you respond to that? Stop making 'intimidating' threads?
@Soldier: Is your suggestion to use GC for the purpose of ID? Are you saying that ID is redundant, or just that if we want people to participate, we should allow people to "do GC" in an "ID topic"? (I have no idea what either of those things really are, but bare with me.)
All this talk of "constructive arguments" and so on... would it not just be redundant when we have people coming in and throwing some 4chan image into the debate?
At the end of the day, Soldier, ID and GC are functionally separate. They are not necessarily discrete, but you can't deny that the separation serves a purpose.
Or perhaps you weren't suggesting that. Clarification?
With respect to 'referencing'... An opinion doesn't need a reference, provided it's one's own. Given that most ID topics deal in perspective and normative positions, citations are useless unless quoting, or giving facts. Even then, you can't trust the Internet (so hyperlinks are redundant), and no one is actually going to check hard-copy references.
If I reference, I do it to acknowledges someone else's work. That's courtesy; the purpose is not academic. I just finished (yussssssss!!!) a 2000-word essay on urbanisation in the underdeveloped world, with 25 different publications cited. There is simply no need for that on the Internet.
While a citation isn't going to harm anyone, they seem more than a bit superfluous.
Bookmarks