[danharaj]

A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.

[Karunamon]

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.

[aidenn0]

It's actually completely compatible with logic:

Source X claims Y.

I know very little about Y.

I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source.

Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.

[pkinsky]

Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.

[danharaj]

There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument.

I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.

[civilian]

Cool, then maybe you should go to reddit.com/r/politics?

[pkinsky]

There was a nonzero cost to making this post. Why did you bother?