demanding people provide sources in refutation of a post that is not backed up by sources in my opinion should be considered trolling.
Of course it is, but still .... With no sources, what are you refuting? It would be better—I think—to compel the other to explain and support the questionable thesis. If he doesn't, people will see that. If he does, well, at least you know what you're attempting to refute. And there is some stuff that is hard to cite. Sometimes I look at some of the conservative theses about the last thirty years and wonder what country they were actually living in. But in the '80s, conservatives didn't understand the broader perspective of cultural attitude expressions, either, so I don't expect the contemporary right-wing outlook to do any better. I mean, really. Like if a Republican complains about the Democrats getting more and more liberal over the years, what can you possibly cite that is going to change their opinion? Quite clearly, they haven't been paying attention to the Democratic Party since Reagan. So instead of trying to one-up these would-be trolls, I would suggest that you simply query and prod until they start making sense and give you something useful to work with.
Probably depends on the thread, right? If you post about how much you love Mylie Cyrus, I'm sure people won't demand sources. But if you post bullshit opinions and try to pass them off as facts, then you should be held accountable. In that case, demanding some sort of proof or support for your theses is just demanding some (to use a Tiassa word) modicum of honesty.
Unless of course you're threatened with a ban [for interestingly, using the same source as the one threatening you i.e. WHO suicide statistics]
hahaha seems like there is a lot i am missing here sam have other incidents like this occurred? links? /rotfl
