Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2016, 07:54 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 08:00 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 12:32 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(12-03-2016 06:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you want to label someone then at least use a label that fits. I'm sure you can find some negative flaws in my character, but plagiarism just doesn't stick.

Your best argument is now based on the logic that failure to place a reference link implies plagalrism because it somehow implies I represented the information as my own.

Do you know the difference between represent and imply?

Shane, read the definition that you posted carefully and completely.

"an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:"

Emphasis mine. You have represented another author's work as your own by not crediting that author.

By your own definition you are guilty of plagiarism.
By calling your detractors liars and trolls you are guilty of hypocrisy.
By pointlessly focusing on trivial terms that you don't consider gender-appropriate usage you are guilty of deflection (amongst others).
By attempting to redefine the terms that you have been accused of you merely compound your already manifest dishonesty.

But hey, don't let me stop you when you're on a roll. You're obviously enjoying twisting in the wind. Yould you like some more rope?

Tell us, where did your definition of redshift come from?
(01-02-2016 07:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Redshift:
When an object moves away from us, its light waves are stretched into lower frequencies or longer wavelengths, and we say that the light is redshifted. In the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, blue light has the highest frequency and red light has the lowest.
One of these following websites probably?
https://quizlet.com/43591714/eps-science...ash-cards/
https://quizlet.com/109899035/quiz-2-sci...ash-cards/
https://www.Facebook.com/thefleetafterda...noscript=1
https://www.facebook.com/thefleetafterda...noscript=1
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmi...shift.html
There are many more, just use google.

None of these websites lay claim to being the original authors of the definition but they all use the words in the exact same way.
Every one is public information and they do not withhold the right to share the information.
Why would I hyperlink a common definition that everyone can google and find multiple sources?
If I hyperlinked just one I would be claiming that they are the original authors of the definition, which I obviously can't tell. Can you?
If I'm guilty of repeating a common definition that is widely accepted and easily found by any computer literate person then I accept all charges.

Each time an Atheist says "the lack of a belief is not a belief" and don't give a hyperlink are they guilty of plagairsm?
Since when does repeating something of common knowledge always require a reference?
If that's what you call plagairism & you think it belongs at the bottom of the morality canyon then we can safely say I don't follow your religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 09:04 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 11:51 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 06:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not quite sure what your stance is at this point. Are you saying I am guilty of plagiarism or not?

I am and you are.

Quote:Please refer to this quotation before you reply:

I felt that getting into this during the debate would have been counterproductive. You'd cross-posted the mess from this thread into that thread and I tried to defuse the resulting cross-thread snarl. As far as I was concerned it was pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and I really didn't give a shit.

Now that you're acting all high and mighty and calling people liars and trolls I'm more than happy to point out your hypocrisy.

Quote:I would like to point out that I always quote the definitions direct from google and Wikipedia without editing it.

And if you do that without citation it is the textbook definition of plagiarism. Here are some helpful guides:

MIT Wrote:Plagiarism occurs when you use another’s words, ideas, assertions, data, or figures and do not acknowledge that you have done so.

CalTech Wrote:Plagiarism occurs when a writer takes language or ideas from another writer without properly attributing them, and this act violates the honor code in a fundamental way.

Harvard Wrote:In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

Oxford Wrote:Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.

Yale Wrote:Plagiarism is the use of another’s work, words, or ideas without attribution.

And even Liberty University' Wrote:  Plagiarism is the intentional failure to give sufficient attribution to the words, ideas, or data of others that the student has incorporated into his/her work for the purpose of misleading the reader. In some cases, a student may be careless and fail to give credit to the words, ideas or data of others. In such situations, plagiarism has still occurred, but the professor may choose from an array of sanctions he/she deems appropriate.

I could continue this ad nauseum with any school you care to name. The results will be pretty much identical. Hopefully the guides that I've linked will help you avoid these accusations in the future.

Quote:I've been doing that for years now on many different forums.

Then you're a serial offender.

Quote:It's because the direct contents of these websites are not subject to the laws of copyright infringement as far as I can tell.

Immaterial. Although related, copyright and plagiarism are separate issues.
I will respond to that if you can define the word "use" "draw" "take" "present as your own" "misleading the reader" in the context of these definitions and also show in what regard it can be considered negative.

The way you describe plagairsm isn't properly defined in a manner to show why it is considered negative. Consider the following:

I just "used/drew/took" my engineering text book to design a house drawing for a customer. I didn't cite the engineering text book i "used" when I submitted the quote. Is this a form of plagairsm? It fits most of the definitions doesn't it?

I'm not just going to accept your claim that something I did was wrong simply because you found a label for it. How is it wrong?

Murder is considered wrong. What if I kill a rapist while he was raping my wife? Assuming we aren't theists, how do you determine that this particular case of murder is wrong?

Answer me this if you aim to convince me what I did is wrong:
Is the repetition of a common defintion wrong? I don't think so, at least not on it's own.
What factors would make it wrong then? Not referencing the original authors? If you don't know who the original authors are how can you reference them?
What if the definition used was only found from one source? In that case it wouldn't be a common definition & therefore we found a unique source that may or may not want recognition. If the source does not want recognition is it still wrong? If yes, please explain why. If no then I think it's safe to say I'm doing something negative to that individual for personal gain.
So tell again, what exactly did I do that makes it somehow wrong?
Did I present the information as my own? No I didn't. Just because you assumed it it was my own doesn't mean I "presented" it as my own. We don't blame others for our own mistakes. That's not how morality works.
Is it the act of presenting it which makes it wrong? Not if I didn't present it as my own. Proof of intent would be very useful in proving a wrong here. So where is the proof of my intention to commit wrong?
Do you remember this quote "I intend to prove using only science?". Is this the intention which made the whole thing wrong?

Come now we don't have any moral authority guiding us here (assumming you aren't a theist) so there must be something that makes what I have done wrong other than you just saying "it's wrong".
What is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 08:48 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 07:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If I hyperlinked just one I would be claiming that they are the original authors of the definition, which I obviously can't tell. Can you?

False. Completely false.
All it would be doing is disclosing where YOU got it.

Try harder.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 08:58 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-03-2016 07:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If I hyperlinked just one I would be claiming that they are the original authors of the definition, which I obviously can't tell. Can you?

False. Completely false.
All it would be doing is disclosing where YOU got it.

Try harder.
I got it from a widely used definition found on the Internet. No one site is the proclaimed author of the definition.
Also if an author does not wish to be attributed with being the originator of the claim why should I still do so? The information is open source & permission given to be accessed via public search engines. I don't fear being called a plagairist by you or anyone else here. If your definition of plagairism has no intrinsic immorality how can it be considered wrong? Prove to me what I did was wrong and I will not deny it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Sorry. I can't run that fast.
You shift the goals posts faster than I can keep up.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-03-2016, 11:42 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Still trying to follow along with the conversation/thread topic.

(12-03-2016 08:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If your definition of plagiarism has no intrinsic immorality how can it be considered wrong?

I must admit to being at a loss as to the way the words are used in this sentence.

Plagiarism is something one does. It is seen as 'dishonest' As in there is possibly an element of false hood or ulterior motive about the character of the person who is doing the plagiarism.

As to the 'morality' of some one being a plagiarist or engaging in plagiarism... I suppose one could say that their possible dishonesty is grounds to question their morals?

Yah.. am still pondering how best to work through the statement. Consider

(12-03-2016 08:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Prove to me what I did was wrong and I will not deny it.

*Nods* So, if some one were to post something that you had posted and then posted something some one else had posted some where before yourself and we could thence compare the wordings of the two? That would count, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 11:42 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 11:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry. I can't run that fast.
You shift the goals posts faster than I can keep up.
If you are going to accuse someone of doing something wrong at least have the Bucky balls to prove it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 11:57 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 11:42 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Still trying to follow along with the conversation/thread topic.

(12-03-2016 08:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If your definition of plagiarism has no intrinsic immorality how can it be considered wrong?

I must admit to being at a loss as to the way the words are used in this sentence.

Plagiarism is something one does. It is seen as 'dishonest' As in there is possibly an element of false hood or ulterior motive about the character of the person who is doing the plagiarism.

As to the 'morality' of some one being a plagiarist or engaging in plagiarism... I suppose one could say that their possible dishonesty is grounds to question their morals?

Yah.. am still pondering how best to work through the statement. Consider

(12-03-2016 08:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Prove to me what I did was wrong and I will not deny it.

*Nods* So, if some one were to post something that you had posted and then posted something some one else had posted some where before yourself and we could thence compare the wordings of the two? That would count, right?
Things that "appear to be dishonest" aren't always dishonest. It's possible the Salem witch hunters burned quite a few innocent women because of apparent dishonesty.

We are about to start a discussion about morality on an atheist forum. It should be taken to another thread. I will leave that up to you for now.
No one that i know of has ever officially defined right & wrong so we are going to have to establish some ground rules here.

Can we at least agree then that if I have intentionally wronged someone for a personal agenda I am guilty of wrong doing?
If you agree to that and wish to add more to it please do.

Concerning your method of determining a wrong doer:
If someone before me admitted that circumsizing his son was wrong, it does not prove that circumcision is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 11:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Things that "appear to be dishonest" aren't always dishonest. It's possible the Salem witch hunters burned quite a few innocent women because of apparent dishonesty.

Consider

Sorry.. I don't see what 'appearances' have to do with anything.

I was just trying to make sense of your comment,

"If your definition of plagiarism has no intrinsic immorality how can it be considered wrong."

The definition of a word (As in what the specific word is describing) by extension has all sorts of other 'baggage' attached.

What ever else it may have 'attached' still doesn't change what it is the word itself is meaning.

As for Salem? Yah, that was a fear, ignorance and terror induced cluster fek.

(12-03-2016 11:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are about to start a discussion about morality on an atheist forum. It should be taken to another thread. I will leave that up to you for now.

Nope, you are the one now bringing 'morals' into the conversation. As well as other ideas an connotations too boot. Other folks are talking about 'Plagiarism'. Who's doing it and such.

(12-03-2016 11:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No one that I know of has ever officially defined right & wrong so we are going to have to establish some ground rules here.

Sorry... I've missed a bit here. I believe some folks are saying that other folks are/have done acts of 'Plagiarism'.

The follow on from that is that plagiarism is the thing that is dishonest.

(12-03-2016 11:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Can we at least agree then that if I have intentionally wronged someone for a personal agenda I am guilty of wrong doing?
If you agree to that and wish to add more to it please do.

Nope, I'm not seeing anything of a 'Wronging some one for a personal agenda' about the place. Not initially any way. Again, the issue I do believe is that of 'Plagiarism'.

(12-03-2016 11:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Concerning your method of determining a wrong doer:

If someone before me admitted that circumcising his son was wrong, it does not prove that circumcision is wrong.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with plagiarism.
Again, that the act of plagiarism is that which is an act of being dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
13-03-2016, 02:26 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I will respond to that if you can define the word "use" "draw" "take" "present as your own" "misleading the reader" in the context of these definitions and also show in what regard it can be considered negative.

The way you describe plagairsm isn't properly defined in a manner to show why it is considered negative.
Oh for fuck sake we do NOT have to demonstrate to you something you already fucking know you evasive cunt. You know stealing is wrong and you know lying is wrong. If you didn't think plagiarism was wrong why the hell did you waste days fabricating arguments from thin air and coming up with multiple lies to defend your action. If plagiarism isn't wrong why lie about it repeatedly when even you know lying is wrong? I know this, you know this, you're just being a difficult cunt for the sake of being a difficult cunt at this point, you just lack the moral fiber to admit when your wrong and when you have lost an argument.

If you don't understand why stealing and using other peoples work to make yourself look smarter than you actually are, more well versed in a subject than you actually are, more qualified in a debate than you actually are than that's your problem. My condolences on being a morally bankrupt piece of shit.
How many times do you have to be wrong before you just shut the fuck up? Honestly if THIS is what you have left. "I'm a plagiarist but like..how do we know like...anything is like..wrong man?".
You have multiple people (all of good standing and impeccable reputation) telling you are wrong, every definition and every source telling you are wrong, your rep keeps sliding because of your behavior, and you can't even buy a "like" in this argument to save your life, and now you are resorting to "prove that stealing and lying is wrong".
You are wrong. You are a liar. You are a plagiarist. You are a stupid, spiteful, homophobic, sexist cunt.


(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Murder is considered wrong. What if I kill a rapist while he was raping my wife? Assuming we aren't theists, how do you determine that this particular case of murder is wrong?
That's not murder, stop talking about the law you incompetent dumbass.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you don't know who the original authors are how can you reference them?
By providing links to the source you used, even if unnamed. Like the rest of us did with Wikipedia, or the various educational bodies that define plagiarism.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If the source does not want recognition is it still wrong? If yes, please explain why.
Yes, because if the source wants recognition or not is immaterial to what constitutes plagiarism.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So tell again, what exactly did I do that makes it somehow wrong?
Stealing another's work, dishonestly manipulating it to make it draw conclusions that it does not and offer support it does not, then AS ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, representing it as your own by failing to give the needed credit.

NO definition of plagiarism required that you make a verbal or textual decleration of ownership. They ALL agree that all that is required is to fail to give credit where credit is due. In the case of taking another persons work and changing it's content (which you did) is plagiarism even if you DO give credit.

it's not our fault you get so caught up in what you think are "gotcha" arguments that you don't bother to read your fucking sources properly. We are not to blame for your incompetence.


(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Did I present the information as my own? No I didn't.
Yes you did, as demonstrated by every source provided including your own. Stop lying.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's not how morality works.
Oh so now you DO know how morality works! So why are we responsible for explaining to you why theft, lying about the content of your theft, and lying in defense of your theft is wrong?

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is it the act of presenting it which makes it wrong?
Not always. If you change the content of it (which you did) it's a form of plagiarism even if you do credit the original source you butchered.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Not if I didn't present it as my own.
Which you did.

(12-03-2016 08:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Proof of intent would be very useful in proving a wrong here. So where is the proof of my intention to commit wrong?
Proof of an intent to do wrong is not a requirement for you to be guilty of plagiarism and this has been explained to you already. You can accidentally commit plagiarism, and I would personally believe that's the case: that through sheer ineptness, and being oblivious to what constitutes plagiarism, you managed to commit plagiarism. It's a minor offense and could be considered accidental....until you start actively lying in defense of it, which you did.

However a compelling case could be made (not to you obviously, but to sane people) that given that deliberately changing the content of the authors work to make it say something it does not is patently and obviously an attempt at deceit, along with your repeated and varied lies about the subject are good indicators of intentional wrong doing.
While I can't prove that you deliberately set out to commit plagiarism like some mustache-twirling villain, that you did deliberately try to mislead people by changing the content of an uncredited source to say things it does not is public record and a fact.

How many times do you have to be wrong before you just shut the fuck up? Is 5+ not enough for you?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: