Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2016, 06:22 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 11:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(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.

Sure girl friend. Guilty conscience much. Facepalm

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
13-03-2016, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 08:34 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 02:26 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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?
You seem to think I have an issue with being called a plagairist. If you can't show me something immoral in your definition of plagairism that's somehow applicable to what I did then I'm happy to be called a plagairist, because it means it's not a used as a negative word.
The act of stealing involves using or taking something without permission. Open source information has already been granted permission to use or take the information for the purpose of sharing. You have a warped sense of morality.
Law and Morality are not the same. Murder is murder regardless of the law. It's the intentional act of killing. You are going to tell me God didn't murder almost all of humanity in the story of Noah because his law doesn't consider it murder? Richard Dawkins would object right about now.
I already said I am not going to always provide a link to the most common and only used definition of a word. There is no original author to a commonly used definition. The english language/dictionary isn't subject to the rules of copyright & plagairism. We would all be guilty of plagairism in some form or fashion by your logic. I could go through this website and find multiple instances of posts you have made that meets the loose requirements of "plagiarism of common definitions" you accuse me of. It would not mean it is wrong.
To manipulate something involves changing it or twisting the meaning of the words to mean something different in your explanation. Where have I done this? Even if you did find I somehow manipulated something while using it, you still have to prove that it has or can negatively affect someone.
I am not lying about not stealing something because I haven't stolen anything. Using something is not considered stealing unless you did not get permission.
How exactly does someone go about changing the content of a commonly used definition, and if I did somehow manage to do it can you indicate where it was done?
At what point in the debate did I present a commonly used definition as my own? You keep assuming I presented it as my own. To present something is not the same as to imply, and if you are going to claim I implied it then show the logic of how you came to that conclusion.
Proof of intent is a method of determining morality. I couldn't care less what you think plagairism is, in this case, if it isn't a form of immorality when considering the case in question.

So I'm just supposed to believe something is wrong just because you say it is wrong?
Ok let's try that then:
"Your liberal use of profanity is totally immoral and should be punished by death.
You already know it's wrong, you evasive reproductive part of the female anatomy."
Sarcasm

What a totally useless conversation this is turning out to be.

Reminds me of the debate between Matt dilahunty vs Sye.
Sye: "I'm right because you know I'm right, and I don't have to prove anything to you, since you already know I'm right"
Beautiful logic Whiskey (sarcasm). When did you convert back to Theism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 06:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-03-2016 11:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are going to accuse someone of doing something wrong at least have the Bucky balls to prove it.

Sure girl friend. Guilty conscience much. Facepalm
Not really that Homophobic. Keep trying though, maybe you might get lucky and I will run away. Persistent, I'll give you that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 08:22 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 06:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sure girl friend. Guilty conscience much. Facepalm
Not really that Homophobic. Keep trying though, maybe you might get lucky and I will run away. Persistent, I'll give you that.

That's cool. Doesn't make you less of an evasive lying piece of shit. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-03-2016, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 08:35 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 08:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 08:22 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Not really that Homophobic. Keep trying though, maybe you might get lucky and I will run away. Persistent, I'll give you that.

That's cool. Doesn't make you less of an evasive lying piece of shit. Drinking Beverage
Doesn't make me one either. Drinking Beverage
Try defensive, logical piece of skeptic. It might better suit your labeling process but completely bypass your personal bias.
Are we having a tea party by the way? I didn't quite get the invitation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You seem to think I have an issue with being called a plagiarist. If you can't show me something immoral in your definition of plagiarism that's somehow applicable to what I did then I'm happy to be called a plagiarist, because it means it's not a used as a negative word.

But... as has been pointed out, there is an acknowledge difference between 'Morals' and the more simplistic 'Right Vs Wrong'. (Besides from them being three different words Tongue )

So...

1) You're okay with the information that what you initially posted waaaay back when is considered to be something that has been plagiarized?

Yes Glad we've got that sorted.

As for the " ... because it means it's not a used as a negative word." ?

Then you're again trying to make stuff up or again use words to which you are ascribing different/wrong/incorrect meanings too.

Whether you call something a 'Negative' word doesn't really apply. It's how the generic, collective 'Everybody else' uses/views the words that's kind of the done deal, since you're dealing with/engaging with conversations being held with other people.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 08:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 08:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's cool. Doesn't make you less of an evasive lying piece of shit. Drinking Beverage
Doesn't make me one either. Drinking Beverage
Try defensive, logical piece of skeptic. It might better suit your labeling process but completely bypass your personal bias.
Are we having a tea party by the way? I didn't quite get the invitation.

No. You don't get to pretend to be that when you're caught lying time and again. Fuck off you stupid wanker.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-03-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 07:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  One of these following websites probably?

Then you should have cited that website.

Quote:Why would I hyperlink a common definition that everyone can google and find multiple sources?

Because it isn't a common definition. It's a very specifically worded definition complete with punctuation. You provide citation of some form because (1) it states that this is not your work and (2) allows others to evaluate your sources.

Quote: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.

The definition of redshift is hardly common. It doesn't typically come up in day-to-day conversation. The definition that you provided was quite specifically worded.

(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.

I'm not going to get into the redefinition game with you on this. I provided five definitions of plagiarism from leading academic institutions whose jobs are to know and define for their students exactly what it is. Each one describes what you did.

Quote: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?

You failed to give credit where credit was due. That's a pretty basic academic principle and one that I'm pretty sure that you understand.

But none of this is really important.

Any transgressions that you may have comitted are relatively trivial and should not have meritted more than a passing comment. As I said before, I didn't really care and was more interested in the debate, which is why I didn't bring it up.

The important point that you need to take away from this is that you have a very bad habit of doubling down on bad decisions. This has served you poorly, earning you a poor reputation on a forum that should otherwise be relatively welcoming.

The smart way to handle this was to reply to the original accusation with a brief reply along the lines of "Oh, sorry. I'm still new kinda new here an learning the ropes. You're right, I should have cited that more thoroughly." That admits to your mistake while placing it in the context of an innocent blunder and says that you'll try to avoid a repeat. Situation defused.

The unsmart way to handle this was to get your back up, ratchet up the hostility, devolve into name-calling and accusation, etc. ad nauseum for 16 needless pages of posts. Your original detractor may well have been over-reacting or misunderstanding, but by escalating you only make yourself look worse. More importantly, you draw in more moderate posters who would have otherwise ignored your lapse because they now feel that it's necessary to point out that the original poster actually does have a point. The entire damned thing snowballs, turning an otherwise inconsequential error into a much more substantial demonstration that you are unwilling or unable to admit your mistakes even after they've been pointed out to you exhaustively and are willing to commit even more dubious acts to try and justify what should obviously be unsupportable.

You have managed to brew a tempest in a teapot.

I'm not sure why and won't engage in pop psych, but this is a manifestation of an underlying personality trait. Despite your professed agnosticism, you have a burning need to be right. Whenever somebody says that you might not be, your knee-jerk hostility kicks in and escalates the situation. That has served you very poorly and has managed to Influence People Without Making Any Friends Whatsoever. The zeal with which you defend your points is the reason why many here have a hard time believing that you're an agnostic (the whole 'I know that I'm right' vibe just doesn't fit with that) and why a few have mistaken you for a theist.

I hope that you can find a way to manage this aspect of your personality because it will otherwise detract from your experience here and your life in general.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
13-03-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Paleophyte, since i can give your post only one simple "like", i want to point out, that your analysis is so awesome and to the spot that i hereby award you with a few thumbs. ThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

I really am perplexed that Shane indeed was digging much deeper for numerous pages, even after i had warned him about it. Your analysis however sheds some light to the background of this behaviour.

Im gonna check now if i can get your rep up by a few notches at least. Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 12:50 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 01:58 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 11:42 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(12-03-2016 07:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  One of these following websites probably?

Then you should have cited that website.

Quote:Why would I hyperlink a common definition that everyone can google and find multiple sources?

Because it isn't a common definition. It's a very specifically worded definition complete with punctuation. You provide citation of some form because (1) it states that this is not your work and (2) allows others to evaluate your sources.

Quote: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.

The definition of redshift is hardly common. It doesn't typically come up in day-to-day conversation. The definition that you provided was quite specifically worded.

(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.

I'm not going to get into the redefinition game with you on this. I provided five definitions of plagiarism from leading academic institutions whose jobs are to know and define for their students exactly what it is. Each one describes what you did.

Quote: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?

You failed to give credit where credit was due. That's a pretty basic academic principle and one that I'm pretty sure that you understand.

But none of this is really important.

Any transgressions that you may have comitted are relatively trivial and should not have meritted more than a passing comment. As I said before, I didn't really care and was more interested in the debate, which is why I didn't bring it up.

The important point that you need to take away from this is that you have a very bad habit of doubling down on bad decisions. This has served you poorly, earning you a poor reputation on a forum that should otherwise be relatively welcoming.

The smart way to handle this was to reply to the original accusation with a brief reply along the lines of "Oh, sorry. I'm still new kinda new here an learning the ropes. You're right, I should have cited that more thoroughly." That admits to your mistake while placing it in the context of an innocent blunder and says that you'll try to avoid a repeat. Situation defused.

The unsmart way to handle this was to get your back up, ratchet up the hostility, devolve into name-calling and accusation, etc. ad nauseum for 16 needless pages of posts. Your original detractor may well have been over-reacting or misunderstanding, but by escalating you only make yourself look worse. More importantly, you draw in more moderate posters who would have otherwise ignored your lapse because they now feel that it's necessary to point out that the original poster actually does have a point. The entire damned thing snowballs, turning an otherwise inconsequential error into a much more substantial demonstration that you are unwilling or unable to admit your mistakes even after they've been pointed out to you exhaustively and are willing to commit even more dubious acts to try and justify what should obviously be unsupportable.

You have managed to brew a tempest in a teapot.

I'm not sure why and won't engage in pop psych, but this is a manifestation of an underlying personality trait. Despite your professed agnosticism, you have a burning need to be right. Whenever somebody says that you might not be, your knee-jerk hostility kicks in and escalates the situation. That has served you very poorly and has managed to Influence People Without Making Any Friends Whatsoever. The zeal with which you defend your points is the reason why many here have a hard time believing that you're an agnostic (the whole 'I know that I'm right' vibe just doesn't fit with that) and why a few have mistaken you for a theist.

I hope that you can find a way to manage this aspect of your personality because it will otherwise detract from your experience here and your life in general.
I don't think it have a burning need to be right. You assume that possibly due to your past experiences debating others.
I have a burning need to address all possibilities. I have a burning need to doubt any claim that has plausible reason for doubt.
Nothing I say here do I state from a position of absolute certainty but so long as there is a good reason to doubt a claim I will not accept the claim as fact or indisputable logic.
Truth is not as important to me as Logic is.

Answer these simple questions. The answers may seem obvious to you but they aren't for me:
1. Why should I cite the website in this particular case? The websites all repeat the Defintion word for word, give permission to redistribute the information and it is publicly accessible via public search engines. Give me a good reason other than your preconceived opinions on what you think other people should or shouldn't do.
I don't go around telling people what they should and shouldn't do (at least not as much you are doing here). May I point out it's a very theistic approach when someone does that. I have a few issues with theistic approaches to logic but I didn't expect Atheists to have so much in common with their logic.
2. What makes something a common definition? Is it not because it is the most used definition for the term? Are there alternative definitions of the term? You claim it's not a common definition so what is it that makes something uncommon? Are you saying simply because it's not that regularly discussed therefore it's not a common definition? That would make it an uncommon topic, not an uncommon defintion. An uncommon defintion would most likely be a definition that isn't commonly used when describing a thing. The definition I provided for Redshift is the most common definition for redshift I have found thus far. It is, for all intents and purposes, a very common Defintion and quite possibly the only definition there is. Your understanding of the term common definition does not make logical sense to me. Please tell me where I have misunderstood the logic.
The definition of redshift is quite common, whereas the topic of redshift is not.
3. I'm not asking you to redefine the words "use" "draw" "take". I'm asking you how exactly do we apply it to the definition of plagairism since it has so many multiple meanings. These words aren't always indicative of negative conduct now are they? In my example of the customer quotation I have used the definition of plagairism with these same words to show that my quotation can be seen as a form of plagairism yet at the same time not seen as something negative. What this means is that the definition of plagairism does not always carry a negative trait in all instances. Therefore it is quite possible what I have done, even though it can be labelled as plagairism, because of the looseness of the words "use", "take", "draw", etc it is not necessarily something negative. Use these words and show me how it can be applied in negative way to what I have done and you will have proven your point of me doing something negative. I am not that concerned with labels my friend. I am concerned with right and wrong. If you believed I should be concerned with labelling then you are entitled to your belief but why insist I should adopt your belief system when it has no value to me as far as right and wrong is concerned?
As I have said to Bucky: If you found the time to accuse someone of negative conduct, it's only fair that you find the time to prove it as well. I understand if you don't wish to prove it due to your own personal issues, but don't expect me to accept it as wrong simply because you said it was wrong. Isn't that what most Theists do to us non theists?
4. You said I failed to give credit where credit was due. Exactly how was credit due and who was it due to? The definitions are all the same on multiple public access websites that has already given permission for the information to be used publicly. How am I to determine who was the original author? There isn't any legal copyright to this commonly used definition of redshift. In light of the fact that there is no public claim (copyright or otherwise) to such a common definition credit could be due to all of humanity as far as I can tell. Give me a name of the victim if you are going to accuse me of plagairism and let them come forth and justify this claim. Failure to do so makes your statement unwarranted labelling and holds no value in my eyes absent any form of clear wrong doing.

Label away my friend, you're not going to change anything.


Lastly,
This is possibly a manifestation of my Autism actually, not just a personality trait.
They told me it's called High Functioning Autism or Aspergers Syndrome.
They could be right, time will tell I hope.
It's an abnormality, but not necessarily a negative one.

People with the disability see the world differently than you see it. They require more than just pre conceived opinions to accept a claim. It may seem irritating to you to have to explain something from the very core come right up to it's conclusion, but it's e only way they will fully understand what you are trying to explain.

I fully understand if you don't have the patience to communicate with people that have the disorder. It's nothing new to me, but at least try to understand the disorder before you go about labelling people.

Take a read:
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/pub...2086.shtml
You would be right in saying not all of them are well intentioned but they probably dont even know it. Would you be willing to prove to me which side of heaven or hell do you think I belong on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: