Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 12:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't think it have a burning need to be right. You assume that possibly due to your past experiences debating others.

While I have had experiences with a few people who had similar predispositions, I think I can keep your behavior separate from theirs. One of the hallmarks of this personality trait is an inability of the person affected to recognize it. That would require admitting that they were not right.

As such, neither I nor anybody on this forum is likely to be able to convince you of the matter. I suggest that you take this up with somebody that you trust and who knows you personally.

Quote: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.

When writing, the universally understood implication is that you are using your own words. If you use another person's word and fail to cite then you are implying that their words are yours. This is dishonest and fails to give credit to the source from which you took them. These are not simply my preconceived opinions as the half dozen guides for academic integrity from different academic institutions should clearly demonstrate.

Quote: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.

Remember how I said you have a knee-jerk reaction to being told that you're wrong? This is a good example right here. Is comparing me to a theist in unflattering terms productive in any way? It isn't making a valid point or winning anybody over to your argument. It's a thinly veiled insult that's your common escalation response.

Quote:2. What makes something a common definition?

There is no hard and fast rule. When in doubt, cite. It isn't difficult and lends weight to your argument.

Your definition was not comon, it was specific. That it was available on more than one website in exactly the same form does not make it any less specific. Every last character was in exactly the same position in each instance, including yours. It's pretty obvious that you did a copy-N-paste from one of these cites. You've copied one very specific definition exactly.

The simple rule of thumb is that if you can put the text into a search engine and find them repeated exactly at another location then they aren't your own words.

---
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
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
13-03-2016, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 03:17 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 01:50 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 12:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't think it have a burning need to be right. You assume that possibly due to your past experiences debating others.

While I have had experiences with a few people who had similar predispositions, I think I can keep your behavior separate from theirs. One of the hallmarks of this personality trait is an inability of the person affected to recognize it. That would require admitting that they were not right.

As such, neither I nor anybody on this forum is likely to be able to convince you of the matter. I suggest that you take this up with somebody that you trust and who knows you personally.

Quote: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.

When writing, the universally understood implication is that you are using your own words. If you use another person's word and fail to cite then you are implying that their words are yours. This is dishonest and fails to give credit to the source from which you took them. These are not simply my preconceived opinions as the half dozen guides for academic integrity from different academic institutions should clearly demonstrate.

Quote: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.

Remember how I said you have a knee-jerk reaction to being told that you're wrong? This is a good example right here. Is comparing me to a theist in unflattering terms productive in any way? It isn't making a valid point or winning anybody over to your argument. It's a thinly veiled insult that's your common escalation response.

Quote:2. What makes something a common definition?

There is no hard and fast rule. When in doubt, cite. It isn't difficult and lends weight to your argument.

Your definition was not comon, it was specific. That it was available on more than one website in exactly the same form does not make it any less specific. Every last character was in exactly the same position in each instance, including yours. It's pretty obvious that you did a copy-N-paste from one of these cites. You've copied one very specific definition exactly.

The simple rule of thumb is that if you can put the text into a search engine and find them repeated exactly at another location then they aren't your own words.
I wasn't in doubt about the definition due to it's unquestionably common wording. I was in doubt about the original authors. Are you saying when in doubt about the original author cite any author? That would mean when in doubt say "enee meenee minee moe"
I actually copied it straight from the google main page after seeing so many definitions in the summary title all carrying the exact same words. Had they not all have the exact same wording I would have made an effort to find an original author and credit them.
I was looking for the most common definition to make it more easily acceptable for the average reader. If you haven't noticed I do this a lot by posting the definitions direct from the google main page. Just type in the word followed by "means" and google does the rest.
Did you miss the other points or started replying before I edited them in?

As for comparing you to a Theist that would be a personal bias I have against the theistic approach to logic which involves assuming the other person already knows the truth and is deliberately ignorant of it. You use this same approach when attempting to define my character flaw as far as I can tell. You asked me if it can be productive in any way. Well I'm not omniscient but one can only hope that if you see the flawed logic you will eventually correct it (provided there is one)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Fuckin' 'ell I could just copy+paste my responses from my last post. READ WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU. It's like talking to a brick wall if a brick wall could have a learning disability.
(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You seem to think I have an issue with being called a plagairist.
As I said before it's obvious that you do. If you don't then kindly explain why you spent pages fabricating support and lying to everyone here. You're lying now, or your completely irrational.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
"Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work."
"Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty..."
" In academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense."


"You invite future employers and faculty to question your integrity and performance in general.
You commit fraud on faculty who are evaluating your work.
You deprive another author due credit for his or her work.
You show disrespect for your peers who have done their own work."


"No matter what the category or the motive behind the act; plagiarism is absolutely wrong. Firstly, it speaks volumes about the culprit’s dedication towards work and his or her integrity. Irrespective of the circumstance, plagiarism is undoubtedly a theft and an act of dishonesty. Secondly, by projecting someone else’s work as your own and deliberately hiding the source of reference, one is robbing the original writer of his or her due recognition. Thirdly, work submitting by students involved in plagiarism cannot be evaluated along with those who have toiled hard to produce their own thoughts on paper. It would be unjust to others to be judged at par with such fraud. Fourthly, plagiarism is a mark of disrespect to the mentors. The professors, teachers or mentors streamline their energy towards the enhancement of their students’ knowledge. Such an act of cheating is a definite breach of their trust. "


A simple google search would explain to you how it's wrong and why it's viewed as wrong. And you fucking know it.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have a warped sense of morality.
I'm not the one who started this by engaging in both theft and a deliberate attempt to device readers by changing the content of another persons work. I'm not the one who has tried to justify it as either not morally wrong/ not legally wrong by fabricating arguments and actively lying. I'm not the one shifting goal posts, I'm not the one deliberately misrepresenting other peoples positions, I'm not the one engaged in evasive dishonest tactics. So you can fuck off.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Law and Morality are not the same.
Never claimed they were.HoboHobo

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Murder is murder regardless of the law.
Very good you finally got something kinda right, murder IS murder. Good job! However....

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the intentional act of killing.
Nope. Murder actually has requirements and isn't any old killing:
"Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."
What you described is not murder. Stop talking about the law you don't know anything about it.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
Because the genocide of people who can't possibly fight back is the same as killing a person in self-defense who is attacking a family member. Those things are TOTALLY the same.
Fucking idiot.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Richard Dawkins would object right about now.
You might have a point if your argument wasn't entirely fallacious and had it's foundations on your ignorance of the law. Drinking Beverage

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
Shane you moron, what the fuck are you talking about? I've never accused you of plagiarizing definitions, I've only ever accused you of plagiarizing the work of Dr. Sten Odenwald. So what the fuck are you talking about you imbecile?


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
In post 1 of your debate in the boxing ring which was cataloged in this very thread right here. You already know this because I've been throwing it at your thick skull like a brick for DAYS now.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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 have multiple times, the fact you ignore it or have the reading comprehension of a drugged up turnip doesn't mean I haven't. Are you trying to suggest you don't understand why, when engaged in a formal debate, changing the content of other peoples work to support you when it doesn't, is wrong?

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not lying about not stealing something because I haven't stolen anything.
Yes you are and yes did. You're even lying about not lying.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Using something is not considered stealing unless you did not get permission.
And you didn't.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
Again you are just being a deliberate cunt, just to be a cunt. Don't fucking lie to me and pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. I never accused you of stealing or changing a definition but the work of Dr. Sten Odenwald. You fucking know this because you have given me arguments in the past that REQUIRE you to know this.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  At what point in the debate did I present a commonly used definition as my own?
At what point is this "debate" did I say that you had presented one as your own? Oh right never you lying evasive chucklefuck. The only thing I have ever said about definitions is that all of them, absolutely all of them, including the one you gave us as your defense, are in agreement: you are a plagiarist.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
I. Already. Did. In. The. Post. You. Quoted. You. Fucking. Idiot. And the one before that, and at least 3 others.

Read what people type. For fuck sake most of my responses could be a quarter of their length if I didn't have to repeat myself 11 fucking times cause you are too stupid to read it the first 10 times.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Proof of intent is a method of determining morality.
Method, not a requirement and I already met that method anyway. Read what I'm actually typing.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I couldn't care less what you think plagairism is, in this case...
It's not what I think plagiarism is, but the fact that EVERY SINGLE MOTHERFUCKING SOURCE in this entire thread AGREES that what you did IS plagiarism. Don't try and fucking pretend like I'm giving my opinion, it's a goddamn FACT that what I am telling you is accurate. No one and nothing agrees with your opinion, even the shit YOU post.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So I'm just supposed to believe something is wrong just because you say it is wrong?
I'm not interested in listening to you play fucking dumb any more you cunt, I have never claimed that it was "because I say so" and you know that. Fuck you and fuck your fallacious strawman, if you can't argue honestly then get the fuck off the forum.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "Your liberal use of profanity is totally immoral and should be punished by death."
Fuck you and your strawman again. Find me a SINGLE source that agrees with all of the above. Every single source I, or you, have provided on plagiarism supports what I have been saying 100%. Lets see you find a single one that supports what you just wrote.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What a totally useless conversation this is turning out to be.
Turning out to be? It been like beating my head a against the wall since you joined this forum. When I'm polite you ignore me, when I swear it's 90% of what you talk about. You lie, deliberately play dumb, you talk about things you have no knowledge of (Law, psychology, physics, English, one and on) when you are shown wrong you don't admit it you just cut the subject from the conversation entirely (Agnostic definition), you bigoted, sexist, homophobic, delusional, hypocritical, and you lie about your lies for shit sake.
YOU, Mr. -10, are the fucking problem here and the community has chosen to reflect that in your rep.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
But you're delusional so why should I give a fuck what imaginary patterns you see in your morning shit? Fuck you and your strawman AGAIN, because I have repeatedly and thoroughly proven exactly what I am saying is accurate.
AND. YOU. KNOW. THIS.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
13-03-2016, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 03:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:16 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Fuckin' 'ell I could just copy+paste my responses from my last post. READ WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU. It's like talking to a brick wall if a brick wall could have a learning disability.
(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You seem to think I have an issue with being called a plagairist.
As I said before it's obvious that you do. If you don't then kindly explain why you spent pages fabricating support and lying to everyone here. You're lying now, or your completely irrational.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
"Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work."
"Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty..."
" In academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense."


"You invite future employers and faculty to question your integrity and performance in general.
You commit fraud on faculty who are evaluating your work.
You deprive another author due credit for his or her work.
You show disrespect for your peers who have done their own work."


"No matter what the category or the motive behind the act; plagiarism is absolutely wrong. Firstly, it speaks volumes about the culprit’s dedication towards work and his or her integrity. Irrespective of the circumstance, plagiarism is undoubtedly a theft and an act of dishonesty. Secondly, by projecting someone else’s work as your own and deliberately hiding the source of reference, one is robbing the original writer of his or her due recognition. Thirdly, work submitting by students involved in plagiarism cannot be evaluated along with those who have toiled hard to produce their own thoughts on paper. It would be unjust to others to be judged at par with such fraud. Fourthly, plagiarism is a mark of disrespect to the mentors. The professors, teachers or mentors streamline their energy towards the enhancement of their students’ knowledge. Such an act of cheating is a definite breach of their trust. "


A simple google search would explain to you how it's wrong and why it's viewed as wrong. And you fucking know it.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have a warped sense of morality.
I'm not the one who started this by engaging in both theft and a deliberate attempt to device readers by changing the content of another persons work. I'm not the one who has tried to justify it as either not morally wrong/ not legally wrong by fabricating arguments and actively lying. I'm not the one shifting goal posts, I'm not the one deliberately misrepresenting other peoples positions, I'm not the one engaged in evasive dishonest tactics. So you can fuck off.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Law and Morality are not the same.
Never claimed they were.HoboHobo

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Murder is murder regardless of the law.
Very good you finally got something kinda right, murder IS murder. Good job! However....

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the intentional act of killing.
Nope. Murder actually has requirements and isn't any old killing:
"Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."
What you described is not murder. Stop talking about the law you don't know anything about it.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
Because the genocide of people who can't possibly fight back is the same as killing a person in self-defense who is attacking a family member. Those things are TOTALLY the same.
Fucking idiot.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Richard Dawkins would object right about now.
You might have a point if your argument wasn't entirely fallacious and had it's foundations on your ignorance of the law. Drinking Beverage

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
Shane you moron, what the fuck are you talking about? I've never accused you of plagiarizing definitions, I've only ever accused you of plagiarizing the work of Dr. Sten Odenwald. So what the fuck are you talking about you imbecile?


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
In post 1 of your debate in the boxing ring which was cataloged in this very thread right here. You already know this because I've been throwing it at your thick skull like a brick for DAYS now.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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 have multiple times, the fact you ignore it or have the reading comprehension of a drugged up turnip doesn't mean I haven't. Are you trying to suggest you don't understand why, when engaged in a formal debate, changing the content of other peoples work to support you when it doesn't, is wrong?

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not lying about not stealing something because I haven't stolen anything.
Yes you are and yes did. You're even lying about not lying.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Using something is not considered stealing unless you did not get permission.
And you didn't.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
Again you are just being a deliberate cunt, just to be a cunt. Don't fucking lie to me and pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. I never accused you of stealing or changing a definition but the work of Dr. Sten Odenwald. You fucking know this because you have given me arguments in the past that REQUIRE you to know this.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  At what point in the debate did I present a commonly used definition as my own?
At what point is this "debate" did I say that you had presented one as your own? Oh right never you lying evasive chucklefuck. The only thing I have ever said about definitions is that all of them, absolutely all of them, including the one you gave us as your defense, are in agreement: you are a plagiarist.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
I. Already. Did. In. The. Post. You. Quoted. You. Fucking. Idiot. And the one before that, and at least 3 others.

Read what people type. For fuck sake most of my responses could be a quarter of their length if I didn't have to repeat myself 11 fucking times cause you are too stupid to read it the first 10 times.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Proof of intent is a method of determining morality.
Method, not a requirement and I already met that method anyway. Read what I'm actually typing.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I couldn't care less what you think plagairism is, in this case...
It's not what I think plagiarism is, but the fact that EVERY SINGLE MOTHERFUCKING SOURCE in this entire thread AGREES that what you did IS plagiarism. Don't try and fucking pretend like I'm giving my opinion, it's a goddamn FACT that what I am telling you is accurate. No one and nothing agrees with your opinion, even the shit YOU post.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So I'm just supposed to believe something is wrong just because you say it is wrong?
I'm not interested in listening to you play fucking dumb any more you cunt, I have never claimed that it was "because I say so" and you know that. Fuck you and fuck your fallacious strawman, if you can't argue honestly then get the fuck off the forum.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "Your liberal use of profanity is totally immoral and should be punished by death."
Fuck you and your strawman again. Find me a SINGLE source that agrees with all of the above. Every single source I, or you, have provided on plagiarism supports what I have been saying 100%. Lets see you find a single one that supports what you just wrote.

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What a totally useless conversation this is turning out to be.
Turning out to be? It been like beating my head a against the wall since you joined this forum. When I'm polite you ignore me, when I swear it's 90% of what you talk about. You lie, deliberately play dumb, you talk about things you have no knowledge of (Law, psychology, physics, English, one and on) when you are shown wrong you don't admit it you just cut the subject from the conversation entirely (Agnostic definition), you bigoted, sexist, homophobic, delusional, hypocritical, and you lie about your lies for shit sake.
YOU, Mr. -10, are the fucking problem here and the community has chosen to reflect that in your rep.


(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?
But you're delusional so why should I give a fuck what imaginary patterns you see in your morning shit? Fuck you and your strawman AGAIN, because I have repeatedly and thoroughly proven exactly what I am saying is accurate.
AND. YOU. KNOW. THIS.
1. I do have a problem with being called a plagairist on the condition that the it is used in a negative way when I have done nothing negative. I siad this already. The word plagairist absent this condition has no value to me.

2. You don't read "plagairism is the wrongful application" in the same manner I read it apparently.
You read it as "plagairism is the application" whereas I read it as "plaigarism is the wrongful application"
The way you read it: Any act that mimics the definition of plagairism regardless of it being positive or negative is considered plagairism.
I read it as: Any act that mimics the definition in a negative manner is considered plagairism.
The wayI think you define it is simply used for labelling. Labels do not automatically carry the stigma of good or bad in every situation.
An example of this would be if I were to Label Bucky as a Homo & use that label to prove he deserves the death penalty. It would be unjustified without showing what wrong he did to deserve such a punishment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:23 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 11:42 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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.

IF he hadn't also deliberately changed the authors work to say something it didn't, to support a position it didn't. He tried to deliberately mislead people, on top of taking someones work. Otherwise I agree with everything you just said.ThumbsupThumbsup

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I do have a problem with being called a plagairist on the condition that the it is used in a negative way when I have done nothing negative.

So why fabricate arguments and actively engage in multiple lies to defend yourself from the accusation as not a thing that applies to you, instead of trying to argue from it not being negative from the get go?

Oh that's right: It's because your full of shit and engaged in after the fact justifications for your shitty actions. You tried one lie, then went to another lie, then another, and another, and another, then on to personal incompetence and now this: your last bastion of defense. You're just a freaking goal post shifting weasel.

That plagiarism is universally considered immoral, theft, and is in fact punishable in many walks of life is not up for debate it's an establish fact supported universally (except for you, and no one cares what you think).

You have done soemthing negative, you have stolen, lied about the content of what you stole, lied about stealing it, lied and fabricated entire people and bodies of law to justify your theft, provided definitions you didn't bother to read, been evasive and hypocritical, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and acted like a goddamn obstinate cunt just in fuckin' general.

Even if plagiarism was not universally considered heinous, dishonest, and immoral it would still be justified to assume that in your case it was simply on the fact that everything else you have done in this thread has been so. You are a dishonest, lying, bigoted piece of common trash and you have no business being on the internet let alone this forum. Your just some uncultured, morally bankrupt, pleb with an internet connection. Trash. Plagiarist. Liar. Bigot. Go fuck yourself.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:23 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 11:42 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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.

IF he hadn't also deliberately changed the authors work to say something it didn't, to support a position it didn't. He tried to deliberately mislead people, on top of taking someones work. Otherwise I agree with everything you just said.ThumbsupThumbsup
When did I change the author's work and "use" it for this debate?
Your rebuttals are missing key points in proving your case. You have to prove I have "used" the said information belonging to another author before you can prove that I have changed the author's work. It's a scrap of the edit process that had no intention of being used in my official response.
Post's 1 & 2 are not "used" by me for this debate. It's a snap shot of the edit process when developing my points.
Post 3 has the final edit and credit is given where credit is due and my points were properly well worded in my own way without comitting any wrong doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

You're getting a bit closer, but still no cigar. P.L.A.G.I.A.R.I.S.M. Facepalm

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have a warped sense of morality.

Are you SURE of that ? How do you know that ? How did you decide yours is on track and others aren't ? Where did you get your standards ?

(13-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Murder is murder regardless of the law.

Absolutely FALSE.
Murder is "murder" ONLY because of the law. There are instances where the taking of human life is not only, *not murder*, but entirely justified. The ONLY reason a particular instance of a taking of a human life is "murder", is because it meets a legal definition, (locally) for that term.

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, 03:40 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 03:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I do have a problem with being called a plagairist on the condition that the it is used in a negative way when I have done nothing negative.

So why fabricate arguments and actively engage in multiple lies to defend yourself from the accusation as not a thing that applies to you, instead of trying to argue from it not being negative from the get go?

Oh that's right: It's because your full of shit and engaged in after the fact justifications for your shitty actions. You tried one lie, then went to another lie, then another, and another, and another, then on to personal incompetence and now this: your last bastion of defense. You're just a freaking goal post shifting weasel.

That plagiarism is universally considered immoral, theft, and is in fact punishable in many walks of life is not up for debate it's an establish fact supported universally (except for you, and no one cares what you think).

You have done soemthing negative, you have stolen, lied about the content of what you stole, lied about stealing it, lied and fabricated entire people and bodies of law to justify your theft, provided definitions you didn't bother to read, been evasive and hypocritical, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and acted like a goddamn obstinate cunt just in fuckin' general.

Even if plagiarism was not universally considered heinous, dishonest, and immoral it would still be justified to assume that in your case it was simply on the fact that everything else you have done in this thread has been so. You are a dishonest, lying, bigoted piece of common trash and you have no business being on the internet let alone this forum. Your just some uncultured, morally bankrupt, pleb with an internet connection. Trash. Plagiarist. Liar. Bigot. Go fuck yourself.
The definition of Plagairism requires a negative intent or outcome. You have been using the word plagairism to prove a wrong when you should be using something wrong that I did to prove that it is plagairism.
I'm not always right, but at least show me where I went wrong before accusing me of wrong doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 03:43 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  blah blah blah blah I'm a fucking idiot
I could not give a shit less about your personal translation of a word. There is universal agreement that what you did was plagiarism and that it's wrong. Fuck off shane, no one cares what you think.

(13-03-2016 03:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It would be unjustified without showing what wrong he did to deserve such a punishment.
Already been shown, again in the very post you quoted. Take your idiot ass and go fuck a blender.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: