originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: chr0naut
Nothing against you personally but you cut and paste a lot of info as your own words and often they’re not.
There are things I agree with and wish to express. Unless I explicitly make a claim of creating the concept under discussion, I probably didn't.
Some concepts are so basic that many people have said exactly the same thing. Reference to others expressing the same views (also usually
un-referenced) actually supports my argument.
Also, if it is such an 'all pervasive' sentiment that no one is able to identify the originator, I don't see how not referencing someone else who has
only repeated a common concept, stands as any sort of plagiarism.
I could level the same against you or anyone who posts here. None of us exists in isolation. We all use words and phrases we didn't invent.
They are bits of information from sources that lean a certain way and as a result can make one look less credible and at times more ignorant
than what they actually are. The left and right both have ignorant people being manipulated by people they support. No offense, just saying.
Umm, if our information doesn't come from online, news, or other media, or if it doesn't come from academics or acknowledged subject matter experts,
or from the people with whom we converse, then it isn't actually 'information'.
It is self-generated and a fiction (at least in the mind of the person who generated the idea) - mere opinion.
If then we were to repeat that opinion, without fact checking, without filter, and often because the opinion is an emotional appeal that we should act
or believe in a particular way. Does that make opinion factual?
I treat ATS as a platform of debate, in which I often take the adversarial position. This means that I am taking the path less trodden and this
automatically draws a fair amount of criticism.
I can state something rational, factual, reasonable, with no personal denigration of my opponent in the debate, and with clearly supported and linked
justification but I can be sure that I will receive multiple posts calling me a liar, a moron, ignorant, etc.
The nature of my immediately previous post, and ethos of its composition, assures me that none of those responses are in fact true. It also informs me
fairly directly that those who respond in that way are no longer able to participate on the topic of the debate but that they are now in ad-hominem
mode, trying to denigrate the person rather than the topic.
At that point, I have also noted that if the respondents in such a mode do make any reference to the topic, it lacks reasonableness and is of the
fashion of an empty inane or misplaced and unoriginal slogan (plagiarism?).
An example of such is the "poisonous spiders don't kill people, it is people who distribute poisonous spiders who kill people".
trope, or the
good old "we have a rule of 'legal immigrant until proven illegal immigrant in a court of law', here in the US".
(note, I have changed the
primary object of the common sayings to demonstrate the rational insufficiency of their argument).
Please analyse your previous two posts to see if they speak to the topic of the OP, or, the topics of any posts subsequent to the OP, or were instead
were entirely attempts at directly denigrating my personal reputation outside of any topical discussion.
edit on 31/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)