So then, let's pick on a target I assume we both dislike. Do you think Joe Biden plagiarizing the speeches of others to attempt to gain the presidency was a good thing, and we should have just let him be president in 87?
I am not lying when I say I don’t care how many Lord of the Rings versions there are.
Again, (1) version, singular. With multiple people claiming authorship, and no way to discern it. You don't think this could be used to further muddy the waters? What about Das Kapital, or the Bread Book? Do you think it would have been acceptable to allow the national socialists to claim those as their own, with no methodology to disprove it?
If you pass off an academic thesis as your own I’m assuming it’s for something like a grade?
It's a requirement of a degree, typically. It is a form of evidence you are capable in your field before receiving accreditation.
That sounds like cheating.
Okay, so plagiarism is a form of cheating. If you really want we can say "Joe cheated by xeroxing, 1:1, an exact copy of this paper written by another potential doctor" every time, but I personally prefer a single word. Enjoy my run-on sentences being worse if you get your way.
I'm not trolling these are honest answers it's clear we feel differently.
Do you think Joe Biden plagiarizing the speeches of others to attempt to gain the presidency was a good thing, and we should have just let him be president in 87?
I honestly don't care if he did or didn't do this and do not think he should be punished for passing off words as his own. He should be judged by his words and actions.
I don't care who "owns" the bread book. Claim whatever you want. It doesn't change the text of the book.
Plagiarism can be a form of cheating, yes. So is lying. I would oppose a law against lying on the same grounds I would oppose a law against plagiarism. And likewise would support laws against cheating and fraud.
Example of implication of what you're suggesting. My new love interest has a serious medical condition. She suffers seizures, blindness, and a host of other nightmares. She is one of four of five documented people with this condition. She and her PCP rely studies by the two doctors who have ever dealt with this. Their names are on the studies, and because of this they have made contact and are working together. This is probably why she is alive right now.
If every grifter with a medical degree slapped their names on these studies she would have no way of verifying who could provide legitimate care. Without a chain of authorship it would be entirely on her to judge each and every doctor and whatever made-up treatments they suggested. That is a really fucked up situation.
I never asked about treatment, or cutting edge research. Not once.
I simply asked for theory, history, or education on how the proposal of letting anyone claim authorship would work. That was not provided. So I provided examples of what I see as shortcomings of the idea of letting anyone claim authorship. I probably took it personally, but it was a real response to an idea that does not work without harming someone I care about.
Insisting something is a good idea without being able to provide any additional details is well below the bar of the typical conversation here. If they did not want to provide details, or could not - they could have disengaged. I did so once I realized they did not.
None of this matters, I was talking about stupid jokes on stupid podcasts.
My point is that the established culture in academia is different to memesharing and exporting a code of conduct designed around protecting careers and effective research to one of people just typing nonsense they stop thinking about in 30 minutes is unreasonable
I did not take the conversation in this direction, the person I responded to did. The poster I was responding to brought up their ideas, legislation, and any other number of topics unrelated to my post.
It is not comparable, you are right. But I was willing to engage with the ideas brought up in response because I was interested in what they were saying, and they have historically had good insights.
This is what happened, but only because people were able to find the original authors of the speeches. Spoiler: He didn't go to jail.
I'm not talking about laws here, not once. I'm just suggesting that some podcasters/youtubers/influencers/whatever steal whole content to fill their run time while making a profit off of it and then locking (intentionally or not) that once free material behind copyright. I think that is shitty. I have never once mentioned laws to punish them, instead simply I suggested (if my suspicion were accurate) people probably shouldn't pay as much attention to them or give them money to live extravagant lifestyles. Do you disagree with this statement?
people probably shouldn’t pay as much attention to them or give them money to live extravagant lifestyles. Do you disagree with this statement?
Yes I disagree with this statement. I could not give a shit whether or not people give money to folks who entertain them. I would not presume to tell someone how they should be reacting to something
I would not presume to tell someone how they should be reacting to something
Okay, but you did start this conversation with a comment calling me a lib for using a word I had to define for you. That feels really hypocritical. Maybe you don't presume to tell someone, but instead hurl insults? idk. I do not understand who you think I am, or what I'm trying to accomplish. I had to define plagiarism for you, you simply ignore points I make, and seem to think I'm arguing for legislation against podcasts and lying - things I never once mentioned.
I give up. You're either trolling, or we are incapable of communicating effectively on this subject. If you're not trolling, I still hope you have a great day/evening.
I also hope you'll consider the medical thing I mentioned - it's a serious blind spot in your worldview that will harm others if ever implemented. I hope you're not okay with that.
None was ever provided. It's hard for me to walk it back when there is only evidence it would be dangerous for someone I care about, despite asking for contradictory education.
In September 1987, however, reports emerged that he had plagiarized a speech by the British Leader of the Opposition and Labour Party Leader, Neil Kinnock. Other allegations of past law school plagiarism and exaggerating his academic record soon followed and Biden withdrew from the race later that month.
In this instance, because he was accused of plagiarism, or cheating, or lying, or whatever you want to call it - he did not have the opportunity to become president. Because he copied other people's speeches and those speeches had documented authors, people were able to call him on his bullshit in a public forum and prevent his run.
So then, let's pick on a target I assume we both dislike. Do you think Joe Biden plagiarizing the speeches of others to attempt to gain the presidency was a good thing, and we should have just let him be president in 87?
Again, (1) version, singular. With multiple people claiming authorship, and no way to discern it. You don't think this could be used to further muddy the waters? What about Das Kapital, or the Bread Book? Do you think it would have been acceptable to allow the national socialists to claim those as their own, with no methodology to disprove it?
It's a requirement of a degree, typically. It is a form of evidence you are capable in your field before receiving accreditation.
Okay, so plagiarism is a form of cheating. If you really want we can say "Joe cheated by xeroxing, 1:1, an exact copy of this paper written by another potential doctor" every time, but I personally prefer a single word. Enjoy my run-on sentences being worse if you get your way.
I'm not trolling these are honest answers it's clear we feel differently.
I honestly don't care if he did or didn't do this and do not think he should be punished for passing off words as his own. He should be judged by his words and actions.
I don't care who "owns" the bread book. Claim whatever you want. It doesn't change the text of the book.
Plagiarism can be a form of cheating, yes. So is lying. I would oppose a law against lying on the same grounds I would oppose a law against plagiarism. And likewise would support laws against cheating and fraud.
Example of implication of what you're suggesting. My new love interest has a serious medical condition. She suffers seizures, blindness, and a host of other nightmares. She is one of four of five documented people with this condition. She and her PCP rely studies by the two doctors who have ever dealt with this. Their names are on the studies, and because of this they have made contact and are working together. This is probably why she is alive right now.
If every grifter with a medical degree slapped their names on these studies she would have no way of verifying who could provide legitimate care. Without a chain of authorship it would be entirely on her to judge each and every doctor and whatever made-up treatments they suggested. That is a really fucked up situation.
Anyway, enjoy your day.
the treatment of medical issues is simply more important than shitposting
we are not academics working on cutting edge research here we are laughing at the same damn picture of a pig
I never asked about treatment, or cutting edge research. Not once.
I simply asked for theory, history, or education on how the proposal of letting anyone claim authorship would work. That was not provided. So I provided examples of what I see as shortcomings of the idea of letting anyone claim authorship. I probably took it personally, but it was a real response to an idea that does not work without harming someone I care about.
Insisting something is a good idea without being able to provide any additional details is well below the bar of the typical conversation here. If they did not want to provide details, or could not - they could have disengaged. I did so once I realized they did not.
None of this matters, I was talking about stupid jokes on stupid podcasts.
My point is that the established culture in academia is different to memesharing and exporting a code of conduct designed around protecting careers and effective research to one of people just typing nonsense they stop thinking about in 30 minutes is unreasonable
I did not take the conversation in this direction, the person I responded to did. The poster I was responding to brought up their ideas, legislation, and any other number of topics unrelated to my post.
It is not comparable, you are right. But I was willing to engage with the ideas brought up in response because I was interested in what they were saying, and they have historically had good insights.
This is what happened, but only because people were able to find the original authors of the speeches. Spoiler: He didn't go to jail.
I'm not talking about laws here, not once. I'm just suggesting that some podcasters/youtubers/influencers/whatever steal whole content to fill their run time while making a profit off of it and then locking (intentionally or not) that once free material behind copyright. I think that is shitty. I have never once mentioned laws to punish them, instead simply I suggested (if my suspicion were accurate) people probably shouldn't pay as much attention to them or give them money to live extravagant lifestyles. Do you disagree with this statement?
Yes I disagree with this statement. I could not give a shit whether or not people give money to folks who entertain them. I would not presume to tell someone how they should be reacting to something
Okay, but you did start this conversation with a comment calling me a lib for using a word I had to define for you. That feels really hypocritical. Maybe you don't presume to tell someone, but instead hurl insults? idk. I do not understand who you think I am, or what I'm trying to accomplish. I had to define plagiarism for you, you simply ignore points I make, and seem to think I'm arguing for legislation against podcasts and lying - things I never once mentioned.
I give up. You're either trolling, or we are incapable of communicating effectively on this subject. If you're not trolling, I still hope you have a great day/evening.
I also hope you'll consider the medical thing I mentioned - it's a serious blind spot in your worldview that will harm others if ever implemented. I hope you're not okay with that.
Ok take care friend
This is a very bad faith argument towards the other poster and I think you should consider against using it in the future :rat-salute:
I laid out exactly how this would harm someone important to me.
I have asked multiple times for theory, or historical evidence of such a system working.
None was ever provided. It's hard for me to walk it back when there is only evidence it would be dangerous for someone I care about, despite asking for contradictory education.
deleted by creator
It does, because it stopped him from running for president in 1988:
In this instance, because he was accused of plagiarism, or cheating, or lying, or whatever you want to call it - he did not have the opportunity to become president. Because he copied other people's speeches and those speeches had documented authors, people were able to call him on his bullshit in a public forum and prevent his run.
deleted by creator