bobevenson wrote:Vagueness alone does not imply invalidity.
Does anyone still doubt this man?
Actually I do.
You are probably referring to this quote taken from Physics Forums. com
"The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it isn't as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply validity"
If one is going to copy a statement almost world for word from a different website then that person should at the very least, cite the source. Other wise it is considered plagiarism.
bobevenson wrote:Vagueness alone does not imply invalidity.
Does anyone still doubt this man?
Actually I do.
You are probably referring to this quote taken from Physics Forums. com
"The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it isn't as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply validity"
If one is going to copy a statement almost world for word from a different website then that person should at the very least, cite the source. Other wise it is considered plagiarism.
If you say it's a nice day, and I repeat it to somebody, I don't believe I'm obliged to mention your name.
bobevenson wrote:
If you say it's a nice day, and I repeat it to somebody, I don't believe I'm obliged to mention your name.
Bob, please give it up. So far I read this as you not debating or discussing economics and politics and the claim that it is ok to use a media to promote another persons words as your own.
bobevenson wrote:
If you say it's a nice day, and I repeat it to somebody, I don't believe I'm obliged to mention your name.
Bob, please give it up. So far I read this as you not debating or discussing economics and politics and the claim that it is ok to use a media to promote another persons words as your own.
Did the guy in the physics forum mention he was quoting Wikipedia? That's like quoting somebody who says it's a nice day. Please, get off your pettiness. Or maybe I should say, get off on your pettiness.
bobevenson wrote:
If you say it's a nice day, and I repeat it to somebody, I don't believe I'm obliged to mention your name.
Bob, please give it up. So far I read this as you not debating or discussing economics and politics and the claim that it is ok to use a media to promote another persons words as your own.
Did the guy in the physics forum mention he was quoting Wikipedia? That's like quoting somebody who says it's a nice day. Please, get off your pettiness. Or maybe I should say, get off on your pettiness.
It is not pettiness because it has important implications.
If you invented the phrase,"It's a nice day" then you could apply for a trademark, regardless as to whether you intend to use it in some capacity. Naturally, this does not stop people from using your newly invented sentence, "It's a nice day" in their day to day conservations. In this case they are not obliged to mention your name as the inventor of the new phrase everytime they utter, "It's a nice day"
So, no the analogy you are using doesn't work in this case.
uwot wrote:Well, it's obvious to me that Bob's plagiarism is divinely inspired.
Whenever I use someone's words and dress it up to look like my response to a particular question or statement I am unable to claim that my plagiarism is divinely inspired.
Did you idiots ever think of getting a life or at least addressing the subject of this thread, "Are Guns the Problem?" The answer to both questions is a resounding NO!
uwot wrote:Sorry, your reverence.
On the topic of the thread:
Empty handed murderous nutcase=bit of a problem.
Murderous nutcase with gun=big problem.
Can you spot the difference?
Let me bring you back to reality, my friend, the U.S. has 300 million privately-owned guns (no, this isn't my own original research, I'm repeating what I've read elsewhere from numerous sources, which, forgive me, I'm not able to document here), so whether you like it or not, there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the deranged, so what, exactly, is your point?
bobevenson wrote:Let me bring you back to reality, my friend, the U.S. has 300 million privately-owned guns (no, this isn't my own original research, I'm repeating what I've read elsewhere from numerous sources, which, forgive me, I'm not able to document here), so whether you like it or not, there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the deranged, so what, exactly, is your point?
There may be nothing you can do about it, but the fact that criminals and the deranged have such easy access to guns is a problem. The fact that law abiding people feel they have to arm themselves for protection is a problem, it doesn't make crime less prevalent, it just makes it more violent, that too is a problem. Your solution is to do away with any restrictions on guns, the fact that some people agree with you is a problem. It isn't guns that are the problem, it's the access.
bobevenson wrote:Let me bring you back to reality, my friend, the U.S. has 300 million privately-owned guns (no, this isn't my own original research, I'm repeating what I've read elsewhere from numerous sources, which, forgive me, I'm not able to document here), so whether you like it or not, there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the deranged, so what, exactly, is your point?
There may be nothing you can do about it, but the fact that criminals and the deranged have such easy access to guns is a problem. The fact that law abiding people feel they have to arm themselves for protection is a problem, it doesn't make crime less prevalent, it just makes it more violent, that too is a problem. Your solution is to do away with any restrictions on guns, the fact that some people agree with you is a problem. It isn't guns that are the problem, it's the access.
You say the fact that criminals and the deranged have such easy access to guns is a problem, but that there may be nothing that can be done about it. Then you say that my suggestion to do away with restrictions on guns is a problem. If there is nothing that can be done about the easy access to guns by criminals and the deranged, why is my suggestion a problem? It would eliminate the oppression of law-abiding citizens. Your problem is that you don't realize that gun restrictions don't prevent crime and violence, and are counterproductive by focusing on the wrong people.
