24 Aug 11
Plagiarism can only be attributed to fiction and falsity.
Truth cannot be plagiarised because it belongs to everyone.
The source of truth which belongs to everyone does not have to be submitted.
No single person or group of persons owns the truth so it cannot be plagiarised.
Who out there can say they own the truth......it is solely theirs and they created it.
On the other hand fiction and falsity which is produced by exclusive persons may be plagiarised because it belongs to them and no other.
So no more talk of plagiarism where it does not apply.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaMate, stfu ok.
Plagiarism can only be attributed to fiction and falsity.
Truth cannot be plagiarised because it belongs to everyone.
The source of truth which belongs to everyone does not have to be submitted.
No single person or group of persons owns the truth so it cannot be plagiarised.
Who out there can say they own the truth......it is solely theirs and they ...[text shortened]... cause it belongs to them and no other.
So no more talk of plagiarism where it does not apply.
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaThat is a false and fictional description of plagiarism.
Plagiarism can only be attributed to fiction and falsity.
Truth cannot be plagiarised because it belongs to everyone.
The source of truth which belongs to everyone does not have to be submitted.
No single person or group of persons owns the truth so it cannot be plagiarised.
Who out there can say they own the truth......it is solely theirs and they ...[text shortened]... cause it belongs to them and no other.
So no more talk of plagiarism where it does not apply.
A fact cannot be plagiarized; a particular statement about that fact—true or not—can be. (Discovery of a fact can also be falsely claimed in order to steal credit for personal aggrandizement.) I would never knowingly quote your exact words on here to someone else without attribution—whether I think your statements themselves are true or not. Whether or not plagiarism is ethically wrong (which I think it is, as a form of deceit), it is generally illegal and certainly disrespectful.
_______________________________________________
Note: Blanket but explicit permission to both freely quote and amend material without attribution (such as, for example, I believe is the formal position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) would be an exception. Assuming such permission would not be.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdI am giving the true definition of plagiarism.
That is a false and fictional description of plagiarism.
A fact cannot be plagiarized; a particular statement about that fact—true or not—can be. (Discovery of a fact can also be falsely claimed in order to steal credit for personal aggrandizement.) I would never knowingly quote your exact words on here to someone else without attribution—whether I ...[text shortened]... ition of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) would be an exception. Assuming such permission would not be.
Not the false definition.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaWell said, Dasa. Truth is absolute. It was here before we arrived and will still be here after we're gone.
Plagiarism can only be attributed to fiction and falsity.
Truth cannot be plagiarised because it belongs to everyone.
The source of truth which belongs to everyone does not have to be submitted.
No single person or group of persons owns the truth so it cannot be plagiarised.
Who out there can say they own the truth......it is solely theirs and they ...[text shortened]... cause it belongs to them and no other.
So no more talk of plagiarism where it does not apply.
All of us have a finite number of years to apprehend it during our pilgrim sojourn on planet earth.
.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaWho taught you that definition of plagiarism. Have you got an indepedent reference you can cite? Did you just make it up? What evidence can you provide that yours is the normative definition? Why should anyone honestly accept your personal definition as normative?
I am giving the true definition of plagiarism.
Not the false definition.
Here is Merriam-Webster’s (online version):
Definition of PLAGIARIZE
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing (bolds mine)
What evidence can you provide, beyond just your bare declaration, that the dictionary has given a false definition, whereas yours is the true one?
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo, not well said. Truth may be absolute, but bare claims to truth ought not to be assumed so. And passing off another’s words or ideas as your own is deceit, whether those words or ideas are true or not.
Well said, Dasa. Truth is absolute. It was here before we arrived and will still be here after we're gone.
All of us have a finite number of years to apprehend it during our pilgrim sojourn on planet earth.
.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdLook beyond the words and to the essence of the subject.........with honesty.
Who taught you that definition of plagiarism. Have you got an indepedent reference you can cite? Did you just make it up? What evidence can you provide that yours is the normative definition? Why should anyone honestly accept your personal definition as normative?
Here is Merriam-Webster’s (online version):
Definition of PLAGIARIZE
transitive ve ...[text shortened]... declaration, that the dictionary has given a false definition, whereas yours is the true one?
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaLanguage is normative, or else there could be no discourse at all.
Look beyond the words and to the essence of the subject.........with honesty.
Reality is, as I have said many times, prior to all our concepts, ideas, and words about it. Reality (fact) cannot be plagiarized. Ideas and words about that Reality can be plagiarized, even if they are true. There are ideas and words that have, so to speak, entered the “public domain” and their meanings become part of general discourse. If I say something like, “God is a supernatural being”, I don’t have to go looking for whoever said such a thing first (a long time ago). However, if I quote Dasa’s further ideas, expressed in his own words, about such a god, then I bear the ethical burden of giving due credit to you for them—for your own original thinking or expression.
I don’t know if you’ve been accused of plagiarism, since I haven’t followed previous threads. I am not accusing you of doing so. But your definition seems to be a fiction exclusive to yourself.
24 Aug 11
ASIDE: I am aware that there are two different understandings of “truth” that may be at play here—what is called the “correspondence theory” of truth (a generally more western view) and what might be called an “ontological theory” of truth (generally a more eastern view). In the former, truth is a belief or statement that accurately reflects (corresponds to) reality. In the latter, “truth” and “reality” are synonymous terms.
The west/east distinction may be because of different underlying linguistic traditions: In English, for example, “truth” is cognate with trust, troth, end even tryst (so the notion of correspondence seems embedded, as it were); in Sanskrit I believe that sat and satya are cognate, so the word translated as “truth” (satya) is directly related to the word translated as reality or being or existence (satya).
Both approaches are, to my mind, valid—but confusion can easily arise.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdAny help with trolls?
ASIDE: I am aware that there are two different understandings of “truth” that may be at play here—what is called the “correspondence theory” of truth (a generally more western view) and what might be called an “ontological theory” of truth (generally a more eastern view). In the former, truth is a belief or statement that accurately reflects (corresponds t ...[text shortened]... r existence (satya).
Both approaches are, to my mind, valid—but confusion can easily arise.