Why?

Originally posted by divegeester
There is a thread in this forum about plagiarism in which I call you and robbie out on this intellectual theft. When will you ever post your source? You frequently copy/paste stuff from the watchtower as if it is your your own writing. It is intellectual theft and you should be ashamed of yourself.

How would you know, do you read their literature? And what do the laws pertaining to plagiarism actually say?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How would you know, do you read their literature? And what do the laws pertaining to plagiarism actually say?

How would I know what? Why does my reading or not reading of their literature pertain to the the ethics of intellectual theft? And please tell me...what DO the laws of plagiarism actually "say"?

Originally posted by divegeester
How would I know what? Why does my reading or not reading of their literature pertain to the the ethics of intellectual theft? And please tell me...what DO the laws of plagiarism actually "say"?

Isn't it possible that Watchtower freely allows JW's to quote their works without attribution, if it is intended to spread the faith? In this case it wouldn't be theft.

Originally posted by JS357
It was a step forward in labor law. (Seriously.)

Just as "an eye for an eye" was a step forward in penal law, as it actually called for restraint in an era of escalating blood feuds.

Yes, seriously.
An eye for an eye stopped an death for an eye, so yes that too was
for escalating blood feuds, it drew a line where they had to stop.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonship

Why do you assume God needed to rest?
The pattern that was put forth was for our sake that we get a day of rest
instead being worked 7 days a week every week.

I didn't use the word "needed". This may be a fine point of whether God needed to rest or didn't need to rest. Remember how the Apostle Paul said in Romans that he spoke in hu ...[text shortened]... of rest. Am I right ?

So you might say that man's first full day started as a day of rest.

I agree man's first full day was a day of rest, it also set a pattern for time
marking too.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
Isn't it possible that Watchtower freely allows JW's to quote their works without attribution, if it is intended to spread the faith? In this case it wouldn't be theft.

What a dishonest practice if so.
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
How would I know what? Why does my reading or not reading of their literature pertain to the the ethics of intellectual theft? And please tell me...what DO the laws of plagiarism actually "say"?

I don't work for you. If you want to find out if they were being unethical or broke any law then look it up for yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will leave their brains at the doorstep before going in to argue with Christians. You are essentially telling a Jehovahs Witness that it's unethical for a Johovahs Witness to use material provided by the Jehovahs Witnesses for discussing what the Jehovahs Witnesses believe. 😕

Do you really think you can frighten a Jehovahs Witness with the implied threat of a lawsuit, and get him to believe a Jehovahs Witness might sue another Jehovahs Witness for using material provided by the Jehovahs Witnesses for promoting the Jehovahs Witnesses? Even if some small infraction occurred here who do you think would be stupid enough to try doing anything about it?

You would have better luck at intimidating small children or mentally disabled adults, but I wouldn't recommend you doing that. Here you can at least try without getting into any real trouble.

Have a nice day. 😛

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't work for you. If you want to find out if they were being unethical or broke any law then look it up for yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will leave their brains at the doorstep before going in to argue with Christians. You are essentially telling a Jehovahs Witness that it's unethical for a J ...[text shortened]... ng that. Here you can at least try without getting into any real trouble.

Have a nice day. 😛

Too bad he's not an atheist.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Too bad he's not an atheist.

He (divegeester) just happens to be a sensible theist.

So the loonies don't like him.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What a dishonest practice if so.
Kelly

Moveover, for some people, not stating that it is quoted from a stated source, stifles consideration of the ideas presented. People get sidetracked on the question of plagiarism. I think the JW's here should consider this.

Originally posted by JS357
Moveover, for some people, not stating that it is quoted from a stated source, stifles consideration of the ideas presented. People get sidetracked on the question of plagiarism. I think the JW's here should consider this.

Yes, but it feeds a persecution complex nicely.

Paraphrasing, then acknowledging the source also serves a useful purpose when verbatim quotes may be too academic or formal. We do it often in face to face and phone conversations as a matter of course. Integrity and ethics rule.

Originally posted by JS357
Moveover, for some people, not stating that it is quoted from a stated source, stifles consideration of the ideas presented. People get sidetracked on the question of plagiarism. I think the JW's here should consider this.

I agree with you about an organization that would push its followers or
members to spew their "approved thoughts on any topic" instead of letting
its followers come up with their own thoughts on any topic. I've been very
blessed lately joining a couple prayer groups from different areas and I love
that those different groups have the same views even on topics like grace
and love even though they have nothing to do with one another. All of these
people have come up with this all on their own. Some of these people are
from different countries, and I know them though my job while another
group through the church we joined.

If an organization pushes its people to spew just the groups ideas is wrong
and dishonest for several reasons, there really isn't a fair exchange of
ideas. For the one pasting someone else' work, have not come up with their
own thoughts, if they post a reply that belongs to someone else could also
mean they are just spewing out another's work and have not taken the
time to really grapple with coming up with their own thoughts on a topic,
which cheats them and the people they are talking too.

They will never understand anything if they refuse to think about a
topic on their own, where instead they simply spew out the thoughts of
another. They are no different than a computer programmed to write
or say something upon hearing or seeing key words, they are brain dead
and trapped in a organization that promotes anything but free thought.
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't work for you. If you want to find out if they were being unethical or broke any law then look it up for yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will leave their brains at the doorstep before going in to argue with Christians. You are essentially telling a Jehovahs Witness that it's unethical for a J ...[text shortened]... ng that. Here you can at least try without getting into any real trouble.

Have a nice day. 😛

Proverbs 26:17.

Originally posted by JS357
Moveover, for some people, not stating that it is quoted from a stated source, stifles consideration of the ideas presented. People get sidetracked on the question of plagiarism. I think the JW's here should consider this.

I agree with this.

It's far better to argue the point and not the source of the point, however the JWs repeated habit of posting the ideas and thoughts of other people (albeit other JWs) and passing them off as though they were their own becomes irritating and needs to be called out. It is especially noticeable as we have a thread on plagiarism in the forum at the moment.