Mazty said:
|
Oh, you're that guy. Wikipedia isn't considered a credible source because anyone can go an edit an entry. I couldn't use it in High School and I couldn't use it in College. If you want to use something a wiki entry sources, go to that source and cite it. Not wiki. Understand?
well had i not used a proven assumption, then id be guilty of faulty conclusions. It should have been readily understood that in saying all animals have gay populations, ive already been under the assumption that all animals share similarities at least a few steps back.
It's not a missing predicate, it's an assumption based on previous conclusions. If you disagree that animals are alike, then you are disagreeing with a founding argument, not mine, but we can discuss that one instead if you'd like.
dsgrue3 said:
Oh, you're that guy. Wikipedia isn't considered a credible source because anyone can go an edit an entry. I couldn't use it in High School and I couldn't use it in College. If you want to use something a wiki entry sources, go to that source and cite it. Not wiki. Understand? |
You have eyes ergo you can check the references. To just dismiss it because "it's wiki" is just lazy. If we were talking about writing a paper, then okay, it's not a profs responsibility to check sources, but you're not a professor and this isn't a university. You can just check the legitimate nature of the sources by *gasp* clicking on them.
If you are going to be so pedantic as to demand that correctly referenced wiki pages can't be used, may I ask what are you doing to fight plagiarism?
| Mazty said: You have eyes ergo you can check the references. To just dismiss it because "it's wiki" is just lazy. If we were talking about writing a paper, then okay, it's not a profs responsibility to check sources, but you're not a professor and this isn't a university. You can just check the legitimate nature of the sources by *gasp* clicking on them. |
It's laziness on your part to cite wikipedia rather than the source cited within the wikipedia entry. As I said, wikipedia is modifiable by anyone. You have to check the source, and if you have checked it, why not just cite the actual source instead of the wikipedia entry which actually could be modified in between the time you cite it and the time I read it, nullifying it entirely.
Kids...so lazy.
dsgrue3 said:
It's laziness on your part to cite wikipedia rather than the source cited within the wikipedia entry. As I said, wikipedia is modifiable by anyone. You have to check the source, and if you have checked it, why not just cite the actual source instead of the wikipedia entry which actually could be modified in between the time you cite it and the time I read it, nullifying it entirely. |
Yet when I gave you the wiki references you deleted them all....
Who cares if wiki is modifiable by anyone? Click the link and if a supposed paper is a link to somewhere else, okay then you can question the statement. But if the link is to a peer reviewed paper, what's the issue?
If you are going to be so pedantic over referencing, what are you doing over plagiarisim? Also side note: you never answered if you're handicapped...still wondering...
| Mazty said: Yet when I gave you the wiki references you deleted them all.... Who cares if wiki is modifiable by anyone? Click the link and if a supposed paper is a link to somewhere else, okay then you can question the statement. But if the link is to a peer reviewed paper, what's the issue? If you are going to be so pedantic over referencing, what are you doing over plagiarisim? Also side note: you never answered if you're handicapped...still wondering... |
Wikipedia isn't a credible source. End of. You'll learn when you get to High School.
dsgrue3 said:
Wikipedia isn't a credible source. End of. You'll learn when you get to High School. |
Click the link and if a supposed paper is a link to somewhere else, okay then you can question the statement. But if the link is to a peer reviewed paper, what's the issue?
What is your major malfunction soldier?
@mazty
while ds is not a prof, it still isn't his job to check for a link that may or may not be cited among several. ie; he shouldn't be expected to read several links looking for a citation nor read, for example, a ten page paper where the citation is only a single line. That's a bit of an exaggeratiom, but you get the point.
The onus is on both sides to try and find evidence. Not just his.
You put all of them together and you get _________________
| dsgrue3 said:
Perhaps you missed it, but his point was to find an atheist source to prove his point. Logic has nothing to do with atheism. He might as well have sought research on apples from a corn farmer. That's why I said the source is suspect. I would never allow wikipedia unless both parties agreed that the material is sound. Source: http://logic.stanford.edu/classes/cs204/lectures/lecture04.pdf And I've already stated that it's not pertinent to the OP or to his notion that he didn't use strongman. Multiple premises? Fine, allow it. 1) All animals, except humans, exhibit homosexuality. 2) Humans are animals. 1 & 2 are the premises. His (flawed) logic concluded Humans exhibit homosexuality. Then 'happy' said No, it is completely based off of an uncertified and undescribed premise, which is that all species are alike. For some reason he either 1) Claimed that the premises were uncertified. 2) Manifested an additional premise - "all species are alike" Understand the problem here? Edit: I now realize his intention was to simply show flawed logic, but he unintentionally used strawman in order to do so, when he could have simply done as I did. |
@bold.
You are lying about the topic at hand, because you initially said that there was only 1 premise in a logical construction and now you are changing your tune.
Just be a man and admit it.
| dsgrue3 said:
Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you: As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all. Premise Substsantiating claims Deductions Conclusion You don't make multiple premises. As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory. |
I put it in bold-underline-italics.
Now can you admit it, and change your tone? You are completely out of whack.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
