>Let's take a look at why it's so important to cite your sources!
>It's important to cite your sources because we're threatening you if you don't comply!
Brilliant reasoning. Truly jogs my noggin'.
The fact that many of you defend IP drivel on any level is morally disgusting.
Other urls found in this thread:
mises.org
twitter.com
The Bibliographical Jew
Citing sources is a way to get you to conform to what everyone else is saying. If they wanted you to be able to express yourself and some original ideas through academic research they would require only a bibliography.
Honestly, though, it's mostly due to the number of retards attending college who are there to party or because their parents told them they had to go, and don't give a shit about producing any legitimate material
>it's mostly due to the number of retards attending college who are there to party or because their parents told them they had to go
People bitch about the cost of university when it's them being retards and skyrocketing the demand for it that's the largest driver of increased university tuition. They pay tens of thousands of dollars for this inane worthless drivel.
Are you retarded?
You specifically don't need to cite original ideas, but if you say "unemployment is at 35%" then you better have a citation
you post modernist bastard
I hope you're first to hang
sage
Most university assignments have citation requirements. Meaning they have minimum numbers of citations necessary on papers, or else they dock your grade.
It's a self-advertising scheme - they want to market all those special, "peer reviewed" piffle out there, and they do that by requiring students to pass through it doing their mandatory citation searches.
>Most university assignments
Oh so you aren't talking about actual articles, just your babbies first lit review. They're making sure that you know what research already exists before you make an argument that was refuted by Plato thousands of years ago.
This, in some cases. I wrote my bachelor thesis on a subject with a philosophical angle, and I actually missed a bunch of points by failing to provide third party sources for my own origami arguments.
That's not how sources are used, faggot.
>I wrote my bachelor thesis on a subject with a philosophical angle
So much faggotry in one post.
You're not required to cite shit for your own works (though IP drones would like to have you believe you are). No shit if I write an article on my own nothing will befall me if I don't have a works cited list, and there's no moral compulsion for me to even use anyone else's work in the first place.
Unless someone is doing work that states specific (and not general) things as facts, you don't need to research jack shit to draw basic conclusions and make basic inferences from states of affairs. That's also a horrid argument, in that the possibly relevant material you might go through in regard to essentially *ANY* topic is nigh inexhaustible - it's temporally impossible for any person to fulfill the requirement that they know everything that's been produced that might have relation to whatever argument they might make before they make it.
I'm sorry your country has only produced pseudophilosophers like (((Sartre))) in the last 200 years m8
It's insanity. And they can't produce an actual reason why citing anything else would have added to what you said - they'll just say "I required it". They're drones.
Universities are obsolete in the digital age and the one thing the Department of Education should do is work on a new national credential system
>paying thousands of dollars just so you can read for free what people have already written before
>"That's not how sources are used"
If that comment had any linguistic relation to anything that was said maybe you'd have a discoverable point.
I literally stated your first point already in this thread. Your second point is irrelevant, it's a teaching exercise in locating other view points to argue against or support, not in producing interesting material
>Why it's important to cite sources
>Expect something about proof, truth, and honesty
>Instead get "OY VEY I'LL THROW YOU IN JAIL FOR NOT CREDITING ME GOY!"
My first point was in address to
>Oh so you aren't talking about actual articles
as an affirmation. Thought that was blatantly obvious.
A "teaching exercise" that every student gets in upwards of 80% of every class in every college within every university across the country, *all the way through grad school*. Yeah, I'm sure that's the motivation and not self-marketing and thoughtless tradition-keeping at all.
>Paying thousands of dollars to read
Do it at home then man, no one said you have to go to university
>no one said you have to go to university
Are you new to the states? The states where it's consistently - and by majority - held that going to university is the only consistent path to success and avoiding life as a janitor?
Lots of people don't buy that insanity, but a *MAJORITY* do - it's why so many retards go to uni and massively inflate the price for others in doing so.
We need a national GED that would be equivalent to a generic 4 year degree
If the feds started accepting it for employment it would quickly gain credibility
>Expect something about proof, truth, and honesty
I don't expect moral reasoning from university leftists. They think any statement denoting a right or wrong way to conduct oneself on an ethical level is some kind of personal indictment on their failure to even try to meet those standards, so they just make everything about feelings. In this case, the feeling of fear or pain at the thought of punishment for not bending the knee to their demands.
It's literally toddler "reasoning".
The problem with cited sources is that, through all of the slog of going back through a source that cited a source that cited a source is an original thought or idea.
Nothing more.
Source citing is another way of saying "Yeah, well, this guy said this!" It's not an argument.
Subhumans have no moral compass. Just as you say, there is nothing in their mind that goes "Stealing is wrong" instead it's "If I get CAUGHT this will happen to me."
Dear God no.
It'd be far better if employers just trained their own people instead of wasting everyone's time and resources by having a degree requirement. The only reason the degree requirement in so many places of employment has come about is because so overly many people go to university that they can afford to set the minimum bar at a BA in anything (because it is generally true that a uni grad is a bit better an employment bet than a non-uni grad ceteris paribus).
Yeah becuase the unigrade has a crippling debt to pay off and needs the work, kek.
Right. The idea is the same no matter what. The source of that idea has no bearing on its merit or demerit.
top kek
And they would have to go to university if they could just take a test instead
Hilariously (or sadly) that is a background factor, yep.
If a person is more in need of stable employment, they're more likely to stick around, and debt is certainly a source of financial pressure on anyone who holds it.
>origami arguments
were you pro or anti origami?
Tests aren't very god indicators of how well a person will or won't perform in most employment capacities.
Though neither generally is whether or not they have a BA.
I don't hold with universities. They get in the way of education.
Greatest of minds are self-made.
University students don't read or understand Emerson's self-reliance, and they think they're free thinkers. Meh.
Don't steal because we'll kill you if you do.
What's hard to understand about that?
anyone else think we're only a few years away from turning into majority internet education?
Test are a good way of showing basic competency
>American universities use cartoons to explain this concept
I can't believe you fuckers pay tens of thousands of dollars for this shit.
Multiple choice is a joke, I've passed many a multiple choice test without knowing a Goddamn thing about the material by simply making educated guesses.
It's not that it's hard to understand, it's that it's pathetic reasoning.
"Don't x because we'll kill you if you do" - x can be ANYTHING. It doesn't even try to justify itself.
dubbs then tripps of truth
I would like to add that the coca cola recipe is not official intellectual property, that is how you keep information from being disseminated
>complains about IP
>uses a fucking trip because he's scared of not getting credit for something he does for free
I think things will trend that way but I think it'll take decades and decades.
They certainly get in the way of education in many regards these days.
Sure, but then you have to ask "basic competency in what".
>It doesn't even try to justify itself.
Well the justification for having a law is that organizing and publishing intellectual content takes time and effort.
Society wants to give a financial incentive to creative people such that they will be motivated to organize and publish useful ideas. Thus we call it "property".
>Well the justification for having a law is that organizing and publishing intellectual content takes time and effort
So does flower gardening, yet people can partake in the benefits of looking upon another person's flower garden completely costlessly. Should by this reasoning we have laws compelling people to give some service to the flower gardener whose labor they received value from at no cost to themselves?
>I think things will trend that way but I think it'll take decades and decades.
The way I see it, the US's universities are all poisoned by marxism, affirmative action and subsidization. That's a whole lot of useless, at some point a random neet is going to be more competent than your average uni grad.
>you have to cite your sources so I know your aren't taking credit for someone else's work, but if you write a really good paper I'll slap my name on it and send it to a journal for publication
>The way I see it, the US's universities are all poisoned by marxism, affirmative action and subsidization
Very largely that's the case. Subsidization in particular is a very large reason why university tuition is so crazy while the quality of what people actually learn from uni doesn't increase. When every person is able to secure funding and pursue a (fabricated) dream in becoming successful after graduating university, far more people *do* try it, and increase the demand (which ceteris paribus increases the price).
Actually if you had say a vegas show where you displayed interesting garden sets that you made, you might have a legal claim if somebody went around publishing pictures or movies of it.
And I think that's utterly insane, because there's no consistent principle involved at all.
Say I write some paragraph. Or - if you don't think a paragraph is sufficient (though I don't know on what principle you'd say it's insufficient) - say I write a book or topical essay. I owned the paper I wrote on, the pen I wrote with, and the body I performed these actions with. By most IP "principles", I'd be said to own the very pattern of words I wrote down as well (maybe you'd say "well you have to copyright it", but I don't know why going to see certain people and having them write down a bunch more things has anything to do with the purported principle of moral ownership here).
So I own the pattern of words. Alright. Well, let's say you - using your own paper and ink, and using your own body - write down a "sufficiently similar" (I don't know from where we derive what constitutes sufficiency here - if you'd like to replace "sufficiently similar" with "exact copy" for argumentation purposes you may) pattern of symbols to what I'd produced before and which - by IP understanding - I'm thought to own. Congratulations - you've just given me full (or at least somehow "part") ownership of what was previously your paper and ink, by virtue of you scrawling down sufficiently similar symbols to what I'd previously produced on what had before been your own property.
I just find this crazy and inconsistent in all intellectual applications.
I think you're right that from a moral/first principles perspective it doesn't make much sense. But I don't see it as a moral issue. It's an economic/productivity issue.
And it may even be that it has a net negative effect on society because it stifles "some" creativity due to things like your example.... but i'm not sure about that.
If there is no copyright law, you incentivize that all businesses not spend any investment in research... but rather wait for somebody else to do the research; and then steal the idea. It's a free rider problem that the law tries to lessen (although it does so imperfectly)
>It's an economic/productivity issue
That's been the most common "go to" for people who (intelligently) leave off trying to defend IP from a moral position (which it is indefensible from).
The argument usually goes "if this apparatus is not here, then less of this thing will get done, so we'd rather instill the proverbial 'Fear of God' in other people for even thinking about sufficiently replicating someone else's work than risk this good going underproduced".
It ties in to a general idea of research being a public or quasi-public good that won't happen in "sufficient" (whatever that means) amounts without government interference.
But that objection to the idea of doing away with IP doesn't pan out in either the philosophical logical landscape nor in reality.
>But that objection to the idea of doing away with IP doesn't pan out in reality.
Is that so? I'd be interested in seeing some evidence to that effect.
Let's take the pharmaceutical industry. On one hand it's a disgusting example of the problem of IP.... on the other it nicely displays the benefits as well.
There's a huge financial incentive for companies to discover the next wonder drug. This means that there is a huge effort put towards studying new drugs this has been very quickly advancing humanity's knowledge of the effects of certain chemical combinations.
These industries would certainly not exist if there were no such financial incentive.
The cost of medicine would be cheaper, but we would have much much less medicine available.
You're saying it's a fallacy that we need the state to develop such a degree of public good (assuming it is).... and that might be true... but i can't think of another way to arrive at it.
I think there's definitely sufficient market incentive. First-mover benefits can be highly significant, and after that period - during which most companies recoup much of their startup costs - competition being introduced into the market helps deliver better prices to consumers.
If you'd like an article on it, I read this awhile back and it's fairly succinct - it specifically addresses IP in regard to pharmaceuticals.
mises.org
Last bump for anyone who might be interested.
I'd like to see people try to defend the logic in the OP.