[2012-Mar-02] Objective Morality

[GreenCrayon]

Have I provided passable evidence, you snarky twat?

I don't think Lethal was questioning your method of research, which seems to be thorough if quite Wikipedia-orientated*. I think he was sharing a joke with you over how much you knew on this particular subject which, you have to admit, is veering towards esoteric.

* I only mention this since my own uni work would be rejected if I cited Wikipedia as a reference.

[notapplicable]

Taking a moment to apologize in case what I wrote didn't come across as playfully as I meant it.

And if the joke at my expense was that I knew stuff... and not, as I assumed, a sarcastic comment implying I was making unfounded claims... welp, oops. ...ain't internet communication grand?

[Dane Raider]

sharing a joke with you

=/=

joke at my expense

[Guest]

* I only mention this since my own uni work would be rejected if I cited Wikipedia as a reference.

That's only because wikipedia is too easy a source to use. You don't develop any research skills relying upon it as a source; and a big reason for going to Uni is to develop research skills. Actually, now that I think about it, it may be that if you're not in the STEM disciplines, the only reason for going to Uni is to develop research skills. Anyway, I'm pretty confident in wikipedia's veracity. I can't recall the last time I stumbled upon any vandalism on a stub, let alone a main entry. Occasionally Reddit will point one out after the death of some celebrity or another, but those usually get corrected within hours of the change.

=/=

Don't be silly, of course it was at my expense. What's the topic of the joke? my knowledge. QED.

[GreenCrayon]

That's only because wikipedia is too easy a source to use. [...] Anyway, I'm pretty confident in wikipedia's veracity.

I wasn't doubting Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, in fact I personally think it's pretty swish and I appreciate the dozens of eyes that'll fall on an article, ready to pick up on any mistakes.

I can, however, think of at least one good reason to avoid it as an academic source. With 2 hours left to hand in my essay analysing why white equals black, it's simply too easy to edit a Wikipedia article to say what I want supported then cite it. Which would be bad. Even if the edit is later reverted, while it's still there others rushing to do the same essay as me might come to rely on that as definitive. In this situation, you've got a whole load of people who, in good faith, accidentally used bad information, along with one person who "cheated" and can't be picked out from amongst them. It complicates things when people have the capacity to write their own referenced sources.

Actually, now that I think about it, it may be that if you're not in the STEM disciplines, the only reason for going to Uni is to develop research skills.

I can't help thinking you're not placing a great deal of value on non-STEM disciplines with that statement.

[notapplicable]

I can't help thinking you're not placing a great deal of value on non-STEM disciplines with that statement.

I didn't mean that at all. Lawyers, politicians, economists, teachers, historians, theologians and psychologists have a great deal to contribute to society. They also have a crap-load of research they have to accomplish to fulfill their duties... and not a whole lot of theoretical or observational experiments to perform. Being able to research without the assistance of wikipedia is a valuable skill to have. Not knocking those professions... I was underscoring the importance of research skills.

[GreenCrayon]

I didn't mean that at all.

Glad I was wrong.

*Amazing-internet-high-five*

[Spinalcold]

psychologists ... and not a whole lot of theoretical or observational experiments to perform.

I thought all they did was theoretical

[notapplicable]

I thought all they did was theoretical

I believe the technical term for what they do is "phlooey."

[DonRetrasado]

I read that Scientologists have some similar beliefs about medicine, which is a little surprising since one of the main tenants of their belief is that all ethical behavior is derived from contributing to the struggle to survive.

And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog ... and_ethics is where I read that one of their main tenants was that ethics are derived from the struggle to survive.

It's not an accident if you do it twice.

[Apocalyptus]

Just like people saying 'free reign' instead of 'free rein' or 'to rein in'. It doesn't make any sense if you use the wrong word!

[DonRetrasado]

Just like people saying 'free reign' instead of 'free rein' or 'to rein in'. It doesn't make any sense if you use the wrong word!

I think a better analogy would be "free rain"

[Apocalyptus]

Well yes, but people actually do make the reign/rein mistake, with alarming regularity.

[Spinalcold]

Reigning Blood!

[notapplicable]

It's not an accident if you do it twice.

Effective communication is key. Obviously I meant "tenet" and everyone understood that I wasn't referring to renters. English is an evolving language and blah blah blah more retarded justifications for mistakes. In 50 years, they're their and there will be listed as synonyms in every major thesaurus. For the language nazis of the internet, the future is bleak. Like adherents to European standards on table-manners, they are a dying breed. Extinction is inevitable. So, take every opportunity to revel in strangers mistakes while you still can. The future has no place for you. You're a dinosaur. And the asteroid o' doom is on its way...