|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 3:04:54 GMT -5
Hey, don't answer it at your own peril.
I don't remember the specific thread, but some cops planted drugs on people to meet an arrest quota. I basically argued that the quotas literally was creating crimes, so those should be gotten rid of & IF it can be shown that said cops would perform their duties properly without it, you souldn't punish them based on some principle of "they did something wrong therefore there should be retribution." I noted several times that it did not necessarily apply to that situation, for starters because the quotas were never gotten rid of.
The reason he brought it up is because, if you haven't noticed, he likes to make references to personal victories that only exist in his head. Another one he's fond of using on me is "You threaten 13-year-olds with violence," which never actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 12, 2011 3:10:18 GMT -5
Hey, don't answer it at your own peril. I don't remember the specific thread, but some cops planted drugs on people to meet an arrest quota. I basically argued that the quotas literally was creating crimes, so those should be gotten rid of & IF it can be shown that said cops would perform their duties properly without it, you souldn't punish them based on some principle of "they did something wrong therefore there should be retribution." I noted several times that it did not necessarily apply to that situation, for starters because the quotas were never gotten rid of. The reason he brought it up is because, if you haven't noticed, he likes to make references to personal victories that only exist in his head. Another one he's fond of using on me is "You threaten 13-year-olds with violence," which never actually happened. Well, I guess LHM won't like me too much either because I agree with your "no quota's" stance 100%. So... in other words, LHM likes to take what people said and twist their words around and try telling you you said something else? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 12, 2011 3:11:40 GMT -5
I'm not even arguing this ridiculous non-point. I refuse to believe that Tweedledee & Tweedledum here don't see how not supplying verifiable sources & being "taken at face value" is basically a free pass to make shit up or do half-assed research & never get called on it. What you argued is that anonymous sources are never 'legitimate'. Do you think that using anonymous sources by journalists should be legally or ethically prohibited? If so, how would you have better exposed the criminality of the Nixon administration? It should be pretty easy, given that Woodford and Bernstein were just 'half-assed researchers'. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Nov 12, 2011 3:17:32 GMT -5
My take on anonymous sources and journalistic integrity is that it depends on which part of the news it is.
Obviously anonymous sources if treated carefully are very important for politcal stories. However they are less useful for your science reporting or car guide etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 3:41:33 GMT -5
Hey, don't answer it at your own peril. I don't remember the specific thread, but some cops planted drugs on people to meet an arrest quota. I basically argued that the quotas literally was creating crimes, so those should be gotten rid of & IF it can be shown that said cops would perform their duties properly without it, you souldn't punish them based on some principle of "they did something wrong therefore there should be retribution." I noted several times that it did not necessarily apply to that situation, for starters because the quotas were never gotten rid of. The reason he brought it up is because, if you haven't noticed, he likes to make references to personal victories that only exist in his head. Another one he's fond of using on me is "You threaten 13-year-olds with violence," which never actually happened. Well, I guess LHM won't like me too much either because I agree with your "no quota's" stance 100%. So... in other words, LHM likes to take what people said and twist their words around and try telling you you said something else? He wasn't arguing "no quota", he literally argued that actual cops, who actually planted drugs on people and then arrested them, should be allowed to keep their jobs, and that it wasn't really the cops' fault. But please... don't take my word for it, fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=pg&thread=10072&post=345471 you can read the thread and see for yourself exactly what was said, and decide for yourself. My take on anonymous sources and journalistic integrity is that it depends on which part of the news it is. Obviously anonymous sources if treated carefully are very important for politcal stories. However they are less useful for your science reporting or car guide etc. Nope, if you don't cite everything, you are a retarded chimp [/gospel according to lithp]I said I would be happy to answer, if you would rephrase the question in such a way that it makes any sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 3:47:30 GMT -5
Yes, but this is one of the more accurate things he's ever said.
Edit: I haven't even used the phrase "retarded chimp" yet. Your plan to deny that you twist my words is to outright falsely attribute phrases to me? That's a good plan.
Yes. Because legitimate=/=true. This is shit you're taught in elementary school. You MAY IN FACT be right, but you can't just say, "I know I'm right." You have to provide EVIDENCE for it. And you're not providing evidence if you say, "I heard it somewhere trustworthy, take my word for it."
If you get permission, you are not doing anything illegal, though you might want to get proof of that. I'm not sure if "ethically prohibited" means anything. But there should be universal standards of journalism, & they should be higher than what the media is doing today.
This is an unfair question as it assumes that the ends justify the means.
You're missing the point, say we decide you don't need to ID sources on scientific papers, is everyone going to lie &/or submit erroneous conclusions? No, there will still be plenty of good data collection going on, but now they can slip in much more freely, because the standards are so low.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 3:52:29 GMT -5
And now the backpedalling begins  |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 3:58:10 GMT -5
Show what I said that's different from my earlier argument.
That, in addition to my question about how the cop thread is relevant to citations, is a direct question.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 4:13:01 GMT -5
Show what I said that's different from my earlier argument. That, in addition to my question about how the cop thread is relevant to citations, is a direct question. THIS is a cop thread!!! Read the OP, its about cops, not about academic citation best practice. So, discussion about police is going to be more relevent to anything in this thread than discussion about whether or not the people using the big words cited to your personal specifications or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 4:22:50 GMT -5
The article was about seemingly bad ideas that solved huge problems. Doesn't mean it makes any sense for me to start going on about the inflatable tank army used in WW2.
As I never defended the cops, or even said anything about them, you couldn't possibly be addressing anything I said about the fucking cops.
Therefore, what you're telling me is that your comment was totally irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 4:25:43 GMT -5
OK, so since you're now the relevence police, what the hell does have to do with anything anyone said?
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 12, 2011 4:47:11 GMT -5
Well..... even after reading the thread linked to me by LHM... I STILL have to kind of agree with Lithp's stance on the cops not being held 100% responsible. I know what the police did was terrible, but if their LIVLIHOOD depended on them meeting that quota, and if they had families to support, if they weren't meeting their quota's, some of them might have figured that they had no choice BUT to do what they did. That does not mean that they will continue to engage in that form of behavior once the quota BS is gone. At the very least, suspend them without pay, review their FULL performance records, and if there is ADDITIONAL evidence of corruption outside of the filling quota crap, THEN kick their asses to the curb. But if it was done to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table for their families, then can you really, truly fault them? Has NOBODY else in here gone and done something that went against your own moral code because you felt you had no other choice if you were going to be able to keep your family fed and sheltered?
*Shrug* That's just my take on it... and I know I'm probably going to get at least a little flack for my opinion, but keep in mind a saying my dad loves to quote: Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 4:55:24 GMT -5
Well..... even after reading the thread linked to me by LHM... I STILL have to kind of agree with Lithp's stance on the cops not being held 100% responsible. I know what the police did was terrible, but if their LIVLIHOOD depended on them meeting that quota, and if they had families to support, if they weren't meeting their quota's, some of them might have figured that they had no choice BUT to do what they did. That does not mean that they will continue to engage in that form of behavior once the quota BS is gone. At the very least, suspend them without pay, review their FULL performance records, and if there is ADDITIONAL evidence of corruption outside of the filling quota crap, THEN kick their asses to the curb. But if it was done to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table for their families, then can you really, truly fault them? Has NOBODY else in here gone and done something that went against your own moral code because you felt you had no other choice if you were going to be able to keep your family fed and sheltered? *Shrug* That's just my take on it... and I know I'm probably going to get at least a little flack for my opinion, but keep in mind a saying my dad loves to quote: Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one. If we were talking about something minor, then MAYBE the "doing it to keep a job" excuse would fly. However we're talking about a narcotics bust. This wasn't people unjustly getting a hundred dollar parking fine, we're talking about people going to prison, potentially for very long periods, with all that that involves. And in that case, no, I don't think the "just keeping a roof over our heads" thing is a valid excuse, not when you're doing something that destroys innocent people, their livlihoods and families. If you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to, but we should probably go back to the other thread, or start a new one. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 12, 2011 5:01:05 GMT -5
It's go-time. You can clearly see how what I said is relevent, it's talking about proof, & whether or not you are consistent in your beliefs about what needs to be proven--hint: You aren't. Now, what does what YOU said have to do with citations? Yes, this is a direct question. Ask a direct question that parses with basic conventions of grammar and syntax and I'll answer it. It parses just fine, now answer the fucking question. And before you try and claim shit about English, be aware that I'm a goddamn grammar nazi. If I consider it to be up to snuff it's probably up to snuff. And really, what does the comment about "supporting police planting drugs on innocent civilians" have to do with anything, other than being an antagonistic prick? If you can prove that it's pertinent to the discussion at hand you'll be in the clear, free of any wrong-doing. Provided you also provide proof that whoever it was you were talking about there supports police planting drugs on people. I would accept a quote with a direct link as proof. If both of these conditions are met you'll be fine. If not you get to meet Mr. Don't Be a Dick. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 5:02:05 GMT -5
I already explained, quite explicitly, that it's pointing out how not too long ago you were going on about how everything needs to be proven, & now suddenly you're saying that it's okay not to cite a source as long as you "know" it's right.
There is no "relevence police," it's not that I operate on my own special rules, these things are just fucking obvious. You remember all of those times people defended you because someone was attacking your past reputation, not what you actually said in the thread? Fucking. Obvious.
|
|
