It doesn't matter if you are or some neutral arbiter does not agree with the rules.
Well actually, I think it does matter. You certainly wouldn't qualify as a neutral arbiter because you pretty much agree with many of the university's policies. Perhaps I wouldn't qualify either because I think most of the university's policies are bullshit. I'm speaking hypothetically here, if we were to find an impartial arbiter who could decide on the basis of reason whether or not it is possible to plagiarize from yourself, the only logical conclusion would be that it is truly impossible on the basis of what plagiarism means. There's really no fuckin' way around this one.
JayDub;27372 said:
If a government makes laws and you are in their country or territories, it does not matter if you agree with them or think they are logical, you still have to abide by them and no judge will say, "well that law doesn't make sense or is logically based and fair". They are laws and you have to abide by them. If you don't like them then you can go elsewhere.
Really? In a free and democratic country such as Canada, unfair laws are struck down. Take the law prohibiting doctors from providing abortion services back in the 80s. They were laws, weren't they? However, they were annulled by judges specifically because they were unfair to women. What about laws prohibiting women from voting even earlier? Same scenario--because they were unfair, they were struck down. I could literally go on and on, but I think you get the picture. If we can't question unjust laws, how the heck are we supposed to progress as a democratic society?
If we were to find an impartial arbiter who could decide on the basis of reason whether or not it is possible to plagiarize from yourself, the only logical conclusion would be that it is truly impossible on the basis of what plagiarism means. There's really no fuckin' way around this one.
Like I said, go find any arbiter you want, the university will still win.
How? because the dictionary reflects common usage, while the university's policies are legally binding. The dictionary definition is for all purposes totally irrelevant, you agreed to be bound by university policy in return for a degree.
Insatiable;27399 said:
Really? In a free and democratic country such as Canada, unfair laws are struck down. Take the law prohibiting doctors from providing abortion services back in the 80s. They were laws, weren't they? However, they were annulled by judges specifically because they were unfair to women. What about laws prohibiting women from voting even earlier? Same scenario--because they were unfair, they were struck down. I could literally go on and on, but I think you get the picture. If we can't question unjust laws, how the heck are we supposed to progress as a democratic society?
The abortion laws were struck down because Morgentaler challenged them. Same thing with every other law that's ever struck down in Canada. If you want to challenge university policies, go right ahead, nobody's stopping you from doing that.
a) Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty in which an individual submits or presents the work of another person as his or her own. Scholarship quite properly rests upon examining and referring to the thoughts and writings of others. However, when excerpts are used in paragraphs or essays, the author must be acknowledged using an accepted format for the underlying discipline. Footnotes, endnotes, references and bibliographies must be complete.
Plagiarism exists when all or part of an essay is copied from an author, or composed by another person, and presented as original work. Plagiarism also exists when there is inadequate recognition given to the author for phrases, sentences, or ideas of the author incorporated into an essay.
A draft paper, proposal, thesis or other assignment may be subject to penalty for academic dishonesty provided the instructor/supervisor has informed the student(s) before the work is submitted.
b) Submitting the same essay, presentation, or assignment more than once whether the earlier submission was at this or another institution, unless prior approval has been obtained.
so even university policy doesn't actually say copying off yourself is plagiarism, although it is still academic dishonesty.
But even if the university did say "copying off yourself is plagiarism", or even "using blue ink is considered plagiarism", then that would be considered plagiarism.
so even university policy doesn't actually say copying off yourself is plagiarism, although it is still academic dishonesty.
But even if the university did say "copying off yourself is plagiarism", or even "using blue ink is considered plagiarism", then that would be considered plagiarism.
in any case, bottom line is: don't do it.
Oh all right, so now it isn't plagiarism? Isn't that what I was saying the whole damn time!? I wasn't arguing with you about what is or isn't considered academic dishonesty; merely, I was stating the fact that it is absolutely illogical to consider and act of self-copying as plagiarism (read my posts carefully :teeth: ).
And no, the university would not be right if it were to consider recycling as plagiarism. In its own little world maybe. But in the logical sense, it would not. Read my posts as to why.
JayDub;27425 said:
Again (why do I keep repeating myself) it does not matter if you find a law unfair or not reasonable you still have abide by it.
Why are you repeating yourself? Just answer my question. Are you indifferent? Would you not question any undeniably unfair law? If everyone maintained such an indifferent attitude, the whole generation would go down the shitter in no time. Thankfully, there are people out there who think and who aren't so submissive.
Oh all right, so now it isn't plagiarism? Isn't that what I was saying the whole damn time!? I wasn't arguing with you about what is or isn't considered academic dishonesty; merely, I was stating the fact that it is absolutely illogical to consider and act of self-copying as plagiarism (read my posts carefully :teeth: ).
And no, the university would not be right if it were to consider recycling as plagiarism. In its own little world maybe. But in the logical sense, it would not. Read my posts as to why.
Why are you repeating yourself? Just answer my question. Are you indifferent? Would you not question any undeniably unfair law? If everyone maintained such an indifferent attitude, the whole generation would go down the shitter in no time. Thankfully, there are people out there who think and who aren't so submissive.
I believe some profs do say it's plagiarism (as well as a plethora of other things).
The thing about policies is not that it has to make logical sense, the only thing that matters is that it's binding. But that doesn't stop anyone from changing the rules to make better sense, or to be more fair. Nobody is saying "don't criticize the rules".
I believe some profs do say it's plagiarism (as well as a plethora of other things).
Well, has it occurred to ya that those profs might be fucking idiots? I've met a lot of idiot profs in my time; it's actually quite surprising how many idiots there are at the doctorate level :zip:
primexx;27462 said:
The thing about policies is not that it has to make logical sense, the only thing that matters is that it's binding. But that doesn't stop anyone from changing the rules to make better sense, or to be more fair.
I agree that they can prohibit pretty much anything they want. But like I said before, if one were to analyse the rules on the basis of logic and present one's arguments to a neutral arbiter (i.e. non-university arbiter), it would become quite evident that the university's rules are a little unfair.
If I were to question any undeniably unfair law or not is moot as that is not what I am trying to get across to you; nor am I saying don't criticize the rules.
The university does not care what Merriam Webster defines plagiarism as, as long as that rule is in place you have to follow it. You can try and appeal it (and you will lose), but you still have to abide by it until such a time it is deemed to be no longer be plagiarism.
I agree that they can prohibit pretty much anything they want. But like I said before, if one were to analyse the rules on the basis of logic and present one's arguments to a neutral arbiter (i.e. non-university arbiter), it would become quite evident that the university's rules are a little unfair.
usually you don't need an arbiter to realize a rule is stupid, but even an arbiter would have to agree that stupid as it is, it is right insofar as it's not changed.
Comments
How? because the dictionary reflects common usage, while the university's policies are legally binding. The dictionary definition is for all purposes totally irrelevant, you agreed to be bound by university policy in return for a degree. The abortion laws were struck down because Morgentaler challenged them. Same thing with every other law that's ever struck down in Canada. If you want to challenge university policies, go right ahead, nobody's stopping you from doing that.
But even if the university did say "copying off yourself is plagiarism", or even "using blue ink is considered plagiarism", then that would be considered plagiarism.
in any case, bottom line is: don't do it.
And no, the university would not be right if it were to consider recycling as plagiarism. In its own little world maybe. But in the logical sense, it would not. Read my posts as to why. Why are you repeating yourself? Just answer my question. Are you indifferent? Would you not question any undeniably unfair law? If everyone maintained such an indifferent attitude, the whole generation would go down the shitter in no time. Thankfully, there are people out there who think and who aren't so submissive.
The thing about policies is not that it has to make logical sense, the only thing that matters is that it's binding. But that doesn't stop anyone from changing the rules to make better sense, or to be more fair. Nobody is saying "don't criticize the rules".
The university does not care what Merriam Webster defines plagiarism as, as long as that rule is in place you have to follow it. You can try and appeal it (and you will lose), but you still have to abide by it until such a time it is deemed to be no longer be plagiarism.
theres a fight/debate,
on a thread i created,
and im not involved :(