4 ms·

do you really not understand that railing against the system is not the same thing as advocating cheating, as you seem to be doing? and really? cheating is onl

do you really not understand that railing against the system is not the same thing as advocating cheating, as you seem to be doing? and really? cheating is only an issue in artificial constructs like academia? so if i design a building and crib the stress analysis from another building, it's ok because that's not an artifical situation? it seems academia really did fail you, as your argument just falls apart prima facie. the learned person would reflect on the wealth of the feedback that you're getting here rather than assuming that you've unsheathed some gloden nugget of truth that the rest of us silly fools can't glean. aversion to cheating is embedded in the social systems of all sorts of living creatures. might you want to read up on that and update your arguments, or is that too academic and artificial (as compared to typing into an emphemeral textbox)?

eecsninja 9y ago
My point is that cheating is at worst a violation of rules/contracts. I'm saying there's a different way of thinking to understand why somethings are wrong -- not just that they are wrong, but the underlying reasons as well. Every example that has been provided could be counted as wrong by some other existing real world standard. In the case of copying the stress analysis, that is called FRAUD in the real world. I sound like I'm being pedantic here, but I hope some people out there can understand. As far as social systems go, the object of aversion is deception and the associated harm. That's bad. I think we mentally conflate that with academic cheating (plagiarism), when it is something different.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  You keep failing to explain the difference between academic fraud and commercial fraud.
  - eecsninja 9y ago
    Commercial fraud: > The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan's not knowingly engaging in 'fraudulent' activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition 'no fraud' is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen's $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief. source: https://mises.org/wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-types-aggression https://mises.org/wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contra... There is no equivalent of harm done to property or person with plagiarism in an academic setting. > Finally, it is curious that the first thing that occurs to people on first hearing the anti-IP case is plagiarism: “You mean it would be okay for someone to take an author’s work, put his own name on it, and sell it?” > Two issues are conflated here. One can plagiarize without violating a copyright, and one can violate a copyright without plagiarizing. Under copyright law you may use brief verbatim excerpts of another’s written work without permission as long as you use quotation marks and attribute the text to the author. It’s called “fair use.” (Question for copyright fans: Isn’t even fair use a violation of an author’s rights?) If you were to use an excerpt that otherwise would qualify under the fair-use principle but without attribution, you would be guilty of plagiarism but not copyright violation. The same would be true if you quote Shakespeare without attribution. (Shakespeare wrote without benefit of copyright.) > On the other hand, if you publish Atlas Shrugged with Ayn Rand’s name on it, you would be guilty of copyright violation but not plagiarism. > For the sake of clear thinking, let’s keep these issues separate. > Well, is plagiarism okay? No, it’s not! Obviously it is dishonest and dishonorable to represent someone else’s work as one’s own. But note, according to LegalZoom, “plagiarism is not a criminal or civil offense.” Nor should it be. It’s a breach of good conduct, and there is a plentitude of nonviolent, non-State ways to deal with it, especially in the Internet age. Source: https://mises.org/wire/slave-labor-and-intellectual-property-misplaced-analogy https://mises.org/wire/slave-labor-and-intellectual-property... Look, I get it's a bad in a practical sense if someone cheats or plagiarizes, especially to the cheater. It could even be a breach of contract between the student and the school. But it's not a crime against another person. It's a "victimless crime" essentially. If someone falsifies licensing or safety requirements, like with an airplane or a building, that's a legal matter. Call that "professional fraud" -- it's illegal. But there is no law against cheating in school.
    - learc83 9y ago
      > It's a "victimless crime" essentially. It's not a victimless crime. 1. Every CS class I took had some form of curve. People cheating directly lowered the grade of people who didn't. 2. Cheating devalues the credentials that other students paid for. You can argue about the benefits of the credentialing system, but that doesn't change that fact that students cheating directly financially harms students who don't cheat. 3. It harms job seekers who now have to spend time going through additional screening steps because their credentials are no longer trusted. It really seems like your trying very hard to justify some past behavior here.
      - eecsninja 9y ago
        Dude I've been out of school for almost a decade. I didn't major in CS. And the only stuff I learned that was useful for my future career was through a project class where it was impossible to cheat or otherwise bullshit your way to an A. Most of my programming skills were learned from coding games in my spare time.
        learc83 9y ago
        What does any of that have to do with what I said?
eecsninja 9y ago
> it seems academia really did fail you, as your argument just falls apart prima facie. the learned person would reflect on the wealth of the feedback that you're getting here rather than assuming that you've unsheathed some gloden nugget of truth that the rest of us silly fools can't glean. Damn right it did. I remember in a scientific writing class in college, the professor told us that we should always give credit when citing someone. I asked her if that was just a good practice and courtesy, or a moral obligation. The dumb prof just repeated herself "you should always give credit" and didn't seem to understand my question.

eecsninja 9y ago

My point is that cheating is at worst a violation of rules/contracts. I'm saying there's a different way of thinking to understand why somethings are wrong -- not just that they are wrong, but the underlying reasons as well. Every example that has been provided could be counted as wrong by some other existing real world standard. In the case of copying the stress analysis, that is called FRAUD in the real world. I sound like I'm being pedantic here, but I hope some people out there can understand. As far as social systems go, the object of aversion is deception and the associated harm. That's bad. I think we mentally conflate that with academic cheating (plagiarism), when it is something different.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
You keep failing to explain the difference between academic fraud and commercial fraud.
- eecsninja 9y ago
  Commercial fraud: > The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan's not knowingly engaging in 'fraudulent' activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition 'no fraud' is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen's $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief. source: https://mises.org/wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-types-aggression https://mises.org/wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contra... There is no equivalent of harm done to property or person with plagiarism in an academic setting. > Finally, it is curious that the first thing that occurs to people on first hearing the anti-IP case is plagiarism: “You mean it would be okay for someone to take an author’s work, put his own name on it, and sell it?” > Two issues are conflated here. One can plagiarize without violating a copyright, and one can violate a copyright without plagiarizing. Under copyright law you may use brief verbatim excerpts of another’s written work without permission as long as you use quotation marks and attribute the text to the author. It’s called “fair use.” (Question for copyright fans: Isn’t even fair use a violation of an author’s rights?) If you were to use an excerpt that otherwise would qualify under the fair-use principle but without attribution, you would be guilty of plagiarism but not copyright violation. The same would be true if you quote Shakespeare without attribution. (Shakespeare wrote without benefit of copyright.) > On the other hand, if you publish Atlas Shrugged with Ayn Rand’s name on it, you would be guilty of copyright violation but not plagiarism. > For the sake of clear thinking, let’s keep these issues separate. > Well, is plagiarism okay? No, it’s not! Obviously it is dishonest and dishonorable to represent someone else’s work as one’s own. But note, according to LegalZoom, “plagiarism is not a criminal or civil offense.” Nor should it be. It’s a breach of good conduct, and there is a plentitude of nonviolent, non-State ways to deal with it, especially in the Internet age. Source: https://mises.org/wire/slave-labor-and-intellectual-property-misplaced-analogy https://mises.org/wire/slave-labor-and-intellectual-property... Look, I get it's a bad in a practical sense if someone cheats or plagiarizes, especially to the cheater. It could even be a breach of contract between the student and the school. But it's not a crime against another person. It's a "victimless crime" essentially. If someone falsifies licensing or safety requirements, like with an airplane or a building, that's a legal matter. Call that "professional fraud" -- it's illegal. But there is no law against cheating in school.
  - learc83 9y ago
    > It's a "victimless crime" essentially. It's not a victimless crime. 1. Every CS class I took had some form of curve. People cheating directly lowered the grade of people who didn't. 2. Cheating devalues the credentials that other students paid for. You can argue about the benefits of the credentialing system, but that doesn't change that fact that students cheating directly financially harms students who don't cheat. 3. It harms job seekers who now have to spend time going through additional screening steps because their credentials are no longer trusted. It really seems like your trying very hard to justify some past behavior here.
    - eecsninja 9y ago
      Dude I've been out of school for almost a decade. I didn't major in CS. And the only stuff I learned that was useful for my future career was through a project class where it was impossible to cheat or otherwise bullshit your way to an A. Most of my programming skills were learned from coding games in my spare time.
      - learc83 9y ago
        What does any of that have to do with what I said?

eecsninja 9y ago

> it seems academia really did fail you, as your argument just falls apart prima facie. the learned person would reflect on the wealth of the feedback that you're getting here rather than assuming that you've unsheathed some gloden nugget of truth that the rest of us silly fools can't glean. Damn right it did. I remember in a scientific writing class in college, the professor told us that we should always give credit when citing someone. I asked her if that was just a good practice and courtesy, or a moral obligation. The dumb prof just repeated herself "you should always give credit" and didn't seem to understand my question.