Quote mining and accepting lies.

[Doveaman]

Excuse me... but this thread is not about whether a certain statement is correct or meaningful... but whether a certain (mis)quote of that statement correctly represented the intent of the author.

Even if you disagree with the content of the statement you should be able to see that it doesn´t do that. It misrepresents the author. Intentionally.

That is what is commonly called "lying".

And it seems that, because you disagree with the content, you have no problem with lying about it... correct?

I think DAWKINS is the one who is lying.

 

[sandwiches]

By determining you were wrong in the firsts place.

And how do we determine if someone was wrong?

 

[sandwiches]

I think DAWKINS is the one who is lying.

You're still avoiding the point, which isn't suprising, to be honest. The point isn't whether you agree with what was said. The point is that these people are being misquoted to misrepresent their points.

Stop dancing around to avoid what is being said.

 

[Delphiki]

This camera analogy doesn't help at all. Do you have any video tapes of your ape ancestor?

No, we have something better.

We have imprints in hard rock, preserved for millions of years, untouched by the elements, geographically located in places that confirm their specimen's location on the tree of life.

Video tapes, if they had existed back then and there was actually a human to use them, would have deteriorated in a matter of centuries and would have never made it to modern day.

 

[Doveaman]

No pun intended, but it's no surprise when the bible is similarly quote mined to hell and back by the very people who claim to follow it.

It is only quote mined if the quote is out of context. Usually it is within context, and it's a common theological practice that works very well. Even Jesus did it:

Jesus answered, "It is written : 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" - Matt 4:4.

Original statement from Deuteronomy 8:3:

"He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This camera analogy doesn't help at all. Do you have any video tapes of your ape ancestor?

Did you or did you not understand the distiction between watching the murder later, and watching the murder while it happend?

I believe you understood, and as such you understand why the quote was decietfull and you support such "Lying for jesus" practices.

If you honestly did not understand feel free to explain where you lose track and I will explain it again.

To be sure, weither dawkins is CORRECT or not has nothing to do with weither he was quotemined do you understand?

If I where to say "The earth is a disk, it is clearly not flat."
And someone where to quote me as "The earth is clearly not flat" making it appear as though I support the spherical earth. Then I have been quotemined, the meaning of my statement has been altered by dishonest edditing. IT DOES NOT MATTER weither I am wrong about the earth being a disk, it only matters that my intended meaning was distorted.

I only explained how the camera would relate to the evidence for evolution for completeness sake. I will not discuss evolution or the evidence for it with you here.

 

[Freodin]

I think DAWKINS is the one who is lying.

Even if he was... do you think that lying about what he said is the moral thing to do?

 

[Doveaman]

No, we have something better.

We have imprints in hard rock, preserved for millions of years, untouched by the elements, geographically located in places that confirm their specimen's location on the tree of life.

This you consider to be better than a video tape? I think even scientists would disagree.

 

[sandwiches]

This you consider to be better than a video tape? I think even scientists would disagree.

Regarding evolution, a video tape of what, exactly? What is it that you think could be recorded with this camera you speak of?

 

[Doveaman]

If I where to say "The earth is a disk, it is clearly not flat."
And someone where to quote me as "The earth is clearly not flat" making it appear as though I support the spherical earth. Then I have been quotemined, the meaning of my statement has been altered by dishonest edditing.

But if you where to say "The earth is a disk, it is clearly not flat."
And someone where to quote you as "The earth is clearly not flat" making it appear as though you support an earth that is clearly not flat, would it still have been quote mined?

 

[Doveaman]

Regarding evolution, a video tape of what, exactly? What is it that you think could be recorded with this camera you speak of?

Well the camera wasn't my idea.

 

[Split Rock]

Reading through this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7532409/

I came across this excellent post by Naraoia

http://www.christianforums.com/t7532409-6/

The post points out the real quotes and how they are distorted.

My question to the creationist posters on this board is:
Do you approve of these lies?

I'm not talking about whether you believe the original quotes or the edited versions or how they relate to your worldview.

I'm asking whether you feel it is acceptable to take a snippet of a quote from an individual and present it as saying the opposite of what they said.

For example this comment
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Is turned into this.

DAWKINS: Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Now this is a very obvious and deliberate distortion.It is lying.

It's as if I quoted the sixth commandment as 'Thou shalt...kill."


Whatever your opinions of evolution may be, surely this sort of tactic is dishonest and immoral.

Do the creationists on the board agree?

The reason they don't want to give up on quote mining (as evidenced by Doveaman's comments in this very thread) is because it is such an effective debating tactic and rhetorical tool. Creationists in general do not care about discussing the truth.. they already know "the truth." They are only interested in winning the "debate." As I like to say, "by hook or by crook." Whatever gets the job done.

The other interesting aspect of lies in a broader scope, is that most creationists really don't care if they are being lied to... as long as the lie tastes sweet. If you show them they are being deliberately lied to by professional creationists or by "creation ministry' websites, they will still use them as sources. It doesn't really matter. That is why professional creationists get away with lying so much that it becomes S.O.P. They suffer no recriminations from the wider creationist community if they lie, so why not lie?

 

[HarryCovert]

Either that or the argument is just so weak that it can only be supported by misinformation.

 

[Delphiki]

This you consider to be better than a video tape? I think even scientists would disagree.

You would think wrong. Video tape isn't even close to a be-all end-all form of irrefutable evidence. Otherwise, the Transformers movies are real.

Fossils, on the other hand, are imprints in stone which were preserved for millions of years. It's actually part of their definition. The parts that do decay, we know exactly how fast they decay.

Better than video tape.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

But if you where to say "The earth is a disk, it is clearly not flat."
And someone where to quote you as "The earth is clearly not flat" making it appear as though you support an earth that is clearly not flat, would it still have been quote mined?

Two questions.

1. Do you honestly see it that way?
2. Do you understand my point though?

If you where to say "Jesus got his knowledge directly from god, he was not wise."
You would be okay with people quoting you as saying "Jesus was not wise" it would be a fair thing to assume you believe jesus was a fool going by that statement would it not?

 

[Delphiki]

I think he only selectively notices quote mines. That's the trick.

 

[pgp_protector]

Quote mining is bad.

Example

...The earth is clearly ..flat .. it appear as .. flat

 

[Nabobalis]

Quote mining is bad.

Example

Now he is taking credit for inventing the camera:

Well the camera was.. my idea.

But can quoting mining also be intentionally omitting certain parts of a word?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Quote mining is bad.

Example

While I think thats hilarious.
I also think its going to lead some less gifted individuals astray on what a quotemine generally looks like

 

[HarryCovert]

While I think thats hilarious.
I also think its going to lead some less gifted individuals astray on what....mine generally looks like

Like that?