Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

[Sistrin]

You should have read the whole thread because that was the apologia you were using back then and it was explained to you that is not all reflective of Sen. Paul's plagiarism.

I bet I also commented on what an absolute joke this all is, members of the left acting all indignant and righteous over a few lines from Wiki, given their response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

Selective outrage is selective outrage.

 

[SummerMadness]

I bet I also commented on what an absolute joke this all is, members of the left acting all indignant and righteous over a few lines from Wiki, given their response to this:

Selective outrage is selective outrage.

You're now attempting to change the subject. The topic is about journalistic integrity. You talk about selective outrage, but you do not apply the same journalistic integrity to Brian Williams and Rand Paul. That's the height of hypocrisy right there.

 

[MachZer0]

Except that's not what happened, he copied the description. If he submitted this as a scientific paper, it would have been rejected due to plagiarism. The movie has been described many times and in many different ways, the only ones that have the same language are Wikipedia and Rand Paul. Your inconsistency on topics of journalistic integrity is noted.

Kind of like Martin Luther King's paper was rejected? Oh wait, nobody has complained about his actual plagiarism

 

[MachZer0]

You're now attempting to change the subject. The topic is about journalistic integrity. You talk about selective outrage, but you do not apply the same journalistic integrity to Brian Williams and Rand Paul. That's the height of hypocrisy right there.

Rand Paul is not a journalist as far as I know so the topic must certainly be something else

 

[Sistrin]

You're now attempting to change the subject.

No, I am not now nor was I prior. The subject is calling someone's integrity into question over what appears to be an unethical act. That was and remains the basis of the OP, to call Paul's integrity into question based on a few lines describing the events of a crappy movie. As such, comparisons are fair game.

The topic is about journalistic integrity.

Why just journalistic integrity? In the OP you called it research integrity. However even if guilty the response expressed so far is equivalent to having one guy who accidentally hit a dog with his car and another who murdered his wife and sentencing both to death.

You talk about selective outrage, but you do not apply the same journalistic integrity to Brian Williams and Rand Paul. That's the height of hypocrisy right there.

You are right about one thing, the height of hypocrisy has been on display since page one.

 

[USincognito]

I bet I also commented on what an absolute joke this all is...

Probably. I'm sure you also engaged in your favorite tactic tu quoque as well.

I don't remember you addressing the other instances of plagiarism beyond Gattaca, just like you didn't address them this time.

 

[SummerMadness]

No, I am not now nor was I prior. The subject is calling someone's integrity into question over what appears to be an unethical act. That was and remains the basis of the OP, to call Paul's integrity into question based on a few lines describing the events of a crappy movie. As such, comparisons are fair game.

Again, another transparent attempt to change the subject and whether the film was Oscar or Raspberry-worthy does not make plagiarism okay. The quality of the film is irrelevant, so bringing that up is yet another attempt to change the subject.

Why just journalistic integrity? In the OP you called it research integrity. However even if guilty the response expressed so far is equivalent to having one guy who accidentally hit a dog with his car and another who murdered his wife and sentencing both to death.

Research or journalistic integrity, this topic is about attribution, which falls under journalism. Fabricated stories, fabricated quotes, unattributed quotes, etc. whether it's for a scientific journal or a presidential speech, it is about journalistic integrity. You're attempting to make this topic broader in order to become indignant over an unrelated topic. Moreover, Senator Paul's plagiarism was not just of Wikipedia, but it was found in his other works.

You are right about one thing, the height of hypocrisy has been on display since page one.

Yes, your vigorous defense of Senator Paul while attacking Brian Williams and trying to change the subject exemplify hypocrisy and political bias.