Little Monkey's October 2010 Screwballs Derail

[Raphael]

I don't bother to read Wiki for anything scholarly because it's a notoriously bad resource. Give me a book to read or a web site by someone who I can at least tell the author.

That has been what I've been disagreeing with you about the whole time. You can have truth come through bad sources. Your ability to believe Wiki over a primary source is the problem.

Which is why my original comment of "even wikipedia generally gets it right". was implying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and yet it still manages to get this generally right.

Apparently my criticism of Wikipedia, and those who rely on it was a little too subtle for some responders. (the reason I checked Wiki in the first place was to see if it was wrong on this)

Little Monkey, AP and I are of the same opinion with regards Wikipedia.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you're good at is BS.

This is true.

[little_monkey]

Which is why my original comment of "even wikipedia generally gets it right". was implying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and yet it still manages to get this generally right.

Apparently my criticism of Wikipedia, and those who rely on it was a little too subtle for some responders. (the reason I checked Wiki in the first place was to see if it was wrong on this)

Little Monkey, AP and I are of the same opinion with regards Wikipedia.

I couldn't care less of your opinion on wiki. But you proved my point. Wiki generally gets it right. No sources that ever existed on this planet ever gets it right 100%. If that was the expectation from a source then nothing would ever qualify as a source of information. But to dismiss a source, any source, without even taking a modicum of effort to check it is silly, ludicrous, and arrogant.

[lilpixieofterror]

I couldn't care less of your opinion on wiki. But you proved my point. Wiki generally gets it right. No sources that ever existed on this planet ever gets it right 100%. If that was the expectation from a source then nothing would ever qualify as a source of information. But to dismiss a source, any source, without even taking a modicum of effort to check it is silly, ludicrous, and arrogant.

Does the point make a loud zoom as it flies over your little head?

[Raphael]

I couldn't care less of your opinion on wiki. But you proved my point. Wiki generally gets it right. No sources that ever existed on this planet ever gets it right 100%. If that was the expectation from a source then nothing would ever qualify as a source of information. But to dismiss a source, any source, without even taking a modicum of effort to check it is silly, ludicrous, and arrogant.

You seem to be lacking in basic reading comprehension.

I didn't say Wikipedia generally gets everything right. What I did say was that on this issue it has got things generally correct.

I think that it has left out a number of key elements, and I think based on things Hitler was more into Ariosophy/German paganism than the article covers (meaning that the wikipedia article is inadequate a resource).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you're good at is BS.

Really? Let's talk about some content claims.

You made the content claim that my religion teaches that ignorance is bliss. Reference for this?

You made the claim that I was complaining about you insulting me. On the contrary, I was just stating that's what was going on. You said I was treating my opinion as fact, as if it wasn't a fact you were insulting me. I could care less that you were. I just see you as a hypocrite if you whine about it, which you do, and then do it yourself.

You claimed Aquinas is a debunked 13th century monk. You have yet to prove this.

You claimed I needed my buddies to rescue me. I challenged you to one-on-one debate and you refused then. Odd position since you think your opponent is an idiot who follows a debunked 13th century monk.

You even missed the point on Wiki. I don't read Wiki for scholarly research no matter who presents it. I could care less their worldview. I prefer books instead. They're far more reliable and I know the authors. I even presented evidence for my stance. You ignored it.

Punkish is right. You need to get past your transference problem.

Until then WikiMonkey. My challenge stands. Your refusal to accept tells me you talk big, but you have nothing to back it.

[JB]

Sorry to disagree with you. If you read something on any topic from any source, and it is incorrect then you should be able to point it out. If you can't, then you are in no position to say, "oh well, it's from an unreliable source, so it must be wrong". That is pure silliness. When I read something, and if I think it's wrong, then I doublecheck with other sources to see if it's right or wrong. But I do not dismiss it outright.

Having said that, I suspect that you are dismissive of sources like wiki because it probably often does not agree with you. But that's tough luck. If you think that wiki carries wrong information then you should be able to show what it is that is wrong and from what sources did you get that it is wrong.

No one here has said, "Oh well, it's from an unreliable source, so it must be wrong." The point is, only an idiot relies on sources that are unreliable in general. You are doing that, and you are continuously distorting everything everyone else says while resolutely mocking your betters. Those are hallmarks of an inveterate idiot. Congratulations.

Wikipedia is good for some things, like very fundamental information, if you use it right. In that respect, it's comparable to, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. But frankly, I think encyclopedias in general should be avoided as well. Go to the primary sources; go to scholarly secondary sources that can really engage the data and are written by actual authorities on the subject; but don't rely on an encyclopedia.

If you want to make a case and not get laughed at, then try reading a book for a change. (You've heard of these "books", yes? They contain pages with lots of symbols called 'letters' on them; you can pick up these mysterious objects and do this thing called "reading"...) You want to know about Hitler's views? Then glance at Wikipedia for a quite bit of basic info if you like, but then go read his works and his speeches; study the history of the time by consulting works by historical scholars; read books about Hitler and religion written by real credentialed experts. And then, once you've done that, you'll have earned a hearing. But not when you just post a link to an easily edited online encyclopedia and challenge everyone to refute it. Instead, if you think it's convincing, then you can be man enough to see if a study of the other sources bears that out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone should listen to someone whose sole source is Wikipedia, for the same reason - and more, because it can be freely edited by successful pranksters - that I would say the same about a person who relied exclusively on another general (i.e., not specialized) encyclopedia. It just isn't enough. It might pass in elementary school, but it shouldn't pass anywhere else. Not because the encyclopedia happens to be woefully inaccurate, but because exclusive reliance on it gives the impression that it's authoritative. It isn't. It's a tool to get enough basic information so that you can go and surpass it by reading some of the real scholarly discussions, or - often better yet - the primary sources themselves.

Here's the thing about people like you with your method. It's a terrible way to go about things. If you meet a bloke who gets a chain e-mail and gobbles up a conspiracy theory, why should it be your responsibility to educate him in spite of himself and against his will? I mean, certainly, you could go do all the legwork and do him a favor - but are you obligated to? Does it imply some intellectual defect or lack of capacity in you if you decline? Of course not. He is the one who shirked his intellectual responsibility by buying hook, line, and sinker into the first thing that came across his screen, regardless of the source, without bothering to get further into it. And suppose that this fellow should be an arrogant son-of-a-broken-clock who insists on propagating his new views - whose ultimate responsibility is it to get information from real experts? His, of course, not yours. You would be quite justified in simply ignoring him, and probably even in just mocking him. After all, he's the one who's shirking the intellectual responsibility of getting information from reliable, credentialed sources - and looking into both sides of the issue - before spouting his mouth off about it. Now, you could very well take it upon yourself to re-educate him. That would be a greatly charitable act on your part there; it would not constitute a natural responsibility of yours. It would be, in a word, supererogatory. You would fail in no duty by simply telling him to go read a (relevant) book for a change and then come back if he still thinks he can make a case once he's become adequately informed. And so it is with us here, and with you playing the role of this miseducated, arrogant fool. Would it be merciful for us to go out of our way to spoonfeed you an education? Perhaps. On the downside, it might perpetuate the misconception that you're coming from an initial position of deserving it - which you are not. But we certainly don't owe you an education if you aren't willing to take a real step yourself. You should be thankful, quite frankly, that we're even dignifying you with our mockery.

See all these people you're talking to here? Yeah, we actually read these things called "books" - you know, the things I mentioned earlier. Not just enjoyable literature, but actual scholarly works on the various subjects that interest us. That way we get to have a well-orbed understanding that goes past the surface level. And that's far beyond what Wikipedia - or, as JPH is fond of calling it, the "Abomination that Causes Misinformation" - will ever get you.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Is it worth it, JB?

[JB]

Is it worth it, JB?

Doubtful. But it was fun, and it was an excuse to procrastinate doing other more important things.

[little_monkey]

You seem to be lacking in basic reading comprehension.

Can you quit this infantile accusation. My reading comprehension is no more and no less than yours.

I didn't say Wikipedia generally gets everything right. What I did say was that on this issue it has got things generally correct.

Yes, I've reiterated that no source is ever 100% correct.

I think that it has left out a number of key elements, and I think based on things Hitler was more into Ariosophy/German paganism than the article covers (meaning that the wikipedia article is inadequate a resource).

No kidding. I have Kershaw two volumes in front of me ( 845 pp and 1145 pp) I don`t expect that wiki will carry that many pages on this topic. Do you?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

no but this thread might...

[little_monkey]

Really? Let's talk about some content claims.
You made the content claim that my religion teaches that ignorance is bliss. Reference for this?
You made the claim that I was complaining about you insulting me. On the contrary, I was just stating that's what was going on. You said I was treating my opinion as fact, as if it wasn't a fact you were insulting me. I could care less that you were. I just see you as a hypocrite if you whine about it, which you do, and then do it yourself.
You claimed Aquinas is a debunked 13th century monk. You have yet to prove this.
You claimed I needed my buddies to rescue me. I challenged you to one-on-one debate and you refused then. Odd position since you think your opponent is an idiot who follows a debunked 13th century monk.
You even missed the point on Wiki. I don't read Wiki for scholarly research no matter who presents it. I could care less their worldview. I prefer books instead. They're far more reliable and I know the authors. I even presented evidence for my stance. You ignored it.
Punkish is right. You need to get past your transference problem.
Until then WikiMonkey. My challenge stands. Your refusal to accept tells me you talk big, but you have nothing to back it.

You`ve got nothing but BS going your way. You`re a waste. Get lost, idiot.

[little_monkey]

No one here has said, "Oh well, it's from an unreliable source, so it must be wrong." The point is, only an idiot relies on sources that are unreliable in general. You are doing that, and you are continuously distorting everything everyone else says while resolutely mocking your betters. Those are hallmarks of an inveterate idiot. Congratulations..

You know nothing on what I rely. Your assumption that I rely only on wiki is laughable.

.

Wikipedia is good for some things, like very fundamental information, if you use it right. In that respect, it's comparable to, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. But frankly, I think encyclopedias in general should be avoided as well. Go to the primary sources; go to scholarly secondary sources that can really engage the data and are written by actual authorities on the subject; but don't rely on an encyclopedia..

Scholarly works are also flawed. So I would never rely on them entirely. In fact for every scholar you will find on any given topic, you will find another scholar with contrarian views. So your whole shtick about scholarly works is ludicrous. Or you are a sap.

.

You want to know about Hitler's views? Then glance at Wikipedia for a quite bit of basic info if you like, but then go read his works and his speeches; study the history of the time by consulting works by historical scholars; read books about Hitler and religion written by real credentialed experts. .

Please don`t make a fool of yourself: you know absolutely nothing about what I know.


.

And then, once you've done that, you'll have earned a hearing. But not when you just post a link to an easily edited online encyclopedia and challenge everyone to refute it. Instead, if you think it's convincing, then you can be man enough to see if a study of the other sources bears that out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't..

What I ask was to show what incorrect info there was in that link. If you`re no expert on the matter, the wisest thing to do is shut up, which seems a very difficult thing for you to do.

.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone should listen to someone whose sole source is Wikipedia, for the same reason - and more, because it can be freely edited by successful pranksters - that I would say the same about a person who relied exclusively on another general (i.e., not specialized) encyclopedia. It just isn't enough. It might pass in elementary school, but it shouldn't pass anywhere else. Not because the encyclopedia happens to be woefully inaccurate, but because exclusive reliance on it gives the impression that it's authoritative. It isn't. It's a tool to get enough basic information so that you can go and surpass it by reading some of the real scholarly discussions, or - often better yet - the primary sources themselves..

Another fallacy, when did I ever say to rely just on one source. Are you an idiot, seems like you are.

.

Here's the thing about people like you with your method. It's a terrible way to go about things. If you meet a bloke who gets a chain e-mail and gobbles up a conspiracy theory, why should it be your responsibility to educate him in spite of himself and against his will? I mean, certainly, you could go do all the legwork and do him a favor - but are you obligated to? Does it imply some intellectual defect or lack of capacity in you if you decline? Of course not. He is the one who shirked his intellectual responsibility by buying hook, line, and sinker into the first thing that came across his screen, regardless of the source, without bothering to get further into it. And suppose that this fellow should be an arrogant son-of-a-broken-clock who insists on propagating his new views - whose ultimate responsibility is it to get information from real experts? His, of course, not yours. You would be quite justified in simply ignoring him, and probably even in just mocking him. After all, he's the one who's shirking the intellectual responsibility of getting information from reliable, credentialed sources - and looking into both sides of the issue - before spouting his mouth off about it. Now, you could very well take it upon yourself to re-educate him. That would be a greatly charitable act on your part there; it would not constitute a natural responsibility of yours. It would be, in a word, supererogatory. You would fail in no duty by simply telling him to go read a (relevant) book for a change and then come back if he still thinks he can make a case once he's become adequately informed. And so it is with us here, and with you playing the role of this miseducated, arrogant fool. Would it be merciful for us to go out of our way to spoonfeed you an education? Perhaps. On the downside, it might perpetuate the misconception that you're coming from an initial position of deserving it - which you are not. But we certainly don't owe you an education if you aren't willing to take a real step yourself. You should be thankful, quite frankly, that we're even dignifying you with our mockery.

See all these people you're talking to here? Yeah, we actually read these things called "books" - you know, the things I mentioned earlier. Not just enjoyable literature, but actual scholarly works on the various subjects that interest us. That way we get to have a well-orbed understanding that goes past the surface level. And that's far beyond what Wikipedia - or, as JPH is fond of calling it, the "Abomination that Causes Misinformation" - will ever get you.

Blah, blah, blah, another BS, a la ApologiaPhoenix

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You`ve got nothing but BS going your way. You`re a waste. Get lost, idiot.

Translation: Oh my! I got caught in nonsense and I will try to talk big and have a lot of bravado when really I'm a little chicken hiding behind it.

You're very amusing Wiki Monkey. I'll give you that. You further give me confidence in my belief that moderns tend to be idiots.

[Goonerman]

If you have Kershaw, Little Monkey, why would you need Wiki?

There's a certain chapter he wrote. You should know what it is, then we all can have a discussion with you. I probably won't have the time, but the others at least will have some basis for dialoguing with you properly instead of having you twittering on about wiki, the site any village idiot can re-edit!