how can that ever be acceptable

"putin you don't have to love russia to be a real communist you know.

you dont have to apologize for north korea's atrocious failings either"

You're not obligated to be a redbaiting anti-communist, although I'm sure the bosses appreciate it. Apparently I'm obligated to parrot the US government line on governments that dare to stand on their own two feet in order to be a real 'progressive', like the Folkhemmet supporting Thucydides.

"Probably the biggest "Outsider" President in the last 50 (perhaps 100?) years is sitting right now. The only way you could say the United States has some "pathology" for supporting outsiders is if you include Governors as "outsiders" which is a bit of a stretch."

How many terms was Bush governor before he shot to the Presidency? Not even two. In his presidential election, he defeated a man who spent his entire life in public service and was an expert on a wide range of government policies because of it. Ditto 2004.
Reagan was some two-term governor and failed actor. He defeated a man who had been in government almost continuously since 1963, and before that was in the US Navy. Reagan then beat a man who had even more experience than Carter.
Obama defeated John McCain, who has been in government since god knows when.
And how about Clinton v. Bush? Bush was a career public servant whose career spanned decades. Clinton wasn't exactly inexperienced but was an unknown governor of a tiny state.

And look at every campaign, ever. Everyone runs as an "outsider". You have to be an anti-government populist to get anyone's attention.

Look at how much of the vote Perot got in 1992, and all he did was have billions of dollars and talk about how he "has no experience running up budget deficits". People love that folksy bs. Why do people think Palin is so popular among the rightwing base?

Yes it is sometimes acceptable to take another person's article or short story and put your name on it, or no name at all, and publish it?

I thought I explained my position already. what exactly do you want to know?

dont know how that first question mark got in there.

No you did not, you went on a side rant about pirated music and Danish feelings about it. You did not explain or justify why you believe it's acceptable to steal work from others and make a profit off of work you did not do.

Thank you Sicarius you have now answered half the question. Your position that it is sometimes acceptable to put you name for someone else work (and the fact you have said that there are grey areas would imply that it sometimes not acceptable.

Would you please now provide an example of where it would acceptable. And an example of where it would not be acceptable. And in the case of the former what would be the value of such an action?

Please understand I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am just trying to establish your position a bit more precisely.

It's situational. And I would rather not go into hypotheticals. I think plagarism allows change and improvement. Intention is 90% of it. If someone thinks something is a great idea, say, an essay, and wants to reprint it in say, a zine, with a bunch of other texts, how is the dissemination of that information bad?
People stealing inventions for money or recognition is an example of the 'other side' though I would hesitate to immediately label theft as universally "wrong". It's situational.

If I had to generalize though, as you all seem to want me to do, I would say plagarism facilitates the spread and change of ideas, focuses attention on the idea itself, and creates a more horizontal approach to information and is thus "good"

Putin what I am is pro-democracy. And because, from my view, communism results in autocracy, I am against communism.

It's as simple as that. I don't care to get drawn into class warfare rhetoric. Honestly on most of you points I don't disagree with you, I just wouldn't use so much vitriolic language.

However having a democracy for me is non-negotiable. And stop painting me as an America fanboy for Christ's sake we have a boatload of problems in our system.

I just don't happen to thing a dictatorship, planned economy, and persecution of a minority are the ways to fix it, much less possible goals.

About "persecution of a minority" yeah theyre fatcats yeah theyre slime balls but as I've said a person is a person and everyone deserves rights.

The way to go is not to strip the powerful of rights, but to empower the powerless.

It's better that way.

"It's situational. And I would rather not go into hypotheticals. I think plagarism allows change and improvement. Intention is 90% of it. If someone thinks something is a great idea, say, an essay, and wants to reprint it in say, a zine, with a bunch of other texts, how is the dissemination of that information bad?"

It isn't, unless he puts his name on it and claims its his. I won't go into intellectual property (which says it is illegal to do so) but as long as you dont claim the article for your self I dont see any major moral failings. But you can't convince me its ever ok to take someone else's work and claim it as your own, thats flat out stealing.

I find your ideas flabbergasting, it isn't spreading ideas if the proper person gets credit? how does it make it any better if another person puts his own name on it?

why cant a person write an article proposing additions or modifications of an existing work attributed to someone else like academics around the world do

They can and that isn't plagiarism. As long as credit is given, it is acceptable even in the circles of academia.

I know, it was a question to sic (sorry if you knew that already)

Ah, you were pointing out how easy it would be for him to get his idea sharing without plagiarizing others. Sort of a loaded question. Gotcha.

lack of punctuation made it difficult, and it was indeed meant to be a loaded question

>"It's situational. And I would rather not go into hypotheticals."

I think my requesting you to provide a specific example of where you thought it would be okay is reasonable. It would make your case clearer.

>"If I had to generalize though, as you all seem to want me to do..."

Actually I was asking you to be specific.

Since you won't provide a specific example, I will. The song "Bitter Sweet Symphony" by the Verve and written by Richard Ashcroft is credited to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards because of some legal nonsense, just because he used a small sample from one of the Rolling Stones recordings (the song would hardly be different without the sample). So legally there are circumstances where you can claim someone else's work as your own.

Sicarius if you believe what you say you should be prepared to back it up. You never know you might actually convince some people.

Intention matters. If the intention is to spread the idea/work/etc. I would say it probably not a bad thing. And as I mentioned before it allows the 'evolution' of ideas. Music is a great example. Each artist is influenced by the ones who came before.
If the intention is first and fore most for recognition or profit there is probably something rotten in denmark.

still doesnt explain why they can't credit the original when they ad to the evolution of ideas. Maybe you are talking more about intellectual property laws while we are more considering academic practice. No doubt that people should be able to use others ideas to forward the arts, humanities, and social sciences, but this simply doesnt preclude giving proper recognition to those who came before.

'Another incid­ental draw­back of our asso­ci­ation of ideas with spe­cific indi­vidu­als is that it pro­motes the accept­ance of these ideas in their ori­ginal form. The stu­dents who learn the philo­sophy of Descartes are encour­aged to learn it in its ortho­dox form, rather than learn­ing the parts which they find rel­ev­ant to their own lives and interests and com­bin­ing these parts with ideas from other sources. Out of defer­ence to the ori­ginal thinker, dei­fied as he is in our tra­di­tion, his texts and the­or­ies are to be pre­served as-is, without ever being put into new forms or con­texts which might reveal new insights. Mum­mi­fied as they are, many the­or­ies become com­pletely irrel­ev­ant to mod­ern exist­ence, when they could have been given a new lease on life by being treated with a little less reverence.'

Haven't read the thread, thought I'd just answer the original post directly:

No, but we do and I like it so please leave it alone.

What about government do you like figle?

I personally like how they try to keep crazy people off the streets :P

The government keeps crazy people off the streets? How?

By maintaining prisons and mental institutions :)

. o O ( By making them run for US President )

We have it; It works; No-one has shown me a comparable alternative.
Why on earth would I want to change from something I know works to something that might not?

Whether or not our current system is working is up to considerable debate.

Depending on where you get your sources, between 420-1800 species have gone extinct since the start of this thread.