Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quote Mining, false witness for the gullible and willfully ignorant
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4 of 49 (814370)
07-08-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
07-06-2017 8:42 AM


Here's a good read on the subject;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Quote_mining
quote:
Evolutionists are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the dogmatic nature of their faith, because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see scientific method). While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to discredit him, evolutionists do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice. They have tried to make quote mining a pejorative term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries.
EvC could probably have its bandwidth crippled with examples of dishonest quoting by the mainstream media concerning Donald Trump in the past 6 months. Quote mining is also rampant by the political left in its responses to critics of the global warming movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2017 8:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 07-08-2017 8:55 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 07-08-2017 9:09 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2017 9:22 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 07-08-2017 11:39 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 14 of 49 (814392)
07-08-2017 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
07-08-2017 8:05 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
You do realize that this site is a laughing stock for rational people that choose fact over fiction, yes?
This excerpt you cite is so funny.
Always good for a laugh.
Thanks.
Certainly you found some parts of it funnier than others, right? How about this line, from that link;
quote:
They have tried to make quote mining a pejorative term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries.
That was a real knee-slapper, wasn't it?
This subject reminds me of another liberal idea that came about a few decades ago. Several variations of it came to light in the early days of the www, when this type of written debate forum was fairly new. Some thinkers on college campuses were sometimes having trouble in oral debates with conservatives in front of audiences, so they came up with lists of logical fallacies. It was a way to slow or stop a debate, take it in an unrelated direction, to stop the bleeding. Since some, but not all, of the "fallacies" were slanted to favor liberal thinking, it was also a way to help a liberal "win" in a judged debate. It didn't work very well, (I've never seen it referred to here at EvC) The reason is simple, liberals quickly found out that when they accused a conservative of committing a fallacy, they could correctly be shown that they themselves actually committed more than the conservative. "Poisoning the wells", and "Argument by dismissal" are two that you committed here. (they're described in the above list) Argument by emotive language is a biggie for atheists, message 5 above is an example, and of course EvC is loaded with it in just about every thread.
Accusations of quote mining by the political left will fail quickly also, I'm sure you'll appreciate this heads up from me.
Probably the biggest quote mine in U.S. history happened about 70 years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court took a quote mine from a Thomas Jefferson letter to a religious denomination that was intended to agree with them concerning the importance of religious liberty. The "separation of church and state" quote mine was used to change/lessen traditional Judeo Christian involvement in government. The phrase was taken completely out of the context it was intended for well over a hundred years earlier.
Today, the 14th amendment is being quote mined to attempt to grant illegal immigrants constitutional rights, as if illegal immigrants are in any way comparable to (in 1868) recently freed slaves who were brought to the U.S. against their will. Again, completely out of context, far more than most or all examples that you gave in message 1, or that you can find more of concerning creationists quote mining atheists.
These are only two (one past, one present) of countless quote mining in all areas of liberalism. I see already there are demands of more more more, but I'm having a busy, productive summer and see no reason to spend a couple of hours researching something that will be dismissed in 5 seconds by a group of angry people. I only have a few basic points to make - my side's not been losing elections lately.
I don't deny that some creationists sometimes do cross the line when quoting scientists, but if you want to try to convince people that many Democrats / atheists, whether they're militant atheist scientists or militant Trump haters, don't do the same and probably worse, you're not going to succeed.
I think you'd do well to drop it, but I hope you don't. Your side hasn't won an election in a while, you and the mainstream news media need to keep right on doing what you're doing to keep it that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2017 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2017 12:31 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2017 12:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2017 2:12 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 6:00 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 24 of 49 (814405)
07-09-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
07-09-2017 6:00 AM


Re: It's a good laugh
It was marc, in fact it was that totally logic free statement uttered as if it were the death toll on the term that really set me howling ... with laughter. The dictionaries don't define every two word combination.
"Open compound words" are two words with a space between them, but when they are read together a new meaning is formed. Examples;
science fiction
school bus
runner up
check in
half mast
self respect
send off
living room
full moon
black eye
jump rope
You'll find all these at http://www.dictionary.com/. But you won't find "quote mine" there. So what was stated in my opening link was exactly right. Still laughing? I'm not, just saddened.
Since you NEVER concede points, I'll just stop there for today. And I'm not going to feed the rest of the trolls, all out of troll food today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 6:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2017 2:53 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 5:53 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2017 1:56 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 27 of 49 (814412)
07-09-2017 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
07-09-2017 2:53 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
You think that because a phrase is not in a dictionary it's some sort of victory for creationism? Are you really this desperate?
Uh, noooo. I proved that a statement from my link, that RAZD went into convulsive laughter about, is a true statement. Try to keep up. Are you really this unhinged?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2017 2:53 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 07-09-2017 3:18 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2017 3:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 31 of 49 (814437)
07-09-2017 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
07-09-2017 5:53 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
And you will note that my response was:
... The dictionaries don't define every two word combination.
That was your edited response, yes. Your original that I got in the email notification read like this;
The dictionaries don't define two word terms.
You knee-jerked, then decided you'd better do a quick refresher on some high school English. Don't feel bad, No Nukes did an edit job too. He launched into some name calling, then accused ME of "bluster". He edited out the name calling, but left the "bluster" part in. (as a member of a gang of posters) There's not a cutting instrument on earth that could cut through all this irony.
So funny. I bet they don't define "gullible fool" either.
Hmm, name calling from the one the trolls declare the winner. Some things just don't make much sense, do they?
Haven't you noticed that everyone (that replied) is laughing at you on this?
You're mistaking "laughing at me" to "covering for you". Remember, the sentence from my link that you "howled" at, still hasn't been proven false. Ringo might know of a dictionary that defines quote mining, but apparently it's a secret.
You're a long-time poster here who's loved and adored. You're excellent at starting and maintaining evolutionist love-fests. That's all this forum is about - not sure if it's been that way since its beginning or not. There can never be any meaningful, adult discussion here concerning creation vs evolution. It's gotten so I can't say 2 words without having 5 trolls immediately on my back. Most here would say that's because my views are so radical, but they don't get out much.
So carry on with more detail about creationist quote mining as though liberals never do it. You'll be believed by 99% of the people..... on this forum. Outside of this forum, not so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 5:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 8:17 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2017 8:39 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 34 of 49 (814631)
07-11-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
07-09-2017 8:17 PM


Re: It's a good laugh LOLZ again
Can you tell me how you justify the age of the earth? Just curious ... (*)
That's an attempt to completely change the subject. I think the moderators call it OFF TOPIC.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (too easy). Thanks for the entertainment.
The pleasure was all mine. Good luck in November of 2018!
** oh by the way, that's an edit after posting to add material ... oops I did it again ...
Yes, another VERY desperate attempt to change the subject. Don't worry, I'm almost done in this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 8:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2017 11:56 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 35 of 49 (814636)
07-11-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
07-09-2017 8:39 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
I did do that. I thought the name calling was inappropriate. I still think that. But I also think that "quote mining" not being in the dictionary is a stupid argument. I won't be removing the insult this time.
You can thank RAZD for it being this much a part of this thread. It was only a small part of the link I put up in my first message in the thread, message 4. He "howled with laughter" at the whole link, and then specifically howled with laughter again when I pointed out the lack of definition, in message 20, without knowing a thing about the reality of two-word definitions. And in message 20, he got a green approval dot from an administrator here. As I alluded to earlier, he's loved and adored here NO MATTER WHAT he says or does. Either that, or "howling with laughter" is now a part of the scientific method, I don't know.
The term "quote mine" not being formally defined is significant however. It's now a largely meaningless term, completely subjective in how it's applied and defined. For it to be defined, the definition would probably have to have a step-by-step method of determining the difference between a dishonest quote mine versus honestly using someone's quote against them. I don't expect it to ever happen, it would call into question many quote mines that liberals/evolutionists hold dear. Separation of church and state, your 14th amendment applied to illegal immigrants, and one of John Adam's quotes about the U.S. having nothing to do with Christianity is another liberal favorite.
PS. Thank YOU also for your entertainment. Please don't pile on with subject change attempts, I'm done here for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2017 8:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2017 1:33 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 10:57 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2017 11:05 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 40 of 49 (814776)
07-12-2017 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
07-12-2017 11:56 AM


Re: It's a good laugh LOLZ again
marc9000 writes:
That's an attempt to completely change the subject. I think the moderators call it OFF TOPIC.
And that's a dodge so you can keep from saying anything of value on any topic.
How about it, Adminnemooseus? You've deleted the content in messages 15 and 16, and now in messages 32 & 39 I'm being taunted to go completely off topic. If I replied to his taunts here, would my replies be deleted, and his taunts stay up?
I hope you'll settle this disagreement here, I say the "age of the earth" is completely off topic in this thread, and RAZD seems to think it's not. If you don't answer, or if you answer incorrectly, I won't be able to satisfy his desire for an "age of the earth" debate. (in a new thread, of course) It could be a one-on-one, or here in the Coffee House, if he needs ALLLLLL his usual helpers. His choice.
If you agree that his taunts ARE off topic, I'll have to be in agreement with whatever disciplinary measures are taken against him, be it a warning, or suspension. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2017 11:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-12-2017 9:18 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2017 6:39 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024