So in fact, you are using it improperly. The "lion killing lion" comment was not directed at any position you had made, therefore I'm not creating or oversimplifying any position you hold. It was used to help explain what Hobbes meant by state of nature, that in a state of nature, humans do whatever they want for their own interests, including kill other humans, much like lions killing lions. In fact, I specifically went on to clarify that your position differs from that state of nature in the fact I understand you only wish to apply it where it does not harm others.

Also interesting that your definition of a straw man's argument is pulled verbatim from Wikipedia. You also have a very good memory for Latin phrases apparently. Please don't tell me we have another Wiki-scholar on our hands.

The Community College comment was cute also. Maybe you're pulling a Senator Craig? Me doth think ye protest too much.

Ad hominem

_________________

While wiki isn't necessarily reliable, it's no different than pulling it out of some textbook written by some no name. Those are rewritten/revised all the time.

p.s. ur all nerds.

You aren't serious that text books and wikipedia are essentially the same, are you?

I'm implying Joe Schmoe can look up logical fallacies in wiki and it'd be pretty similar information Joe McSnobbyAssElitist would gain from a debate/logic textbook, and that while more reliable than wikipedia, they aren't exempt from error. A further implication would be that someone really has no right to be snoody about a so-called "wiki-scholar" when their information is no more second-hand than the person they're ridiculing. Don't think anyone that posts here invented the definitions/categories for fallacies now.

--J.D.

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+ ... 97332.html

Was there anything else or are we done here?

One thing I'd add about that, Wiki of course isn't 100 percent reliable because it's editable. Obvious.

But the "OMG ITZ EDITABLE" with the horror music in the background is probably a bit over the top. What you have to understand is that for every 1 nincompoop there are about 10 other people watching the articles like hawks, especially those pertain to people's interests. I've seen erroneous shit taken down within a matter of hours, with the IP banned.

I'm sure people can probably do it, but let's try this challenge anyway: Find something inaccurate in wikipedia and back it up with a source. Until that point, no more talking about the inaccuracy of wikipedia(and even then, no more talking about the inaccuracy of wikipedia).

I think that sums it up right there, along with the fact that they found all these little changes(some of them very minor) by carefully tracking the changes made. Many changes get made(most of them about current events issues and politics rather than say, the history of Bulgaria), but few of them get by without getting noticed.

I love wiki -

Oh don't get me wrong, I think having a resource like Wikipedia online is a wonderful thing.

My reference doesn't have to do with the veracity of a source like Wiki, it has more to do with people whose knowledge-base seems entirely based on Wiki or similar sites. You can tell these people because although they can cut/paste, reference, or cite the proper pages, they sometimes can't comprehend the actual source they are citing. An example would be someone who cuts/pastes a definition of a strawman argument in an attempt to show an understanding of the subject, but then fails to apply it properly, thus showing no true understanding of the subject.

I agree second-hand material isn't that great. Wiki can be considered one huge second-hand material site, much like an encylopedia, and I'll reiterate that it doesn't make it bad, it just means it's a good place to start, and to know about a subject, you need to delve deeper to get to source material.

But linking something just to pretend you know something when you really don't, regardless of the topic.....not only is that disingenuous, it also makes you look a little silly.