* * *

You put forth your default position regarding sexual experimentation and promiscuity and so you have undertaken your own burden to fetch and carry.

If you had expressed interest in something your TA had mentioned, or that your professor had mentioned, either one of them would reasonably suggest that you pursue your interest at the library.

If you stomped your foot and demanded that you be spoonfed, then, yes, you'd be considered in light of the standards for a competent 'Stanford student'. Moreso if you undertook a burden and then refused to carry it while demanding that the TA or professor do fetch and carry for you.

End of conversation.

Hypothetical Situation #2:
Mairm: According to research done by Dr. Schadenfreude and her peers, people who eat only one type of cheese are more likely to explode. (www.url)
KC: I checked out that website. It's really interesting how they found that gouda causes more explosions than gruyere. I hope they do more research soon, since the study says that this is based on preliminary evidence. I don't really understand your reasoning. How does this relate to dog treats?
Mairm: Well, if you refer to page 6 of the study, you can see the animals used in the test groups have the same physiology as dogs (www.url). Some investigative journalism by Rick Soandso found that many dog breeders use cheese as treats for their dogs. Here's the article (www.url). So if cheese causes explosions and these breeders are feeding their dogs cheese, it could be very dangerous for us to legalize cheese as an ingredient in dog treats, as you were suggesting.
KC: Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me those links. This really shakes up beliefs on the issue. But we still have to think about the cheese manufacturers, and how they would...

NOMers, Which situation do you think is better?

Wow, now you're asking me if I'm someone by the name of "J Stone," and telling me that expecting a basic level of research etiquette is lazy. Anything to get out of posting the source of the study you cited.
If I wrote a paper, didn't cite any evidence, and then told my TA that they're asking me to "fetch and carry," when they ask for sources...well, I would be kicked out of Stanford. Heck, any competent high school student knows better than that.

So stop avoiding the issue. Stop questioning my identity. Show some basic human decency (although that may be hard to ask of someone who actively supports denying rights to other tax-paying, law abiding human beings). Seriously, Chairm, if you can't even copy and paste a URL, I think it's *your* competence we should be questioning, not mine.

Readers will note that you do not deny evidence exists for my earlier comment, just that it has not been fetched and carried for you.

You have pre-emptively discarded evidence, anyway, and you've taken on the burden of explaining your previous and speculative remarks about the concrete way that promiscuity and experimentation is an advantage.

Besides, youj laid your cards on the table and admitted that whatever evidence you'd find would not matter to your viewpoint.

A competent 'Standford student' would not declare predrawn conclusions to be the default position and then demand others do fetch and carry. You did.

A competent 'Standford student' would not make political statements disguised as social scientific statements and use "therefore" as a link to a non sequitor.

Meanwhile, what you did do in your earlier pro-SSM comment was to take on the burden of arguing in favor of the default positon that promiscuity for youngsters is a positive advantage, in some 'concrete' way. You took on the burfden of providing a logical explanation for society showing preference for sexual promiscuity and experimentation. And by association, you have tied it to your viewpoint on SSM.

You did that. Not I.

* * *

LT, for the record, do you also comment in the blogosphere under the monikers "miles" and "J. Stone"?

Sorry if my background leads me to expect proper citations. You see, Stanford students call using unsupported evidence "B.S." The administration calls it "plagiarism." Either way, if you're going to claim a study as key evidence for your argument, you should have a source. It doesn't have to be MLA/APA formatted. Just a simple URL would do.

Also, have you heard the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? This principle is plays a key role in the judiciary system, but also in classical argumentative structure. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to back it up with at least two pieces of (cited) evidence and strong reasoning. Therefore, until *you* can prove why a study about promiscuity is relevant to the issue of marriage equality and why promiscuity is a bad thing, you're simply capitalizing on the sex-negative attitudes of pro-family groups.

P.S. To any prospective college students reading this: Do not use the "Chairm research method." Practice good research skills. Cite your evidence. Develop a clear, supportable, argumentative thesis.

P.P.S. Education should be America's highest priority. Please donate money to a school district in need.