Intellectual Dishonesty or a Lie

[Valerie]

Does it really thrill you to derail threads L.K.? Is that the only thing you can find to do that entertains you? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Okay, I just found this somewhat different definition of Intellectual Dishonesty that may or may not be better than mine:

• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
  
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
  
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

You mean like the way you derailed a thread about absolute repudiation of torture being a conservative viewpoint and turned it into yet another thread pointing fingers at supposedly intellectually dishonest lefties and yammering on about no one having the courage to answer a question about some movie with a toe...?


This thread is an illustration of your need to take comfort in the hypothetical and your intellectual inability to face the reality of the situation... You made your points in that thread and many people disagreed. Get over it.

 

[Ravi]

I don't have a sock puppet.

True.

You have several.

^^^ Speaking of dishonesty...





BTW, manitool, I thoroughly object to your using my photo as your avatar!

Mani has been lying about me since 2004.

 

[Ravi]

i neg-repped her for whining about neg-rep and for her whole behaviour in the torture thread.

i will do it again for her behaviour in this thread.

but i am not your sock puppet.

it just so happens that several individual posters can come to the same conclusion about a third poster.

enjoy your neg-rep, foxfyre.

LOL! I get it, Lumpy's paranoia has spread.

It's pretty funny that she talks trash about me and won't even honestly address it when I question her. In fact, she just ignores it.

There's a name for that.

You lie your ass off!

If you meant to do that...clever.

 

[Wiseacre]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Does it really thrill you to derail threads L.K.? Is that the only thing you can find to do that entertains you? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Okay, I just found this somewhat different definition of Intellectual Dishonesty that may or may not be better than mine:

• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
  
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
  
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

i am keeping this on track, i entertain myself, and i am doing it while confronting you with your own intellectual dishonesty. that's what irks you.

now what was that about sockpuppets?

why did you post that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Does it really thrill you to derail threads L.K.? Is that the only thing you can find to do that entertains you? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Okay, I just found this somewhat different definition of Intellectual Dishonesty that may or may not be better than mine:

• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
  
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
  
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

You mean like the way you derailed a thread about absolute repudiation of torture being a conservative viewpoint and turned it into yet another thread pointing fingers at supposedly intellectually dishonest lefties and yammering on about no one having the courage to answer a question about some movie with a toe...?


This thread is an illustration of your need to take comfort in the hypothetical and your intellectual inability to face the reality of the situation... You made your points in that thread and many people disagreed. Get over it.

I won't take back my apology Valerie. But I no longer give you credit for inadvertently misunderstanding what I was saying. I now think it was more on purpose.

I will not be responding to Ravi, L.K. or Valerie further until they decide to join the topic of this thread. I hope nobody else will either.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

You're probably right that the subject should never have been brought up. But I have long given up on why certain subjects interest me or why I enjoy exploring them. But respectfully restating your position does not work with the intellectually dishonest.

I wonder how many really do come to USMB hoping for coherant conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas?

 

[Wiseacre]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

You're probably right that the subject should never have been brought up. But I have long given up on why certain subjects interest me or why I enjoy exploring them. But respectfully restating your position does not work with the intellectually dishonest.

I wonder how many really do come to USMB hoping for coherant conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas?

First, I'm not speaking about the specific instance that led to this thread, but rather the subject in general. Not sure anything worls with the intellectually dishonest. At some point one realizes that further discussion is not likely to be worthwhile, when characterization of yourself or your position enters the conversation then it's time to pull out. If one wants to engage in verbal combat, by all means go for it but at that point it's merely a verbal foodfight.

Re the discussion about lying and intetellectual dishonesty. Seems to me that such a judgement requires knowledge of what the other person knows, how can you be sure a person is lying if you are not certain that the person knows and understands the facts and is deliberately disseminating falsehoods. Personally I just don't care to worry about it, at least not in a internet forum anyway.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

And no, I am not alluding to Ravi at all.

It's called 'A distinction with a difference' --- look IT up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

You're probably right that the subject should never have been brought up. But I have long given up on why certain subjects interest me or why I enjoy exploring them. But respectfully restating your position does not work with the intellectually dishonest.

I wonder how many really do come to USMB hoping for coherant conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas?

Not all positions are worthy of serious consideration, unless of course one dumbs down the conversation so low as to make an exchange of ideas meaningless.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

You're probably right that the subject should never have been brought up. But I have long given up on why certain subjects interest me or why I enjoy exploring them. But respectfully restating your position does not work with the intellectually dishonest.

I wonder how many really do come to USMB hoping for coherant conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas?

First, I'm not speaking about the specific instance that led to this thread, but rather the subject in general. Not sure anything worls with the intellectually dishonest. At some point one realizes that further discussion is not likely to be worthwhile, when characterization of yourself or your position enters the conversation then it's time to pull out. If one wants to engage in verbal combat, by all means go for it but at that point it's merely a verbal foodfight.

Re the discussion about lying and intetellectual dishonesty. Seems to me that such a judgement requires knowledge of what the other person knows, how can you be sure a person is lying if you are not certain that the person knows and understands the facts and is deliberately disseminating falsehoods. Personally I just don't care to worry about it, at least not in a internet forum anyway.

I'm not speaking about the interchange that prompted this thread either and this thread was never intended to be personal but to honestly look at the concept of intellectual honesty.

And agreed on the food fights. They rarely lead anywhere but more food fight. But moving on. . . .

We all know of incidents in which we are reasonably certain of our facts and know when somebody is saying things that just aren't true. And we can't know whether the person is intentionally speaking those untrue things or whether he or she really believes what he or she is saying. There I always give the other person benefit of the doubt.

But when you make an argument, backed up with credible sources, that effectively discredits the other person's point, and the other person still keeps repeating the same untruths, then the question of intellectual honesty does become an issue.

And even then is it intellectual dishonesty? Or ideological brainwashing that makes it impossible for the other to see the truth?

It then does indeed become subjective.

And I don't worry about it either. I just thought it an interesting concept to explore. Or not.

 

[Grace]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

And no, I am not alluding to Ravi at all.

Liar liar pants on fire! I know in your heart you werer referring to Ravi. This makes you a liar liar. Nose growing. LIAR!!

"How so do you know my intent? Are you in my head?"

"YES! I know because I KNOW. You are a LIAR".

(This is for scenario purposes only ^).

"Do I look fat in this dress?"

"Um."

"Asshole".

"wtf? Yer butt IS fat but you are still beautiful"
**********************************************************
"Isn't my baby the prettiest you have ever seen?"

"Yes." (thinking that is one homely baby).

There are lies and there are opinions. To state a fact as truth or lie is nothing but an opinion someone else finds wrong because it doesn't match their own and therefore some jump to conclusions, label someone a liar, and the fight is on.

And there you have it. My 3 scents.

 

[Foxfyre]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

And no, I am not alluding to Ravi at all.

Liar liar pants on fire! I know in your heart you werer referring to Ravi. This makes you a liar liar. Nose growing. LIAR!!

"How so do you know my intent? Are you in my head?"

"YES! I know because I KNOW. You are a LIAR".

(This is for scenario purposes only ^).

"Do I look fat in this dress?"

"Um."

"Asshole".

"wtf? Yer butt IS fat but you are still beautiful"
**********************************************************
"Isn't my baby the prettiest you have ever seen?"

"Yes." (thinking that is one homely baby).

There are lies and there are opinions. To state a fact as truth or lie is nothing but an opinion someone else finds wrong because it doesn't match their own and therefore some jump to conclusions, label someone a liar, and the fight is on.

And there you have it. My 3 scents.

LOL. Thanks Grace. But don't stir the pot. I'm hoping the food fight has passed.

 

[Grace]

Why bother to accuse anybody of lying or intellectual dishonesty or spreading misinformation? I see it a lot in the short time I've been here, but there's no real gain to be had. You can take the high road and respectfully restate your position and refute theirs or take the low road and call 'em a fuckin' asshole.

Not that I would even think of saying such a thing to either of you charming and intelligent ladies.

You're probably right that the subject should never have been brought up. But I have long given up on why certain subjects interest me or why I enjoy exploring them. But respectfully restating your position does not work with the intellectually dishonest.

I wonder how many really do come to USMB hoping for coherant conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas?

Not a hell of a whole lot, from what I've been seeing.

 

[Grace]

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

And no, I am not alluding to Ravi at all.

Liar liar pants on fire! I know in your heart you werer referring to Ravi. This makes you a liar liar. Nose growing. LIAR!!

"How so do you know my intent? Are you in my head?"

"YES! I know because I KNOW. You are a LIAR".

(This is for scenario purposes only ^).

"Do I look fat in this dress?"

"Um."

"Asshole".

"wtf? Yer butt IS fat but you are still beautiful"
**********************************************************
"Isn't my baby the prettiest you have ever seen?"

"Yes." (thinking that is one homely baby).

There are lies and there are opinions. To state a fact as truth or lie is nothing but an opinion someone else finds wrong because it doesn't match their own and therefore some jump to conclusions, label someone a liar, and the fight is on.

And there you have it. My 3 scents.

LOL. Thanks Grace. But don't stir the pot. I'm hoping the food fight has passed.

I don't have my long assed spoon so I'm not stirring the pot. Might be jiggling it a bit, but then I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that.

 

[Valerie]

Since "racist" and "bigot" have lost their bite, it is the new insult to silence the opposing views.

That is true. BUT. . . .

Is calling other members 'racist' and 'bigot' to silence them an illustration of intellectual dishonesty?

Why do you assume they say it in order "to silence them"? Are posters not responsible for their own silence?

 

[Valerie]

Does it really thrill you to derail threads L.K.? Is that the only thing you can find to do that entertains you? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Okay, I just found this somewhat different definition of Intellectual Dishonesty that may or may not be better than mine:

• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
  
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
  
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

You mean like the way you derailed a thread about absolute repudiation of torture being a conservative viewpoint and turned it into yet another thread pointing fingers at supposedly intellectually dishonest lefties and yammering on about no one having the courage to answer a question about some movie with a toe...?


This thread is an illustration of your need to take comfort in the hypothetical and your intellectual inability to face the reality of the situation... You made your points in that thread and many people disagreed. Get over it.

I won't take back my apology Valerie. But I no longer give you credit for inadvertently misunderstanding what I was saying. I now think it was more on purpose.

I will not be responding to Ravi, L.K. or Valerie further until they decide to join the topic of this thread. I hope nobody else will either.

Speaking of trying to silence...

 

[Valerie]

Foxfyre is trying to bully me off of my stance of absolute repudiation of torture. Wa!

 

[Wiseacre]

Since "racist" and "bigot" have lost their bite, it is the new insult to silence the opposing views.

That is true. BUT. . . .

Is calling other members 'racist' and 'bigot' to silence them an illustration of intellectual dishonesty?

Why do you assume they say it in order "to silence them"? Are posters not responsible for their own silence?

I think every poster IS responsible for their own silence, no one has to respond to somebody who has resorted to demagoguery or insults. I don't think it's meant to silence anybody, it's more likely you'll get an angry response. If it's done to avoid a losing discussion when you've run out of ammo, I'd call that intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Toro]

If you claim that the intellectually honest will agree with your point, then you are implying that those that don't agree with your point are being dishonest.

So yes, that would be tantamount to calling someone a liar.

There are different types of intellectual dishonesty. For instance, basing your beliefs on fantasy means you are pretty much lying to yourself. But that's a subject for another thread.

it is a totally cowardly smarmy tactic.

everyone who is beautiful, intelligent and powerful will agree with me about that.

I am all of those.

And coincidentally I agree with you!