Intellectual Dishonesty or a Lie

[rdean]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

To me a lie requires that the statment made is 100% untrue, and you know, for a fact, that the statement is untrue. If any part of it is open to interpretation then the use of the word "lie" is not mandated.

As for intellectual dishonesty, that is a term with far more ambiguity. Lets use a recent example from Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: Poll: GOP action hero Chris Christie has net negative approval rating

The article notes that Christie's approval is down, but trys to skew the reason towards people's dislike of his hardline stance on state workers, budget etc. However if you go to another site, you see one of the reasons being that people expected thier property taxes to go down more, and they didnt.

Poll: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie Attracting More Critics « CBS New York

This is not included in the Kos analysis, as it does not play towards the story they want to tell, it in fact means some people dont like Chirsties because he isnt cutting ENOUGH stuff to lower thier taxes.

The above to me intellectual dishonesty, as you state in point 1. its is not a lie, mearly spin.

You might want to consider looking at the entire poll rather than a few "bullet points". It would be more "intellectually honest".

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP39_1.pdf

I thought Republicans kicked "intellectuals" and "elitists" OUT of THEIR party?

 

[Ravi]

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.

All of us, as well as a few others, have attempted to address the OP. You, however, have pretty much dismissed out of hand what we've said.

IMO, you are simply looking for confirmation of what you already believe and aren't interested in an opposing viewpoint.

btw, telling others what to do or who to post to or ignore is just more of you looking for confirmation of your views.

 

[xsited1]

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.

Your post is a great example of being intellectually dishonest. Of course that is not tantamount to calling someone a liar and you know it. Very nice trolling. Very nice trolling indeed!

 

[Montrovant]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable facts while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

No time to read the whole thread at the moment, but I wanted to quickly respond.

No, I don't think the two are the same. Intellectual dishonesty will probably involve lying, but rather than lying to others it is lying to yourself. If you can convince yourself the lies you have told yourself are actually true, then you aren't lying to whoever you are arguing with. And with very strongly held beliefs people often have blinders they may not even realize are there when contrary information or evidence is presented.

 

[L.K.Eder]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:

.. And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.,..

having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

 

[HUGGY]

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

This thread is about torture? When did THAT happen? It's all LIES!!! I TELL YOU!!!!

 

[martybegan]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

To me a lie requires that the statment made is 100% untrue, and you know, for a fact, that the statement is untrue. If any part of it is open to interpretation then the use of the word "lie" is not mandated.

As for intellectual dishonesty, that is a term with far more ambiguity. Lets use a recent example from Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: Poll: GOP action hero Chris Christie has net negative approval rating

The article notes that Christie's approval is down, but trys to skew the reason towards people's dislike of his hardline stance on state workers, budget etc. However if you go to another site, you see one of the reasons being that people expected thier property taxes to go down more, and they didnt.

Poll: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie Attracting More Critics « CBS New York

This is not included in the Kos analysis, as it does not play towards the story they want to tell, it in fact means some people dont like Chirsties because he isnt cutting ENOUGH stuff to lower thier taxes.

The above to me intellectual dishonesty, as you state in point 1. its is not a lie, mearly spin.

You might want to consider looking at the entire poll rather than a few "bullet points". It would be more "intellectually honest".

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP39_1.pdf

I thought Republicans kicked "intellectuals" and "elitists" OUT of THEIR party?

No, we are still here, we are just hidden, just like the democrats who have the ability to cut entitlement spending.

 

[Valerie]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:

.. And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.,..

having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

She's being a disingenuous twit trying to bully and control others while using smiley faces and faux apologies to convince herself she's a good person. She's the kind of person who just loves to hear herself talk and now she has made progress in her argument by running from that thread and creating this thread. She has made sport of attacking me and has now convinced herself that I misunderstood her points, which I clearly did not, and NOW she further claims that I misunderstood them ON PURPOSE.

 

[Valerie]

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

This thread is about torture? When did THAT happen? It's all LIES!!! I TELL YOU!!!!

This thread IS torture! Be gentle, it's hard for her these days...

 

[L.K.Eder]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:

.. And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.,..

having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

what the fuck was i thinking.

foxfyre "mauls" nothing.

i meant "mewls".

 

[Ravi]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:

.. And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.,..

having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

She's being a disingenuous twit trying to bully and control others while using smiley faces and faux apologies to convince herself she's a good person. She's the kind of person who just loves to hear herself talk and now she has made progress in her argument by running from that thread and creating this thread. She has made sport of attacking me and has now convinced herself that I misunderstood her points, which I clearly did not, and NOW she further claims that I misunderstood them ON PURPOSE.

Yep. That would be libelous if this were real life. As would the accusation that I'm breaking the rules by having a sock puppet.

But hey, spreading false information about other posters is: Intellectual Dishonest or Lie?

 

[jillian]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:



having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

She's being a disingenuous twit trying to bully and control others while using smiley faces and faux apologies to convince herself she's a good person. She's the kind of person who just loves to hear herself talk and now she has made progress in her argument by running from that thread and creating this thread. She has made sport of attacking me and has now convinced herself that I misunderstood her points, which I clearly did not, and NOW she further claims that I misunderstood them ON PURPOSE.

Yep. That would be libelous if this were real life. As would the accusation that I'm breaking the rules by having a sock puppet.

But hey, spreading false information about other posters is: Intellectual Dishonest or Lie?

not when it's rightwingers doing it.

 

[editec]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable facts while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

Lying is setting out to deceive.

There's many ways to accomplish a deception.

 

[Valerie]

Okay Valerie, whom I like and respect very much, has outed herself which I was not going to do.

To the intellectually honest, it was pretty obvious what you were referring to!

It was indeed our exchange on that thread that got me to thinking about all of this and pondering whether I in fact did owe her a public apology.
I do apologize to Valerie for making an argument apparently so clumsily that it appeared to you and others than I was accusing you of lying. That was not my intent at all.

I never said you accused me of lying, I said you called me and everyone who agreed with the OP dishonest and you did... Over and over and over again to the point where I finally said something...

You are now making sport of extending that notion of dishonesty while making this grand gesture apology in an attempt make yourself look like the bigger person.

You had ALREADY apologized in the thread and in a rep where you told me you were withdrawing from the thread.


Your rep comment:

"Apologies if I have offended you personally. That was certainly not my motive nor intent and I always feel bad when people take it that way. I think I am being misquoted and misrepresented, but I withdrew from the thread and won't comment further."


Interesting choice of words, thinking in terms of motive and intent for some reason, when I never said anything about that. I was trying to be nice. The truth is, I just figured you aren't very smart and you were obviously missing the point, so I told you I had no hard feelings and that I understood and added 'nuff said' to reinforce your desire to not comment any further about it. I gladly let it go...

Once again I could not believe my eyes when I was working yesterday afternoon and upon refreshing the USMB page, I see you had the nerve to start this thread...

But I gently reject any conclusion that I have EVER demanded or expected anybody to agree with me at USMB. I have not. I did accuse you of intellectual dishonesty when you refused to consider my argument as anything other than advocacy for torture which it was not. And, in my mind, that was NOT accusing you of lying but rather of stubbornly holding your position and refusing to consider any mitigating factors that would require softening that position.

You gently pretend you weren't being disingenuous. " " And I absolutely considered every bit of what you posted. I merely pointed out, that your continued refusal to leave the "intellectually honest" qualifier out of your opinions was an insult to those who disagreed, and psst the intellectually honest can see that it is!

I do try very hard not to lie these days.

You sound like Glenn Beck!

I have been guilty of intellectual dishonesty in advocacy at times however. I would like to say I have acknowledged it when it has happened, but if I am intellectually honest, I don't know that I have in every single instance.

Thanks for sharing... I'm sure if you use the word honest in every sentence you utter you may seem wayyyy more honest to the intellectually dishonest...

I don't see myself as a bad person.

And I sure don't see Valerie as a bad person.

Well, that's a relief! Interesting how you need to go to such extremes. You certainly have a high opinion of your own opinion... YOU were too stubborn in that thread to just give your opinion and support your opinion without continually qualifying every statement with implications about intellectually honesty in an obvious attempt to put down and silence those who disagreed with you...

NOTE to EVERYBODY: I do NOT want to and will not reargue the thesis of that other thread here. Let's keep that over there and discuss intellectual dishonesty here please.

Earth to Foxfyre: Intellectual honesty requires a recognition that it was inevitable.

If you want to know the truth, I think you were the one being intellectually dishonest in that thread and I was just trying to be gracious about it...

The OP article was an absolute repudiation of torture. You posted several posts before del stepped in and said umm maybe you should read the article and then you admitted that you hadn't even bothered. Then you repeatedly said you did not support a policy of torture yet intellectual honesty requires that we consider that sometimes it may be necessary...


I told you I had considered all that and demonstrated the reasons why I still agree with an absolute repudiation policy. You then repeated at least a dozen times a reference to a movie where a Secret Service agent shot off a toe which you felt illustrated your point that sometimes torture may be necessary, and that understanding such required intellectual honesty...

I had never heard of the movie, but after seeing you mention it a few times and repeatedly claiming that no one had the courage to even address it, I asked you what you were referring to so that I could answer you. When I came back to the thread a few hours later I saw you claiming for the third or fourth time how no one had the courage to answer the big question about the toe. I seriously could not even believe my eyes at that point, and yet again I tried to be gracious about it...


Anther poster clued me in to the plot of the movie and I answered directly to your point a couple of times and still you proceeded yet AGAIN to reply to me with a claim that no one even considered your point with any intellectual honesty... Fact is, you repeated that over and over and over again about the toe and how intellectual honesty required seeing it your way... All the while not once ever acknowledging an understanding of what absolute repudiation means. Your repeated assertion was essentially that those who support absolute repudiation of torture must be intellectually dishonest...


I really didn't want to make a big deal about it because I don't think you were being malicious just maybe a bit confused... And I loathe to take threads personally.


Now this thread feels a bit like adding insult to injury, as I'm sure many people have no idea who posted what in that thread and won't bother to look... Now you chose to leave that thread and start this one where folks who don't know may actually think I was somehow being dishonest when I absolutely was not AT ALL.




And really, I was completely done with the thread 'til the next afternoon I saw you make a post a list of "unpleasantries" boldly and disingenuously asking if people considered them torture, after we had ALREADY established the day before that NO ONE posted anything about not wanting terrorists to experience "unpleasantries" as you repeatedly put it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ves-view-on-waterboarding-40.html#post3647146



In the end, I reiterated that the problem is not that we disagreed, and I never said you were wrong to have your opinion, but that your points did not change my opinion and that to continue to say intellectual honesty requires that we see the story with the toe as an illustration that sometimes torture is necessary, was insulting everyone who agreed with the OP...

I think you probably believe you are not even doing it and I believe you when you say that is not your intent, but someone had to let you know dear, the words are right there on the page for all to see... I appreciate the apology and the rep and everything but please reconsider your own intellectual honesty...

Now come on Valerie. I never said I had not read the piece. I almost never post in a thread without reading the OP. I said that I didn't need somebody else's opinion to form my own. Those are two very different things. I didn't even get into the thread until Post #360 and at that point it had long departed from the OP. I was responding to the discussion at that point.


Nor did I once ever suggest that torture be necessary as I define torture. So you are also misrepresenting what I said when you say that I did.

It's not up to YOU to define torture.

Nor did I accuse anyone specifically of being intellectually dishonest, but pointed out the best that I could that the argument was intellectually dishonest and tried to explain why. I have apologized privately to you and publically here for any misunderstanding about that or any failure on my part to explain that well. If that wasn't sufficient, I am sorry about that, and I doubt anything will change your mind.

Again, I was not making an argument I was stating my opinion and demonstrating the basis of my opinion in order to support the absolute repudiation stance from a conservative viewpoint. Not once did I feel the need to put-down or judge anyone who disagreed with me, the way you did. You attempted to intimidate people into agreeing with you by constantly couching every statement with the intellectual honesty qualifier.

You insisted that I was basing my opinion on the scene from the movie. You did not acknowledge when I rejected that and explained that I did not use the movie to form my opinion, but rather used the scene from the movie as an illustration for the point I was making. Again those are two very different things that will be acknowledged by the intellectually honest.

I did not insist. It was one of the last things I said before you told me you were withdrawing from the thread, so I dropped it. Again, intellectual honesty requires a recognition it is meaningless word semantics which are only useful in your attempt here to paint me as somehow dishonest.

I stated my opinion of the OP and then I demonstrated the basis of my opinion. You stated your opinion and the basis of your opinion is [illustrated in] this movie and if others can not see it they are being intellectually dishonest. As I said, fine if you want to disagree, just try not to take it all so personally and insult everyone's intelligence...

I saw one person's answer to the question I repeatedly asked from that movie. If anybody else answered it, I did miss it and all they had to do was refer me to the post where they did.

You obviously see whatever you want to see...



>>>

And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,

or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.

Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.

Foxfyre, I have no idea what you are talking about here... ^^^

>>

Of the posts of yours that I saw, you said something to the effect that it was not a debate but a discussion--I was debating however. . .

You mean the posts you choose to remember... And this statement you managed to remember was also included in the last post I made to you.

. . . . and you disapproved of the illustration I was using.

More dishonesty on your part... I don't go out of my way to put people down like you do. I never said I disapproved. Your ego obviously can't handle disagreements.

And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.

"Trashing" you is your perception of people responding to your posts. Stop playing the victim and accept that your posts provoked a negative response.

Yeah you don't give neg rep, you just run off and obfuscate with a spin off thread...

FTR - I gave you POS rep in that thread.

I believe intellectual honesty requires not misquoting people, not misrepresenting the point they are making, and not drawing conclusions from statements that don't exist. And when we realize we did misunderstand what somebody said, or they have corrected a statement they did not mean to say in the way they said it, intellectual honesty requires that we acknowledge and accept that unless there is strong reason not to.

I'm sure couching every statement with "intellectual honesty" makes you feel smart and honest and all, but really you look pretty disingenuous here. You are deluded if you think I misquoted or misrepresented anything...

So if somebody asks me, a conservative, whether I condone torture, I can unequivocably say no, I do not. And I will personally do whatever I can to ensure that torture is not the policy of our country.

However. . . .

If somebody has information that could prevent somebody committing an imminent 9/11 or otherwise kill or maim hundreds or thousands of innocent people, most especially if it was people I care about, I can honestly say I won't care what they do to him to get the information to save those people.

I accept that you saw me as intellectually dishonest. I am sorry about that. And if I cannot correct that by referring you back to the arguments I made, so be it. I am using this as an illustration for intellectual honesty or dishonesty, but again I do not wish to redebate the thesis of that other thread over here.

You said you were sorry and I accepted that, but now after starting this thread and the comments you're making here, I really don't believe you are... I think you are being a disingenuous twit who loves to hear herself talk. That thread bothered you so much you had to start this thread to try to obfuscate and in an attempt to ease your own conscience you are attempting to paint me as having been dishonest. It truly saddens and disappoints me...

 

[Sheldon]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:

.. And once I became the focus of that discussion and the focus became discrediting or trashing me, and Ravi and her sock puppet decided I needed to be neg repped, I withdrew. I don't do that to others, and I choose not to be sport for others in that way. It was obvious I would not be allowed to participate in any further 'idscussion' of the subject and there was no point.,..

having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

what the fuck was i thinking.

foxfyre "mauls" nothing.

i meant "mewls".

False dichotomy. Mewling and mauling are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[HUGGY]

OK I'll say it!! Valerie!! Youz a damn no count liar!!!

I have no idea what the fuck happened to this thread but if you ain't no damn no count liar ...you should be..cuz nobody gonna read your WHOLE PAGE BULLSHIT REPLY!!!

It might as well be a damn lie.. it never takes THAT many words to tell the truth!!!

Just sayin..

 

[Valerie]

OK I'll say it!! Valerie!! Youz a damn no count liar!!!

I have no idea what the fuck happened to this thread but if you ain't no damn no count liar ...you should be..cuz nobody gonna read your WHOLE PAGE BULLSHIT REPLY!!!

It might as well be a damn lie.. it never takes THAT many words to tell the truth!!!

Just sayin..

A world record long post for me for sure! It's exhausting!

Half of those words belong to someone else though, to be fair... It just didn't feel right at this point, not to respond to her continual disingenuous implications...


Thanks for bringing the thread back up though!

 

[Ravi]

The intellectually honest would respond.

But hey, we're taking about Foxfyre.

 

[Ravi]

almost everyon of my posts was on topic.

the topic is intellectual dishonesty.

for example this bullet point offered by the OP:

• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.

and this example of intellectual dishonesty used by the OP later:



having a sockpuppet on this board is not allowed. having one is dishonest. using that sockpuppet to neg-rep another poster is a cowardly technique.

foxfyre accuses ravi of doing this, and has no ability to defend this accusation. foxfyre also whines and mauls in the cited paragraph like a little drama-queen.

foxfyre needs to do some soulsearching.

this thread is a big old "tell me i was right, and if you disagree, shut up"- spiel.

in my opinion of course, as i am not able to defend this accusation.

what the fuck was i thinking.

foxfyre "mauls" nothing.

i meant "mewls".

False dichotomy. Mewling and mauling are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Grace]

I guess most of you are right. I don't have thick enough skin to be here at usmb.
I like so many of you. Enjoy your posts. Love teasing with you. Admire a lot of folks here. Seeing this thread go the way it is bothers me because I flat don't know what to say. It just makes me really....sad.

Y'all are turning on yourselves and beginning to take bites. Big bites.