Intellectual Dishonesty or a Lie

[Sheldon]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The thread title is a false dichotomy imo. Intellectual dishonesty IS a lie, just that the lie is internal.

Okay I see your point.

My thesis in a nutshell, however,--I think--is that if you do not intend to be untruthful, it is not a lie.

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

A mistake is not intended to be a mistake.

Error is not intended to be an error.

And intellectual dishonesty is not intended to be a lie.

I'm not sure how to parse that post. Look--

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

That sentence is at odds with each half of itself, and the rest of the post. The Earther statement wasn't a lie if the people really believed it. And if someone tells a lie, they are by definition a liar. You conflated incorrect statement with lie; lying is a matter of intention, as you stated in the rest of the post.

This thread is spinning in a bunch of semantic mud I think.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The thread title is a false dichotomy imo. Intellectual dishonesty IS a lie, just that the lie is internal.

Okay I see your point.

My thesis in a nutshell, however,--I think--is that if you do not intend to be untruthful, it is not a lie.

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

A mistake is not intended to be a mistake.

Error is not intended to be an error.

And intellectual dishonesty is not intended to be a lie.

I'm not sure how to parse that post. Look--

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

That sentence is at odds with each half of itself, and the rest of the post. The Earther statement wasn't a lie if the people really believed it. And if someone tells a lie, they are by definition a liar. You conflated incorrect statement with lie; lying is a matter of intention, as you stated in the rest of the post.

This thread is spinning in a bunch of semantic mud I think.

if you were intellectually honest, you would see all this her way, shelly.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It has always been my opinion that two people can strongly disagree on something and neither be evil. Or even necessarily wrong.

But somewhere in there, one or both will be intellectually dishonest if they continue to insist that the other person is wrong.

Aside from my current wife.

every woman that I have ever known, once she has learned that she is wrong, will change the subject.

Can anyone give me some incite into why?

Well, I won't say that your implied evaluation of all women is correct and I KNOW that men are not immune to that particular phenomenon, but intellectual dishonesty is sometimes a defense mechanism.

Probably we have all at some time experienced that terrible moment in the middle of a heated argument in which we realize we were wrong.

The intellectually honest will fess up.

The weak, insecure, and intellectually timid won't.

It's as simple as that.

Lying makes me sick to my stomach. I get knots and a bile taste in my mouth.

Better to just admit you may not have all the proper info, than change the subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The thread title is a false dichotomy imo. Intellectual dishonesty IS a lie, just that the lie is internal.

Okay I see your point.

My thesis in a nutshell, however,--I think--is that if you do not intend to be untruthful, it is not a lie.

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

A mistake is not intended to be a mistake.

Error is not intended to be an error.

And intellectual dishonesty is not intended to be a lie.

I'm not sure how to parse that post. Look--

When people really believed the Earth was flat, it was a lie, but they weren't liars when they told the lie.

That sentence is at odds with each half of itself, and the rest of the post. The Earther statement wasn't a lie if the people really believed it. And if someone tells a lie, they are by definition a liar. You conflated incorrect statement with lie; lying is a matter of intention, as you stated in the rest of the post.

This thread is spinning in a bunch of semantic mud I think.

I do not believe that there is a Santa Claus as portrayed in the "Twas the Night Before Christmas' theme. If I say there is a Santa Claus in that context, I am telling a lie. I am intentionally repeating an untruth.

A small child who believes with all his heart that such a persona exists, however, can say "There is a Santa Claus" and not be lying in the least even though what he is saying is a lie.

Perhaps we are both saying the same thing here? Or not?

Why do you see it as semantic mud?

I think others are seeing my point whether or not they agree with it.

 

[HUGGY]

Okay. If you apply strict definition of a lie being that which is not true, I can't argue with your reasoning here.

And he who tells a lie is a liar.

But, if we are intellectually honest, does believing and repeating what one honestly believes to be true that in fact is not true make one a liar?

I do hold a strict definition of the meaning of the word "lie". And doing so I am accusing EVERYONE including myself of telling a lie from time to time. We are human beings and subject to error. SOOOooo..?? What is a liar? Is EVERYONE a liar? This is where I offer a more reasonable approach. One can pull them self back from the brink of being a liar by owning up to their "mistake". Those that refuse to do so once they understand the error are in fact liars. Just because another individual calls into question the truth of a statement it is no proof of a lie. Some lies are harder than others to ferret out and in some cases the original statement and the opposing statement are BOTH lies.

How about when the absolute truth cannot be known? Is it a lie to forward a speculation as if it is the absolute truth? Yes. That is a lie because it is an attempt to create truth based on a bias and in false support of that bias. That is dishonest and one of the pillars of the definition of a lie.

Careful Huggy. You're in serious danger of negating your own opening post and validating mine.

But you have raised an interesting point and one that I should have included as a bullet point. Advancing what we can't know or support as truth as truth, just because we so desperately want it to be truth, is absolutely one of my definitions of Intellectual Dishonesty.

Lies!!!!! ALL LIES!!!!!

 

[Valerie]

When you repeatedly reply to someone who has been posting with you in a thread, and responding conscientiously to every single point you make, and you continually reply to them that they have not considered the topic with any intellectual honesty or that intellectual honesty requires that they see things your way, then yeah that comes across as saying that person is being dishonest...




A couple of people translated that into meaning Foxy called Valerie a liar...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ves-view-on-waterboarding-43.html#post3650107


FTR - I told Foxfyre privately that day that I understood and have no hard feelings...


I really tried not to make too big of a deal over it...

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

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.

I do try very hard not to lie these days.

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.

I don't see myself as a bad person.

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

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.

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...

 

[Foxfyre]

When you repeatedly reply to someone who has been posting with you in a thread, and responding conscientiously to every single point you make, and you continually reply to them that they have not considered the topic with any intellectual honesty or that intellectual honesty requires that they see things your way, then yeah that comes across as saying that person is being dishonest...




A couple of people translated that into meaning Foxy called Valerie a liar...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ves-view-on-waterboarding-43.html#post3650107


FTR - I told Foxfyre privately that day that I understood and have no hard feelings...


I really tried not to make too big of a deal over it...

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

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.

I do try very hard not to lie these days.

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.

I don't see myself as a bad person.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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. . .

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

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 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.

 

[Ravi]

I don't have a sock puppet.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

 

[Valerie]

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

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.

I do try very hard not to lie these days.

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.

I don't see myself as a bad person.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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. . .

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

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 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.

When it was suggested that you read the OP, you replied that you didn't need to read the article, which I took to mean you hadn't bothered, none of which changes the point at all...

When I said your opinion that torture is sometimes necessary is based on the movie, I meant based on your belief that the movie illustrated your point. Same difference and the meaning of the point does not change at all...

Intellectual honesty requires that one recognize a conscientious paraphrase is not a misquote or an act of dishonesty.







I'm done now.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

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 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. 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. . .

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

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 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.

When it was suggested that you read the OP, you replied that you didn't need to read the article, which I took to mean you hadn't bothered, none of which changes the point at all...

When I said your opinion that torture is sometimes necessary is based on the movie, I meant based on your belief that the movie illustrated your point. Same difference and the meaning of the point does not change at all...

Intellectual honesty requires that one recognize a conscientious paraphrase is not a misquote or an act of dishonesty.

I'm done now.

And once I corrected your misconceptions, it would be intellectually honest to acknowledge that.

And I'm also done on that point.

 

[manifold]

I don't have a sock puppet.

True.

You have several.

 

[Valerie]

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.

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.

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 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. 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. . .

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

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 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.

When it was suggested that you read the OP, you replied that you didn't need to read the article, which I took to mean you hadn't bothered, none of which changes the point at all...

When I said your opinion that torture is sometimes necessary is based on the movie, I meant based on your belief that the movie illustrated your point. Same difference and the meaning of the point does not change at all...

Intellectual honesty requires that one recognize a conscientious paraphrase is not a misquote or an act of dishonesty.

I'm done now.

And once I corrected your misconceptions, it would be intellectually honest to acknowledge that.

And I'm also done on that point.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious it was beside the point...

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't have a sock puppet.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

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.

 

[Valerie]

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!

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, now that the rep bullies are identified and hopefully the air is more clear, can we please pull the train back on track. I am still interested in exploring intellectual dishonesty.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Okay, now that the rep bullies are identified and hopefully the air is more clear, can we please pull the train back on track. I am still interested in exploring intellectual dishonesty.

rep bullies?

retreat to your koffee-klatsch, babe.

 

[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.

 

[Ravi]

I don't have a sock puppet.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

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.

 

[manifold]

I don't have a sock puppet.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

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!

 

[L.K.Eder]

i think i was recently neg-repped by foxfyre's sockpuppet, a real rep-bully.