Zone1 Intellectual Honesty

[XponentialChaos]

The intellectually honest position is "I don't know" when I don't know. When I do know, my intellectually honest position would be quite different.

But they don’t know. Yet you claim that their position is intellectually honest.

You’ve contradicted yourself and you’re not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But they don’t know. Yet you claim that their position is intellectually honest.

You’ve contradicted yourself and you’re not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

You still haven't taken that remedial reading comprehension course I've recommended have you.

I'll try once more and if you don't get it, then you just don't get it:

If I don't know and I say I don't know, I am being 100% intellectually honest.

If I believe I do know, even if I'm wrong, and I say I know, even if I'm wrong, I am still being 100% intellectually honest.

Neither you nor I are privy to know what anybody else else believes. We can only go by what they say they believe and make an informed judgment of their veracity based on their track record of being truthful.

I believe there are many, millions even, of Americans who believe the election was stolen. I don't know if they are right and neither do you. But if they believe it, they believe it and they are being 100% intellectually honest when they say so even if it turns out they are wrong.

Some, especially the TDS afflicted, are probably incapable of understanding that, but I tried.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You still haven't taken that remedial reading comprehension course I've recommended have you.

I'll try once more and if you don't get it, then you just don't get it:

If I don't know and I say I don't know, I am being 100% intellectually honest.

If I believe I do know, even if I'm wrong, and I say I know, even if I'm wrong, I am still being 100% intellectually honest.

Neither you nor I are privy to know what anybody else else believes. We can only go by what they say they believe and make an informed judgment of their veracity based on their track record of being truthful.

I believe there are many, millions even, of Americans who believe the election was stolen. I don't know if they are right and neither do you. But if they believe it, they believe it and they are being 100% intellectually honest when they say so even if it turns out they are wrong.

Some, especially the TDS afflicted, are probably incapable of understanding that, but I tried.

No. Pretending to know something that they don’t know is obviously not intellectually honest.

If I claim that I know for a fact that Donald Trump had sex with 12-year-olds on Epstein Island, despite a lack of sufficient evidence of this, my claim is not intellectually honest just because I claim that I really believe it. That’s just dumb. And this is where your pretzel logic leads you.

More importantly, making such a claim of knowledge without adequate supporting evidence would make it nearly impossible to ever admit to being wrong because it’s not about the evidence - it never was. It’s about their feelings. That’s not intellectual honesty.

Clearly you are being hypocritical here, contorting yourself into a pretzel with your ridiculous reasoning that is easily shown to be flawed. I don’t expect you to admit it because, well let’s face it, you’re not intellectually honest enough to do so. Since I don’t expect you to really listen to anything I say, I’m going to leave you with your own words in the hope that you will self-reflect on your own hypocrisy.

“One of the hardest things any of us will have to do is give up a cherished conviction or belief when we are shown that it cannot be supported with evidence. And it becomes far more difficult (and usually embarrassing) when we have emphatically and passionately argued for a point of view and find out we are wrong.

Who among us has never been involved in a passionate argument with somebody when there is that horrible feeling akin to panic when we suddenly realize we are wrong?

How we handle those situations reveals how intellectually honest we actually are.”

I doubt someone as intellectually dishonest as you will put much thought into this. I can lead the hypocrite to water, but I can’t make them drink. Have a wonderful evening.

 

[Correll]

No. Pretending to know something that they don’t know is obviously not intellectually honest.
....

Wow. That's... not good. Clean Debate Zone? I will leave it at that.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Wow. That's... not good. Clean Debate Zone? I will leave it at that.

What’s the problem? If you have a point to make, then make it.

 

[Correll]

What’s the problem? If you have a point to make, then make it.

You're pretending to not understand the simple concept of someone sincerely believing something, and thus being honest about it, even if they are honestly mistaken.

That is... not good. That is a closed mind of... very high degree.

 

[MarathonMike]

Whats so hard? The science says human life begins at conception. There is no other argument.

There is no "the science". Some scientists believe life begins at conception, others believe it begins with the fetal heartbeat. Other scientists believe it begins later still.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You're pretending to not understand the simple concept of someone sincerely believing something, and thus being honest about it, even if they are honestly mistaken.

That is... not good. That is a closed mind of... very high degree.

Who are you to judge how sincere they are in their belief? Maybe they are sincere and maybe they're just talking out of their ass.

I can claim that I know for a fact that Trump had Epstein killed. Am I being sincere? Am I being honest about this belief of mine? You can't know and it's entirely subjective anyway. Therefore it's irrelevant.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. Pretending to know something that they don’t know is obviously not intellectually honest.

If I claim that I know for a fact that Donald Trump had sex with 12-year-olds on Epstein Island, despite a lack of sufficient evidence of this, my claim is not intellectually honest just because I claim that I really believe it. That’s just dumb. And this is where your pretzel logic leads you.

More importantly, making such a claim of knowledge without adequate supporting evidence would make it nearly impossible to ever admit to being wrong because it’s not about the evidence - it never was. It’s about their feelings. That’s not intellectual honesty.

Clearly you are being hypocritical here, contorting yourself into a pretzel with your ridiculous reasoning that is easily shown to be flawed. I don’t expect you to admit it because, well let’s face it, you’re not intellectually honest enough to do so. Since I don’t expect you to really listen to anything I say, I’m going to leave you with your own words in the hope that you will self-reflect on your own hypocrisy.

“One of the hardest things any of us will have to do is give up a cherished conviction or belief when we are shown that it cannot be supported with evidence. And it becomes far more difficult (and usually embarrassing) when we have emphatically and passionately argued for a point of view and find out we are wrong.

Who among us has never been involved in a passionate argument with somebody when there is that horrible feeling akin to panic when we suddenly realize we are wrong?

How we handle those situations reveals how intellectually honest we actually are.”

I doubt someone as intellectually dishonest as you will put much thought into this. I can lead the hypocrite to water, but I can’t make them drink. Have a wonderful evening.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to read what's there. But I did try. Do have a good night.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to read what's there. But I did try. Do have a good night.

It’s ok. You’re just not intellectually honest enough to address your obvious hypocrisy. I can lead a hypocrite to water but I can’t make them drink.

Have a good evening.


“One of the hardest things any of us will have to do is give up a cherished conviction or belief when we are shown that it cannot be supported with evidence. And it becomes far more difficult (and usually embarrassing) when we have emphatically and passionately argued for a point of view and find out we are wrong.

Who among us has never been involved in a passionate argument with somebody when there is that horrible feeling akin to panic when we suddenly realize we are wrong?

How we handle those situations reveals how intellectually honest we actually are.”

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no "the science". Some scientists believe life begins at conception, others believe it begins with the fetal heartbeat. Other scientists believe it begins later still.

They can't all be right. Can they?


Possibly related question, what is the definition for the word "begin" as it is related to the beginning of the life of a human being?

 

[Correll]

Who are you to judge how sincere they are in their belief? Maybe they are sincere and maybe they're just talking out of their ass.

I can claim that I know for a fact that Trump had Epstein killed. Am I being sincere? Am I being honest about this belief of mine? You can't know and it's entirely subjective anyway. Therefore it's irrelevant.

YOU'RE teh one "judging" how sincere their belief is, when you say that they are "pretending to know".

I'm the one NOT doing that.

 

[80zephyr]

There is no "the science". Some scientists believe life begins at conception, others believe it begins with the fetal heartbeat. Other scientists believe it begins later still.

No, there is consensus, as there should be.

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And frankly, anyone who hold a different view is lying simply to support abortion. Reality is not changed by belief.

 

[XponentialChaos]

YOU'RE teh one "judging" how sincere their belief is, when you say that they are "pretending to know".

I'm the one NOT doing that.

I’m saying that we can’t tell if they’re sincere or not. So it doesn’t matter.

If they’re believing in something that’s wrong, it’s likely that they haven’t put enough thought into it. Whether they sincerely fell for fake news or not doesn’t matter.

If that bothers you, then tough shit.

 

[DStar777]

Who are you to judge how sincere they are in their belief? Maybe they are sincere and maybe they're just talking out of their ass.

YOU'RE teh one "judging" how sincere their belief is, when you say that they are "pretending to know".

Not really, Correll. He provided 2 options:
1. Maybe they are sincere
2. maybe they're just talking out of their ass.
He's saying you can't know which it is.

 

[MarathonMike]

No, there is consensus, as there should be.

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And frankly, anyone who hold a different view is lying simply to support abortion. Reality is not changed by belief.

Your 96 percent number sounds oddly similar to the scientific "consensus" on man-made climate change. If life ends at the absence of a heartbeat, it is reasonable to say life begins with the presence of a heartbeat.

I personally find the rationalization for abortion as "women's rights" abhorrent. It is nothing more than an insurance policy for women who are irresponsible. But abortion is not going away so keep it to the pre-heartbeat phase. JMO

 

[Foxfyre]

Your 96 percent number sounds oddly similar to the scientific "consensus" on man-made climate change. If life ends at the absence of a heartbeat, it is reasonable to say life begins with the presence of a heartbeat.

I personally find the rationalization for abortion as "women's rights" abhorrent. It is nothing more than an insurance policy for women who are irresponsible. But abortion is not going away so keep it to the pre-heartbeat phase. JMO

And while that particular issue will continue to provoke many opinions, I choose to believe you are intellectually honest in your opinion on the matter.

In biology class we learned that the heart forms first in the womb at around five weeks with the development of a brain fairly quickly following that.

But searching for a legal definition of the beginning of life is quite different from biology that maintains human life begins with a fertilized egg. And the debate goes on.

For purposes of this thread, there are many MANY different issues of which when human life begins is just one. That people can differ in their opinions on any one of these issues does not mean that some are intellectually honest and others are not.

If you honestly believe something, even if you turn out to be wrong, you are intellectually honest expressing that belief.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Your 96 percent number sounds oddly similar to the scientific "consensus" on man-made climate change. If life ends at the absence of a heartbeat, it is reasonable to say life begins with the presence of a heartbeat.

I personally find the rationalization for abortion as "women's rights" abhorrent. It is nothing more than an insurance policy for women who are irresponsible. But abortion is not going away so keep it to the pre-heartbeat phase. JMO

.

But then they try to use the lie that, just because there's what seems to be a vascular tempo, it can't be called a "heartbeat" for several more weeks.

Too many who think they can keep moving the goalposts, so AT CONCEPTION is what I'm going for. If you did DNA testing at the point of the first cell division, you get human DNA.


.

 

[MarathonMike]

.

But then they try to use the lie that, just because there's what seems to be a vascular tempo, it can't be called a "heartbeat" for several more weeks.

Too many who think they can keep moving the goalposts, so AT CONCEPTION is what I'm going for. If you did DNA testing at the point of the first cell division, you get human DNA.


.

That is a valid argument. But in terms of pragmatism we all know abortion will never go away. And since we are dealing with a population of largely irresponsible women it is unlikely they will act quickly enough to terminate pregnancies within days of conception.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

That is a valid argument. But in terms of pragmatism we all know abortion will never go away. And since we are dealing with a population of largely irresponsible women it is unlikely they will act quickly enough to terminate pregnancies within days of conception.

.

I always wished that people could be reversibly sterilized at birth, with the reversal procedure to be done only when one proves that they are indeed responsible, normal people with morals and common sense.


.