Zone1 Intellectual Honesty

[Chuz Life]

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.

Interesting.

So, were you conceived?

I was.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

Exactly. I never accept anything at face value and arrive at my own opinions after much deliberation. I think that is essentially what you are saying about "intellectual honesty". It is unfortunate that the casual use of abortion has made "When does life begin?" such a matter of importance.

 

[80zephyr]

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

While I believe you are correct, it does not change the fact that human life begins at conception. Its an entirely new being, with its own DNA.

 

[MarathonMike]

While I believe you are correct, it does not change the fact that human life begins at conception. Its an entirely new being, with its own DNA.

It is certainly the genesis of a new life.

 

[Correll]

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

Your goal is clearly NOT to try to understand them or their level of sincerity, but simply to come up with some shit talk to try to justify dismissing or smearing people that disagree with you.

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.

Intent does matter. Someone who is honestly mistaken, can be reached if proof is strong enough, like the dem voters after Biden's final debate.

Partisan hacks are just lying bad faith actors.


It matters.

If that bothers you, then tough shit.

It doesn't bother me, because everything you said is false.

 

[Correll]

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.

He denying the possiblity of an honest mistake.

Lefties have been doing this for quite some time. They NEED to demonize anyone that disagrees with them, as liars and bad faith actors.


When in reality, it is they are who that.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your goal is clearly NOT to try to understand them or their level of sincerity, but simply to come up with some shit talk to try to justify dismissing or smearing people that disagree with you.




Intent does matter. Someone who is honestly mistaken, can be reached if proof is strong enough, like the dem voters after Biden's final debate.

Partisan hacks are just lying bad faith actors.


It matters.





It doesn't bother me, because everything you said is false.

It’s completely subjective and therefore irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

If you want to keep whining about it, go ahead. But that’s my opinion on it.

 

[Correll]

It’s completely subjective and therefore irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

If you want to keep whining about it, go ahead. But that’s my opinion on it.

Your refusal to engage on the topic is noted and accepted.


The rest of us will discuss how your claim makes no sense.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your refusal to engage on the topic is noted and accepted.


The rest of us will discuss how your claim makes no sense.

I did engage. I explained to you why it’s subjective and why I consider it irrelevant.

You just don’t like my answer and you want to keep whining about it. Not my problem.

 

[Correll]

I did engage. I explained to you why it’s subjective and why I consider it irrelevant.

You just don’t like my answer and you want to keep whining about it. Not my problem.

You explained nothing. YOu gave an unsupported assertion and ignored it when I pointed out that what you said was false.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You explained nothing. YOu gave an unsupported assertion and ignored it when I pointed out that what you said was false.

Now you're just lying. I clearly explained something when I explained that sincerity is subjective.

 

[Correll]

Now you're just lying. I clearly explained something when I explained that sincerity is subjective.

YOu dismissed the possiblity of an honest mistake. YOu want to characterize anyone and everyone that disagrees with your core beliefs, as liars.

 

[XponentialChaos]

YOu dismissed the possiblity of an honest mistake. YOu want to characterize anyone and everyone that disagrees with your core beliefs, as liars.

I explained that their sincerity is subjective and I therefore find it irrelevant.

You lied when you said I explained nothing. Are you going to address your lie this time?

 

[Correll]

I explained that their sincerity is subjective and I therefore find it irrelevant.

You lied when you said I explained nothing. Are you going to address your lie this time?

I addressed that, by pointing out how intent matters and defines people as very different, rather then they are good faith or bad faith actors.

You refused to address that, because you can't.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I addressed that, by pointing out how intent matters and defines people as very different, rather then they are good faith or bad faith actors.

You refused to address that, because you can't.

You're lying again.

Did I explain anything? Yes or no.

Don't lie this time. I'll call you out on it again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It’s completely subjective and therefore irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

If you want to keep whining about it, go ahead. But that’s my opinion on it.

He did not whine. He rebutted.

Your calling it a whine is just a cheap and dishonest attempt at manipulating perception.

 

[Correll]

You're lying again.

Did I explain anything? Yes or no.

Don't lie this time. I'll call you out on it again.

Now you are harping on details to ignore the point and muddy the waters.

Typical lefty tactics.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Now you are harping on details to ignore the point and muddy the waters.

Typical lefty tactics.

Your refusal to address your lie is noted.

 

[Correll]

Your refusal to address your lie is noted.

Your shit talk is dismissed.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your shit talk is dismissed.

You're a liar. I don't care what you think.