Zone1 Intellectual Honesty

[candycorn]

Sometimes. As I have said in this (and other threads) a person can be intellectually honest and still be very very wrong in what he/she believes.

What makes somebody intellectually dishonest is in promoting a belief that in your heart know cannot be defended and isn't true.

Coming from someone like you who cannot defend her positions...that is hilarious.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Trump demands loyalty

Every president puts people they trust around them. The fact that you, Democrats, and the media are spinning this with the "Loyalists" script is hilarious. Are you saying presidents should fill their cabinets with people who don't agree with them and oppose them? Because I've never seen a president do that. Yet, here you are making it seem like Trump is unique in this? Do you think before you speak?

 

[BackAgain]

The problem is, is that stupid people think they are right, even if they are wrong.

No I don’t!

Uhm. Hold it.

Wait.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

One such incident happened today. Many people on social media portrayed that Mexican tall ship as politically motivated, even loaded with migrants, intent on making a political statement.

The evidence, however, is that ship is actually a Mexican naval vessel used as a training vessel as it sails about the world on good will missions. It hitting the bridge was almost certainly an unfortunate and, for those injured or killed, tragic accident. The conspiracy theory was entirely unfounded and in error.

I'm seeing much fewer of those politically motivated but almost certainly erroneous posts on social media now, but very very few acknowledgments that the information previously posted was in error.

But this was an incident that was completely unavoidable unless you're mathematics challenged (clearance of bridge 25 feet - mast 28 feet)

 

[MarathonMike]

The problem is, is that stupid people think they are right, even if they are wrong.

What's worse is when smart people think they are right, even if they are wrong.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The 2020 election was the most closely watched, investigated election in history.

Proof it was the most "closely-watched"? Or are you just reciting MSNBC talking points, because they (and the rest of the legacy media) used to say that line in their scripts rather commonly, and never explaining how they came to that conclusion.

Given the legacy media is at or below Alex Jones in integrity now.. I have to assume such a strong claim likely isn't true.

There were like 4 losers who claimed there was voter fraud. The rest took their loss like an adult.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and Al Gore.. and even Kamala Harris. They all still whine about how things were stolen from them, or that the populace is too racist and sexist and that's the only reason they lost.

I'll wait.

 

[candycorn]

Proof it was the most "closely-watched"? Or are you just reciting MSNBC talking points, because they (and the rest of the legacy media) used to say that line in their scripts rather commonly, and never explaining how they came to that conclusion.

Not sure...haven't watched MSNBC in about 10-15 years.

Given the legacy media is at or below Alex Jones in integrity now..

I don't recall ABC/NBC/CBS having to file bankruptcy to pay defamation suits.

I have to assume such a strong claim likely isn't true.

Your assumptions are worth less than nothing.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and Al Gore.. and even Kamala Harris. They all still whine about how things were stolen from them, or that the populace is too racist and sexist and that's the only reason they lost.

Wake me when their followers stage an insurrection like you guys did.

I'll wait.

You have nothing better to do...clearly.

 

[Foxfyre]

But this was an incident that was completely unavoidable unless you're mathematics challenged (clearance of bridge 25 feet - mast 28 feet)

The ship lost power and it was drifting backward, stern first, when it hit the bridge. A tragic and unfortunate accident but an accident.

 

[Foxfyre]

They never seem to. I think they view the cause of resisting Trump is so important that any concession is a weakness, and they just double down on losing hands.

No argument from me there.

 

[80zephyr]

Well, since they don't exist (much like the statement you base your fairy tales on)...you can't blame me.

You are a perfect example of what this thread is talking about.

Congratulations.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not sure...haven't watched MSNBC in about 10-15 years.

Nice attempt to change the subject. You made a claim.. based on.. what?

I don't recall ABC/NBC/CBS having to file bankruptcy to pay defamation suits.

Nice attempt at changing the subject. They all are clear untrustworthy sources.

Your assumptions are worth less than nothing.

It’s based on a long list of examples.

Wake me when their followers stage an insurrection like you guys did.

No insurrection attempt happened. You just try to call it that to fear monger. Nobody was charged with it.

You have nothing better to do...clearly.

Well you’re posting here too. LOL

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Uhm. Hold it.

I fell for that one once, dude.


It freaked me out when it started growing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In general, I would say that intellectual honesty is inversely proportional to partisanship and degree of belief.

Fundamentalists like the religious and woke types are simply incapable of honesty because too much of their ego is invested in conforming to the rigidity of their beliefs.

 

[PeterPilot]

I don't have to admit any mistakes.

You do not have to admit any mistake and can still move on as long as your breathing.

That suggests, not admitting any errors, a dishonest approach to public dialogue. We all make errors, and we all know that. Some refuse to admit it, and therein lies the problem.

 

[PeterPilot]

When does believing something that has a the lack of convincing evidence become intellectually dishonest?

Being skeptical is part of critical thinking. Skepticism is not dishonest.

Refusing to examine facts and evidence is dishonest, and often a sign of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Foxfyre]

In general, I would say that intellectual honesty is inversely proportional to partisanship and degree of belief.

Fundamentalists like the religious and woke types are simply incapable of honesty because too much of their ego is invested in conforming to the rigidity of their beliefs.

It really depends though. There are many fundamentalists who honestly believe what they believe and they are not being at all intellectually dishonest when they say what they believe. They may be very very wrong, but they believe it.

Again intellectual honesty does not require a person to be right. Only that the person sincerely believes he/she is right in his/her belief.

But those who promote concepts/situations/events in ways that they know in their hearts and minds are not the whole story or the actual story at all are being intellectually dishonest. when they do that.

Example:
The MSM/'legacy media' of course had to see the signs that Joe Biden was suffering from advanced dementia and there was no way he was actually doing the job of President of the United States. But they continued to defend and protect him and refused to report what they knew. And then there was that terrible debate between Trump and Biden that I am convinced set Biden up so they could pretend for the first time to see how mentally damaged he was.

And that set the stage for the Democrat Party to remove him as candidate for a second presidential term.

All that was blatant intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who desperately wanted to believe but you know they really didn't.

 

[80zephyr]

It really depends though. There are many fundamentalists who honestly believe what they believe and they are not being at all intellectually dishonest when they say what they believe. They may be very very wrong, but they believe it.

Again intellectual honesty does not require a person to be right. Only that the person sincerely believes he/she is right in his/her belief.

But those who promote concepts/situations/events in ways that they know in their hearts and minds are not the whole story or the actual story at all are being intellectually dishonest. when they do that.

Example:
The MSM/'legacy media' of course had to see the signs that Joe Biden was suffering from advanced dementia and there was no way he was actually doing the job of President of the United States. But they continued to defend and protect him and refused to report what they knew. And then there was that terrible debate between Trump and Biden that I am convinced set Biden up so they could pretend for the first time to see how mentally damaged he was.

And that set the stage for the Democrat Party to remove him as candidate for a second presidential term.

All that was blatant intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who desperately wanted to believe but you know they really didn't.

Everyone should have classes in logic. They have served me well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everyone should have classes in logic. They have served me well.

And what is logic if not understanding what intellectual honesty is?

 

[candycorn]

Nice attempt to change the subject. You made a claim.. based on.. what?

The counts, recounts, court actions, all confirming your blob lost

Nice attempt at changing the subject. They all are clear untrustworthy sources.

Not remotely true. Alex jones being sued for defamation is. Fox News coughing up a billion is . He he he

No insurrection attempt happened.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

 

[PeterPilot]

And what is logic if not understanding what intellectual honesty is?

Understanding intellectual honesty is very simple compared to all that logic classes and principles involve.