"It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry. Here's the first paragraph:"
OMG foiled again! How could I have known that you would be able to find Wikipedia from my reference to it and get the whole article! So clever, so resourceful, and oh sooooo "clarificatory"! My nefarious ends are only delayed, not thwarted by your brilliant tactic of following provided references. Now that I know this is part of your skills I will cover my tracks much better. BTW some topics have more than one way to look at them other then your way and the "intellectually dishonest way". (all references to the source of this idea deliberately hidden) --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > > > Form Wikipedia: > > > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > > Hilarious. An intellectually dishonest definition > of intellectual dishonesty. I'd guess the writer > of that paragraph has been on the receiving end of > accusations of intellectual dishonesty. > > It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend > this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia > entry. Here's the first paragraph: > > Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be > false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's > deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If > a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet > holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the > person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even > if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. > > (It doesn't have to be "in the face of overwhelming > contrary evidence." It can be used just to gain a > bit of advantage in an argument.) > > "Intellectual dishonesty" is a perfectly legitimate > label for a particular type of tactics in a debate > or argument. It has nothing to do with stupidity or > ignorance, of course; a person can be brilliant and > yet intellectually dishonest. > > And it's not "obfuscatory," it's clarificatory, > because it makes a clear distinction between lying > (knowing misstatement of fact) and an argument > that pretends to be logical but is actually > fallacious. > > Nor is it merely a "rhetorical device," although > it does frame the person so accused in a negative > light. <duh> > > By itself, the accusation doesn't mean much; in that > case it *is* just a rhetorical device. But I never > use it in a vacuum; I always specify what it is > about an argument that is intellectually dishonest > and why. > > Well, you've certainly proved my point, Curtis. > Thank you. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can > > > > get her off the view that I am a devious person telling > > > > deliberate untruths for some nefarious end. > > > > > > To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image. > > > > > > An example of same is the way you have phrased your > > > characterization of my view above. >
