Should intellectual Dishonest be more strictly moderated?

[Kittamaru]

If a poster doesn't agree with your accessment that they are being dishonest, they certainly have to right to do that. The burden will then be on you to prove they are being dishonest and deliberately deceptive, something very hard to do. Again, it all boils down to the subjective feelings of the accuser, which are often already clouded with hostility towards the accused and a desire to shut him up because he will not agree with them. How do we know the very attempt to punish someone for dishonesty isn't itself laden with an personal agenda to censor the opposing view? We don't. That's why its a bad idea as an infractionable or bannable offence. Because it can always be twisted by someone towards getting rid of someone they don't like.

So you feel that intentionally and repeatedly misquoting someone is not dishonest? That ignoring arguments you dislike or cannot disprove isn't dishonest? Please, elaborate on this.

 

[Magical Realist]

So you feel that intentionally and repeatedly misquoting someone is not dishonest? That ignoring arguments you dislike or cannot disprove isn't dishonest? Please, elaborate on this.

You would have to both prove that there was a misquote, and an intent to misquote, which is very hard to do. Simply alleging dishonesty doesn't hack it. And people ignore points and arguments for many reasons. Many I ignore because they're so irrelevant to the debate that they derail the discussion. Like whether a lie is an intentional lie or just a falsehood, both definitions of which are found in the dictionary. Many others I ignore because they are based on false assumptions, because they are red herrings, or because they are strawmen. Doesn't mean there is an intent to deceive going on.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If a poster doesn't agree with your accessment that they are being dishonest, they certainly have to right to do that.

Then, in the interest of integrity, that poster should, at the very least explain WHY they think the accusation is unfounded.

The burden will then be on you to prove they are being dishonest and deliberately deceptive, something very hard to do.

Hmm, and when the evidence, in the form of posts, is right there on the screen it's that hard to do. Like I said earlier: it comes down to irredeemable stupidity or deliberate dishonesty.

because he will not agree with them.

Nope.
But mischaracterising the motive is nice way of making yourself seem like the victim. Well done.

How do we know the very attempt to punish someone for dishonesty isn't itself laden with a personal agenda to censor the opposing view?

Um, maybe because the accusations of dishonesty should have evidence for them. You know, the way I have that evidence for my accusations against you.

particularly when you have a moderator also so embroiled in the debate he has lost all objectivity to properly moderate anymore.

Ooh! And an unfounded accusation that further makes it looks like you're the victim instead of just being a liar.

 

[Daecon]

You would have to both prove that there was a misquote, and an intent to misquote, which is very hard to do. Simply alleging dishonesty doesn't hack it. And people ignore points and arguments for many reasons. Many I ignore because they're so irrelevant to the debate that they derail the discussion. Like whether a lie is an intentional lie or just a falsehood, both definitions of which are found in the dictionary. Many others I ignore because they are based on false assumptions, because they are red herrings, or because they are strawmen. Doesn't mean there is an intent to deceive going on.

Are you even aware of your posting history on here?

 

[Kittamaru]

You would have to both prove that there was a misquote, and an intent to misquote, which is very hard to do. Simply alleging dishonesty doesn't hack it. And people ignore points and arguments for many reasons. Many I ignore because they're so irrelevant to the debate that they derail the discussion. Like whether a lie is an intentional lie or just a falsehood, both definitions of which are found in the dictionary. Many others I ignore because they are based on false assumptions, because they are red herrings, or because they are strawmen. Doesn't mean there is an intent to deceive going on.

So, you ignore irrelevant posts hm? So, why have you ignored repeated requests in the Bigfoot threads to explain how the creature could overcome the Biological Requirement for Genetic Diversity?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Many I ignore because they're so irrelevant to the debate that they derail the discussion.

Or maybe because you think if you don't acknowledge those points you can get away with repeating the false claims at a later time.

Doesn't mean there is an intent to deceive going on.

I'll ask again then: are you stupid or dishonest?
Because the frequency with which you do all of which you're accused has to be the result of one or the other.

 

[Magical Realist]

So, you ignore irrelevant posts hm? So, why have you ignored repeated requests in the Bigfoot threads to explain how the creature could overcome the Biological Requirement for Genetic Diversity?

I already told you I don't respond to you in the GMU thread because you bring up irrelevant points and try to trap me with infractions. I don't trust you, and given your history of banning me for totally bogus reasons, can you blame me?

 

[paddoboy]

I already told you I don't respond to you in the GMU thread because you bring up irrelevant points and try to trap me with infractions. I don't trust you, and given your history of banning me for totally bogus reasons, can you blame me?

There's plenty of evidence to support everything that you are accused of.
In fact there is extraordinary evidence to support all claims re your general lack of honesty.
[Although we do not have any extraordinary evidence to support any of your nonsense]
In any other forum you would have been permanently banned long ago for your lies and deceit.

 

[Magical Realist]

Or maybe because you think if you don't acknowledge those points you can get away with repeating the false claims at a later time.


I'll ask again then: are you stupid or dishonest?
Because the frequency with which you do all of which you're accused has to be the result of one or the other.

You really need to stop with the trolling insults. It's doing nothing for your credibility, and not disposing me to much respond to you anymore.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You really need to stop with the trolling insults.

Once again you mistake factual statements and sincere questions as "trolling insults".

It's doing nothing for your credibility

Thankfully my credibility doesn't depend on anything you say.

and not disposing me to much respond to you anymore.

That would suit me perfectly.
That way I get to point out your numerous and egregious errors without you lying/ misrepresenting what I've said in reply.

 

[Magical Realist]

Once again you mistake factual statements and sincere questions as "trolling insults".

Thankfully my credibility doesn't depend on anything you say.

Depending entirely on what YOU say, as in juvenile trollish insults.

That would suit me perfectly.
That way I get to point out your numerous and egregious errors without you lying/ misrepresenting what I've said in reply.

And so now you know why your ignored, which no doubt will be construed by you as some lying attempt on my part to do something dishonest. Or was it stupid? Your repetitive childish insults seem to blur together after awhile.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Depending entirely on what YOU say, as in juvenile trollish insults.

There's that failure to distinguish again.

And so now you know why your ignored

*You're*.

, which no doubt will be construed by you as some dishonest lying attempt on my part to do something dishonest.

Or, possibly, it's just that you're tired of lying and also can't come up with rebuttals that are in any way valid.

Your repetitive childish insults seem to blur together after awhile.

Because it's so much easier for you to claim "insults" than to be honest, right?

 

[Kittamaru]

Depending entirely on what YOU say, as in juvenile trollish insults.




And so now you know why your ignored, which no doubt will be construed by you as some lying attempt on my part to do something dishonest. Or was it stupid? Your repetitive childish insults seem to blur together after awhile.

And this is why people call you out... when you cannot prove them wrong with facts, and they don't accept bullshit responses from you you have a tantrum like a child and ignore them...

Answer the question MR.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, this thread about the theoretical lambasting of a possible troll has certainly gone downhill in that it is now the actual lambasting of a possible troll.

Sigh. (And I write that sigh not merely for the purposes of rhetoric, but as a textual expression of my own reaction, totally invisible to the reader.) I have a moment, I suppose, and a trusting nature, and a spare moment and no particular horse in the race.

Perhaps management would care for me to examine this case and pronounce finding? A more equanimous viewing you will not find.

(And why does the SF spellcheck not have the British spelling of 'equanimous'? Surely it isn't that esoteric or recondite. Isn't this website hosted in one or other of the colonies of the Empire? Isn't it run by a member in the faraway desert land of Mel Gibson and vintage fighting wines, the descendant of murderers and thieves? Did we conquer all those innocent lands just so we could be subjected to Americanized spelling at every turn? Positively colours my jaw, harrumph harrumph.)

 

[Kittamaru]

The discussion itself I am, honestly, only tangentially interested in (as it was inevitable that the "woe is me" self victimization would occur) - merely, I am interested to know what our active membership feels. After all, what good is it to have rules if we don't actually enforce them?

 

[origin]

MR, I find it exceedingly humorous and enlightening that you think intellectual dishonesty should not be strictly moderated. Talk about an indefensible position!

 

[tali89]

So you feel that intentionally and repeatedly misquoting someone is not dishonest? That ignoring arguments you dislike or cannot disprove isn't dishonest? Please, elaborate on this.

For someone who complains endlessly about intellectual dishonesty, you sure have a habit of misrepresenting the viewpoints of other posters. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Kittamaru]

For someone who complains endlessly about intellectual dishonesty, you sure have a habit of misrepresenting the viewpoints of other posters. Physician, heal thyself.

Please, do tell - with quotes if you can. Otherwise your claim is just so much noise

 

[tali89]

I just quoted you misrepresenting MR. He claimed one thing, and then you erroneously attributed a viewpoint to him that he never expressed. Isn't it rather interesting that individuals who scream 'intellectual dishonesty' at the top of their lungs are the ones who engage in the most skulduggery? Projection at its finest.

 

[origin]

I just quoted you misrepresenting MR. He claimed one thing, and then you erroneously attributed a viewpoint to him that he never expressed.

Did that happen in this thread? I am curious could you show where that happened?