The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

Rather, I am attempting to meet you on your own ground and remove any excuse you may have for not answering that one question I asked you.

Seeing as you don't "care for [my] intellectualism," I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure.

Oh no, better stop it then. Yahweh has made such things foolish, don't ya know?

 

[anonymous person]

I didn´t ask "Do you have a question about your deductions?"
I asked "Do you have anything of relevance to say in response to my on-topic position and arguments?"
I take that as a "no", then.

Well I think it is quite relevant for me to ask you if I understand your position correctly. Don't you think so?

 

[bhsmte]

I value all that you wrote. But you did not answer the question.

Is being intellectually dishonest objectively wrong?

Do I need to explain to you what that means?

Objectively wrong to whom?

I could show you psychological studies, that indicate dishonesty craters trust and damages relationships. To one person, that may not be important. To another, it may be very important.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I value all that you wrote. But you did not answer the question.

Is being intellectually dishonest objectively wrong?

Do I need to explain to you what that means?

Using which of your three definitions?

 

[anonymous person]

Objectively wrong to whom?

I did not ask for you to tell me who it is wrong to.

I asked you to tell me if being intellectually dishonest was objectively wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

Using which of your three definitions?

Let us keep this an intellectually honest discussion and remember how important integrity is.

 

[bhsmte]

I did not ask for you to tell me who it is wrong to.

I asked you to tell me if being intellectually dishonest was objectively wrong.

I edited my post.

 

[quatona]

I value all that you wrote. But you did not answer the question.

Is being intellectually dishonest objectively wrong?

Do I need to explain to you what that means?

No, you needn´t explain it. According to your definition, it means "Is it e.g. from a dog´s perspective wrong?" Due to epistemological issues (which - according to you are irrelevant for the topic) this question can not conclusively be answered.
Presumably, there are several conflicting "objective" positions to be found.

 

[anonymous person]

You asked: "What would you have us base our methods of inquiry on?"

Inquiry into what?

 

[bhsmte]

Let us keep this an intellectually honest discussion and remember how important integrity is.

I have to admit Jeremy, you are "text book" material.

 

[anonymous person]

No, you needn´t explain it. According to your definition, it means "Is it e.g. from a dog´s perspective wrong?" Due to epistemological issues (which - according to you are irrelevant for the topic) this question can not conclusively be answered.
Presumably, there are several conflicting "objective" positions to be found.

Actually the definition I gave was Oxford's English Dictionary's definition.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let us keep this an intellectually honest discussion and remember how important integrity is.

But not important to you it seems. Given this asymmetry, and your clear anti-intellectualism, a productive conversation is not likely to take place. This thread is a wreck and you aren't going to find yourself taken seriously.

 

[anonymous person]

I have to admit Jeremy, you are "text book" material.

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Fallacies have no place in civil, philosophical discourse where men of integrity seek to hash out their intellectual views.

Let's stay on topic, which is what all of you should want to do anyway.

 

[quatona]

Well I think it is quite relevant for me to ask you if I understand your position correctly. Don't you think so?

No, I don´t think so. My position is there clearly to read. Any reduction or inflation to labels just bears the risk of noise being added to the description.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You asked: "What would you have us base our methods of inquiry on?"

Inquiry into what?

Not answering that here. Go back to the thread and answer it if you want.

 

[anonymous person]

But not important to you it seems. Given this asymmetry, and your clear anti-intellectualism, a productive conversation is not likely to take place. This thread is a wreck and you aren't going to find yourself taken seriously.

It is very important to me. That is why I keep calling attention back to what we are discussing. Ad-hominems are fallacies so make sure not to use them.

 

[bhsmte]

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Fallacies have no place in civil, philosophical discourse where men of integrity seek to hash out their intellectual views.

Let's stay on topic, which is what all of you should want to do anyway.

Hilarious!

 

[anonymous person]

Not answering that here. Go back to the thread and answer it if you want.

Do you have a link to the thread?

 

[anonymous person]

Hilarious!

Is it objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest?