Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Seeing as you don't "care for [my] intellectualism," I don't think that's going to happen.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seeing as you don't "care for [my] intellectualism," I don't think that's going to happen.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.
Oh no, better stop it then. Yahweh has made such things foolish, don't ya know?Sure.
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.
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?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?
Using which of your three definitions?
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.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?
Actually the definition I gave was Oxford's English Dictionary's definition.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.
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.Let us keep this an intellectually honest discussion and remember how important integrity is.
I have to admit Jeremy, you are "text book" material.
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.Well I think it is quite relevant for me to ask you if I understand your position correctly. Don't you think so?
Not answering that here. Go back to the thread and answer it if you want.You asked: "What would you have us base our methods of inquiry on?"
Inquiry into what?
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.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.
Do you have a link to the thread?Not answering that here. Go back to the thread and answer it if you want.
Is it objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest?Hilarious!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?