Is Awesomelyglorious a dishonest arguer?

Post Reply New Topic

Darn it!

I don't see the poll as particularly dishonest though, because if somebody is making an absurd claim, having more people disagree with this absurd claim does help both maintain the sanity of the person dealing with the absurdity, and it helps express to the person making the absurd claim that they are being absurd.

HA HA HA!! Well, that's entirely true, as if you think about it, my thought processes behind the screen could be mere rhetoric to defend my position. I would think that one could reasonably think of criterion to assess whether or not a person seems dishonest though. These would focus upon the following things I think:
1) A person's admission to facts that seem damning but that are generally reliable as true. (for instance if I admitted a flaw in my own argument, thats' generally a sign that I am being honest with that argument, as dishonest people usually do not weaken their own argument as that undercuts their ability to win)
2) Whether I value epistemic virtues. If I seem generally critical of positions, even if they agree with me, if I think they are argued wrong, then this tends to suggest that I value good epistemic virtues over agreement, whereas a dishonest arguer can be seen as doing the latter. The same as if I am relatively favorable to positions I disagree with, but think are honest.
3) If I generally only put forward an argument if I tend to think it is a good argument. If I put forward arguments of questionable reliability on the grounds of persuasion, then that is an obvious sign of dishonesty.

Now, it is true that you probably are safer holding to dishonesty as a matter of falsification, that is that a person can be shown to be dishonest, but it is difficult to show them to be honest, as a lack of seen acts of dishonesty can just be a failure. At the same time, one does have to strive to be reasonably skeptical as opposed to being overly skeptical, and this means going with things, even if they aren't wholly proven, simply because the best evidence leans that direction.

Well, that third sentence is fo sho true nuff. This is why, both in linguistics and theology, I pretty much stick to state the view, point to available data. If the data do not convince, if God does not step in, I am not about to persuade, especially where the mind is already made with hospital corners.

I think that the point about obnoxiousness makes sense from AngelRho, as I do get exasperated if I think a person just refuses to get the point. One has to remember that AngelRho ended up inspiring a thread by me where I made a relatively detailed argument as to why conservative Christianity was assuredly false.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt127163.html (Please note: I think that the comic links are no longer working. If one quotes the entire post though, finds the comic link, and substitutes "www" for "zs1" then it works.) I am guessing I just did a copy image URL, and something changed.

Is honesty the best policy? topic

Or is the question: Does AG argue honestly, in other words is he sincere in the position he takes?

This is not a certainty. A good debater can take any position and argue it well. and on the WWW who is to know if AG is sincere in his statements? Has anyone ever really seen him? There was a thread a while back about whether the great and perhaps noble AG is some sort of imaginary figment.

I will take the position that AG is not a robot and he is sincere/honest, as there is not much I can do from this end if he is not.

Error. Does not Compute. Please consult technical support.

You are awesomely glorious. Enough said.

Yes hello? I am in Bombay how help you I can is?

No, i wouldnt say so. I have to admit, i didint like you at first because your intelligiance was a little intimidating, but now i'll just let the smart guys rule the world and enjoy reading your posts

Most of the Phils and Courtenays who call me from Mumbai [leave us not be out of date or chauvinistic] speak much better English than that, and often can be recognized only because their English is so much better and their pronunciation so much less eargrating than what you get from American telemarketers.

NOR do they tell you they are in Mumbai, though they may not claim to be in Chicago.

Do you think Awesomely Glorious could be four people in an office in Mumbai?

Do we have an infallible source that can rule it out?

Perhaps he is actually 3,000 chimpanzees in some hidden underground bunker, on Commodore 64 computers building consensus on world affairs

well the above except i would argue a team of indian telemarketers should be used as intermonkey data transfer.

as for OT i must admit i have barely read the thread in question but i have a hard time with the concept of dishonest arguing?
do you mean honesty as in presenting all the 'facts' about the subject without bias,
or honesty as in the sincerity mentioned above? (not the monkey mind you)

Ah yes, the IMDT protocol