View Poll Results: Am I being dishonest?

10. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    5 50.00%
  • no

    1 10.00%
  • other

    4 40.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 11 of 11

Thread: Is changing context dishonest?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Ok. Little curiosity here. I think I have been called dishonest by a few people here because, as far as I can tell, I tend to change the context of the argument and argue from a context I think is more accurate in thinking about a particular topic. Ultimately, I think if something is argued in the wrong context, than the conclusions will also likely be flawed.

    I guess perhaps others don't see it that way. So, heres the question, is changing context something that should be considered dishonest?

    I will submit this post for analysis. As far as I can tell, American is arguing from a context he considers legitimate while I am arguing from another. From my point of view, I see his as rigid and inflexible while he sees mine as dishonest. (Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide)
    IMO context is everything.

    If I say "you shouldn't be allowed to forbid firearms on your publicly accessible property without a permit because that is a hazard", I'm not talking about your home. I specified "publicly accessible", as in properties and structures which must comply with Public Accommodation laws. If your counter argument is not talking about privately owned property which is publicly accessible, you are being dishonest.

    "What if I want to ban red shirts"? Well, the absence of red shirts is not a hazard whereas the absence of firearms is, just like the absence of a fire suppression system is a hazard; so as you're no longer talking about hazards you are being dishonest.

    Perhaps someone says "Gay marriage should be banned". A typical retort is "the government shouldn't legislate who I can love", or "keep the government out of my bedroom".

    The original position against gay marriage had nothing to do with love or anyone's bedroom, so both of these responses are dishonest.

    And again, perhaps someone claims "the unborn have the right to life". Replys such as "my body, my choice" are deliberate attempts to change the context as the original argument had nothing to the rights of the women but the rights of the unborn (and it's not her body being aborted anyway).
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-28-10 at 06:18 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts