View Poll Results: Am I being dishonest?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    5 50.00%
  • no

    1 10.00%
  • other

    4 40.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Is changing context dishonest?

  1. #1
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Is changing context dishonest?

    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.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058827476

  2. #2
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    I don't think you're being dishonest but you're also not acknowledging the founders view. There's a whole bunch of baggage that goes along with this as well. Perception is that liberals / Democrats see the Constitution as a framework that was valid at one time but is no longer valid - therefore it's view is outdated and must be changed. Conservatives primarily believe the Constitution was valid then and is even MORE valid now and no changes must be made unless it's hugenormous - which would require a new amendment. You can guess which side I come down on - easy to do. However, this is one of those arguments that won't really change much as you both have diametrically opposite views (I'm guessing). Then again, Conservatives acknowledging liberals change of the Constitution is akin to eating one's own vomit --- ie. repulsive as hell, so I doubt you'll be getting any acknowledgement of your point of view either.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #3
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I don't think you're being dishonest but you're also not acknowledging the founders view. There's a whole bunch of baggage that goes along with this as well. Perception is that liberals / Democrats see the Constitution as a framework that was valid at one time but is no longer valid - therefore it's view is outdated and must be changed. Conservatives primarily believe the Constitution was valid then and is even MORE valid now and no changes must be made unless it's hugenormous - which would require a new amendment. You can guess which side I come down on - easy to do. However, this is one of those arguments that won't really change much as you both have diametrically opposite views (I'm guessing). Then again, Conservatives acknowledging liberals change of the Constitution is akin to eating one's own vomit --- ie. repulsive as hell, so I doubt you'll be getting any acknowledgement of your point of view either.
    Well, I wasn't attempting to argue that point. I know the founders views are important, but I also believe there is more than the origionalist school of constitutional interpretation. I have no problem with people who feel that way as I think it is a legit way to look at the constution (among many), but what I did dislike was the suspician I was immediately met with when bringing up my view. It is not the issue itself, but how the issue was treated. How can we have useful debate when some views are not even accepted as legitimate and are refused to be considered?

    This is really about the assumptions and practices around arguing an issue and not the issue itself to me. What I wanted to know is if simply using a different context, even if it is one that people do not like, should be considered dishonest.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Changing the context of a debate is a tactic often used by the skilled debator as a way of throwing the opposition off guard. It may therefore be seen as a "strategem" or "trick" rather than a strictly "honest" debating method.

    Of course, the fact is that people do view things from different contexts, and this is often why we have problems relating to others with different points of view --- we don't see things the way they do, in some cases the other side's viewpoint is so alien to us that it is difficult to grasp how they hold such a position.

    I try to see where the other person is coming from (on good days, at least, lol), but frankly if I consider their perspective, their "context", to be invalid, incorrect, unreasonable or lacking consistency then we are not likely to come to any sort of mutual understanding.

    This is a common problem between both Left and Right: we often find it very difficult to understand each other's contextual point of view, even when we bother to try.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #5
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    This is really about the assumptions and practices around arguing an issue and not the issue itself to me. What I wanted to know is if simply using a different context, even if it is one that people do not like, should be considered dishonest.
    No, it's not dishonest. In fact, I'd like to see more of it as we tend to get in a rut with how we view issues and policies. If at least we could look at it from a different point of view or a different context and at least acknowledge it (not agree necessarily), I think we'd be better off. I don't mind it at all.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    At times, you will find this used in a paradoxical kind of tactic. One will be accused of being dishonest when, in fact the real issue is that the accuser refuses to accept that, even if they disagree, other points of view have validity. This is my major issue with folks who post in rigid, inflexible, partisan hack ways. You are entitled to your beliefs... just as I am. When we are talking about beliefs, though, no matter what YOU say, you are not right... nor am I. These are perceptions and belief systems that have validity and are legitimate. Dismissing them because you don't like them, don't agree with them, or find them distasteful is one thing and perfectly fine. Dismissing a belief like what we are discussing because you believe it to be invalid or illegitimate is absurd and cannot be proven. Folks who do that demonstrate an inflexibility and rigidity of thinking. I find these people to be the most frustrating to speak with, as they are unable to accept the validity of any world view other than their own. I don't mean agree... no one has to agree with a different world view. But one is no more legitimate than another.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #7
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    i really, really love your avatar.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    No, it's not dishonest. In fact, I'd like to see more of it as we tend to get in a rut with how we view issues and policies. If at least we could look at it from a different point of view or a different context and at least acknowledge it (not agree necessarily), I think we'd be better off. I don't mind it at all.
    I agree with you completely. I wish more people would look at things this way. Listening to a different position does not mean that you have to agree with that position, but it allows you to open your mind to understand that position. Too often, rigid and inflexible thinking rears its head by demonstrating the inability to present the opposing position in any real sort of way. For example, conservatives do not hate the poor, and liberals do not hate the rich. Taking either of these extreme and absurd positions and wrapping your perception around the opposition with them causes an inability to really understand what the opposition is all about. If one listen with an innaccurate preconceived notion, ones understanding will be influenced by ONE'S belief system and one will fail to understand where the other is coming from.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #9
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,751

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Other: It depends on the intentions of the poster.

    If their intention is to change the context to illustrate a point, I see little issue.

    If their intention is to avoid and bypass an opposing point, it could be an issue.

    Overall, however, it is a positive, IMO.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #10
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is changing context dishonest?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i really, really love your avatar.
    Who me? Makes me remember being a carefree kid. Those were the days eh?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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