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 (Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide)