Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 7:53 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,098 Year: 5,135/19,786 Month: 1,257/873 Week: 153/460 Day: 95/58 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Examples of Dishonesty
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 55 (104605)
05-01-2004 6:25 PM


ted aka redwolf
a current example of blatant dishonesty is

http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=62&m=103#103

{{additional info added by edit}}

First, to repeat a post of something that has been discussed on another thread, where the content has been challenged on that thread but not answered by the poster in question, is intellectual dishonesty. Redwolf did this on {Racial evolution 101, thread post #100}, which I pointed out there with my post #102. He then responded with the post in question, stating:

Posting links to your claim to have debunked something of mine without also posting links to my clear refutation or your lame attempt at debunking is basically dishonest.

(1) Every post is linked to it's replies so there is no cause for complaints of not giving links.

(2) Two of the three posts I listed were unanswered, the third had a weak response that was refuted by a further post of mine that also went unanswered. Thus there was no "clear refutation" of any of the 3 posts that had been listed - there wasn't any refutation - and to claim such is blatantly dishonest.

[This message has been edited RAZD, 05-02-2004]


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 05-02-2004 4:15 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 48 by AdminSylas, posted 05-02-2004 4:24 AM RAZD has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 47 of 55 (104697)
05-02-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
05-01-2004 6:25 PM


Re: ted aka redwolf
You are welcome to addres Sylas false accusations of dishonesty, if you care about honesty. I see this as an attempt to rescue Sylas from his false accusations to Redwolf, by making other accusations to Redwolf.

Anyway the post you refer to shows nothing, it is just a flame. At the most we can say that Redwolf is lazy in not giving direct references to his refutations. Of course if they don't exist then you have some dishonesty there, but as it stands I don't see anything worth calling dishonest.

(edited to respond to RAZD edited post)

- Redwolf shows a picture of an old drawing that looks like a dinosaur.

- RAZD denies it is a dinosaur.

- Redwolf again says it is a dinosaur in another thread.

- RAZD calls redwolf dishonest for saying it is a dinosaur and not mentioning the refutation of this position.

- Redwolf calls RAZD dishonest, i guess for not giving a link to the picture of the drawing that looks like a dinosaur.

Once again the accusation is found to be based on nothing. There was no refutation, there was some reasonably argued denial that the picture that looks like a dinosaur was actually not a drawing of a dinosaur but something else. Then there was another picture of a drawing which looks like ... nothing in my opinion. Obviously a highly speculative discussion where no side could possibly claim with absolute certainty that it is or isn't a drawing of a dinosaur.

Redwolf is identified as a bad guy probably because of things like referring to Chuck Darwin, and because he is a bad guy, anything goes. I think that is more likely the sort of thing that is happening.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[This message has been edited Syamsu, 05-02-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2004 6:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2004 7:22 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2004 1:53 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (104699)
05-02-2004 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
05-01-2004 6:25 PM


Watch it, RAZD.
I'm watching this thread; and I need also to watch my own participation as well. I recognize I am far from innocent in this matter, so this should be seen as a friendly reflection from one who is involved in the problem also.

NosyNed started this thread, and he has recommended we stick to published web sources. This is a good idea.

Let's avoid, if at all possible, using this thread to debate accuations of dishonesty with other colleagues in the forum.

RAZD, your latest example is a violation of guidelines, in that it is a bare link. The rationale is also weak.

The imputation of dishonesty in presenting only one side of an issue, or failing to link to what you consider good refutations, is open to dispute. We can discuss it, but may I propose you describe the problem more clearly in your post, and that you find a published source that illustrates what you mean, rather than trying to bring disputes from others threads into this one.

Thanks -- AdminSylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2004 6:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by SRO2, posted 05-02-2004 8:41 AM AdminSylas has not yet responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2004 7:17 PM AdminSylas has not yet responded

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 49 of 55 (104720)
05-02-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by AdminSylas
05-02-2004 4:24 AM


Re: Watch it, RAZD.
I in part, I disagree. Credibility is a factor in debate. If it is established that a pattern of dishonesty has been displayed in other debates, it can be grounds for dismissal of arguments in current debates
(in the interest of saving time) if proven.

On the other hand, it is also good debate tactics to put the opponent on the defensive. With a little skill, you can cause the opposition to unwittingly make your arguments for you...although, it's painful when they finally realize thats whats happened (some say it's dishonest, others say it's good debate skils/tactics).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AdminSylas, posted 05-02-2004 4:24 AM AdminSylas has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 50 of 55 (104757)
05-02-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by AdminSylas
05-02-2004 4:24 AM


Re: Watch it, RAZD - okay?
understood. I have edited the post in question to present the case for what I feel is dishonest about it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AdminSylas, posted 05-02-2004 4:24 AM AdminSylas has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 51 of 55 (104760)
05-02-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
05-02-2004 4:15 AM


Re: ted aka redwolf
Post in question has been edited per (admin?)sylas for more information specifying the dishonesty in question: claiming to have refuted an argument when in fact there was NO response. That is not just being lazy.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 05-02-2004 4:15 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 52 of 55 (104855)
05-03-2004 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
05-02-2004 4:15 AM


et tu syamsu?
Now you are being dishonest.

I did not just deny it was a dinosaur, I showed why it could not be the dinosaur that ted\redwolf said it was -- pointing out the places where the picture simply does not match the dinosaur, where it cannot match the picture. This was done in three different instances and not one of them has been answered (one (#29) had one weak response (#33) that was followed by more evidence that it just could not be so (#35) which has also gone unaswered).

I called ted\redwolf dishonest for claiming to have "clearly refuted" my posts when in fact he had made NO response.

Enjoy your fantasy.

[This message has been edited RAZD, 05-03-2004]


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 05-02-2004 4:15 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2004 6:02 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1156 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 55 (106015)
05-06-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sylas
04-29-2004 2:21 AM


Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Not necessarily; and I think we should avoid speaking of dishonesty without some better cause. This is probably a young person
______________________________________________________________________

Everytime a creo comes against the evo status quo with pointy arguments out comes this standard insult that the creo is young and thus stupid.

This is EvC based fascism - an elite few who think they are above it all. If Laserlover or whoever is so wrong then it should be no problem to refute them with the truth. But members like Laserlover are too quickly suspended and thus silenced to defend themselves.

Matter-based deities/scientism is rogue experience which is the opposite of innocence which is a component of truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 04-29-2004 2:21 AM Sylas has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 54 of 55 (106028)
05-06-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
05-03-2004 1:53 AM


Topic
Could we stay on topic please? You can argue about refutations or not in the specific threads. Thanks.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-06-2004 05:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2004 1:53 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 55 (106098)
05-06-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
04-28-2004 5:19 PM


just how often do you hear a creationist admit or say "gee I've never considered it that way"

Well here you go. I personally will say it. Just the other day I was listening to the radio and they were speaking about the book of Genesis it struck something and I went to look and lo and behold I had been misreading the very start to the bible the whole time. I had thought that the "earth and heavens" were included in the first day. Not true. The light was. So we don't know how long exactly the earth and heavens were in existence. Maybe it was 4.5 billion years that's a blink of an eye for Him. Maybe it's only been 25,000 years who really knows. But I was wrong (to all those I have been going back and forth with I may have been mistaken). But since the first day I still have everything else at +-7,000 years (dinosaurs and everything else) so keep practicing the carbon dating stuff untill you get it right. You didn't think I would just lie down did you. Peace. -Z

This message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-06-2004 09:16 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 04-28-2004 5:19 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019