Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[giblets]

The argument, "everything I post is a lie" would invalidate your statement should I quote it.

Are you deliberately taking things too literally or is that part of your mental disability?

[Aeson]

The argument, "everything I post is a lie" would invalidate your statement should I quote it.

a) no.
b) you haven't said that ... if you want to make that claim, feel free to do so.
c) I said we have examples of dishonesty/ignorance on your part ... which you are either dishonestly or ignorantly trying to change to simply dishonesty.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you deliberately taking things too literally or is that part of your mental disability?

Why subject yourself to the tyranny of 'or'?

[Ben Kenobi]

c) I said we have examples of dishonesty/ignorance on your part ... which you are either dishonestly or ignorantly trying to change to simply dishonesty.

Then why not post what you believe to be the actual truth.

[Aeson]

Then why not post what you believe to be the actual truth.

I did. I posted you are dishonest and/or ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

I posted you are dishonest and/or ignorant.

Well then. if I were honest what would I have posted instead?

[Aeson]

Well then. if I were honest what would I have posted instead?

You are continuing your dishonest and/or ignorant distortion of "dishonest and/or ignorant" to simply "dishonest". You would post something else if you weren't dishonest and/or ignorant.

Your insinuation that all honest people would post the same thing and thus we can deduce what an honest and/or not ignorant BK would say based on that homogeneity is of course another example of you being dishonest and/or ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are continuing your dishonest and/or ignorant distortion of "dishonest and/or ignorant" to simply "dishonest". You would post something else if you weren't dishonest and/or ignorant.

I'm more curious by the dishonest accusation. Most posters here would conclude that I'm Catholic, that my opinions are generally a reflection of what I actually believe. You don't. That puzzles me, and makes me curious as to what you believe I *actually* believe.

Merely labeling opinions you dislike as 'dishonest' doesn't strike me as a particularly profitable endeavor.

I've asked you to please specify what you believe that I actually believe. Then I have a good guide on which to base your accusations on.

all honest people would post the same thing

Never said that at all. Please point out where I said that. I simply said that the logical assertion that I'm always lying doesn't give you a basis on which to establish the truth. That's logic.

To me it seems pretty clear.

Presupposition 1: You believe in X
Presupposition 2: People believe in X are being honest with their opinions.
Presupposition 3: People who do not believe in X are being dishonest in their opinions.

Is this not what you are arguing here?

As for ignorant, why do you believe that unless someone agrees with you they are ignorant? Isn't this a pretty insular statement?

[Aeson]

I'm more curious by the dishonest accusation. Most posters here would conclude that I'm Catholic, that my opinions are generally a reflection of what I actually believe. You don't. That puzzles me, and makes me curious as to what you believe I *actually* believe.

We weren't discussing if you were Catholic. We weren't discussing what you believe. I was addressing what you post. For instance:

Aeson: You are misinterpreting 'be with'.
BK: "Then what's your beef with the Catholic church?"

This is a dishonest and/or ignorant response, since I had not expressed any beef with the Catholic church and had nothing to do with what you quoted.

Aeson: My beef is with your dishonesty and/or ignorance.
BK: "In citing stats you don't like? Why don't you show me what you believe a honest Ben Kenobi would say."

This was a dishonest and/or ignorant response, since there were no stats at all involved in our discussion.
It is also dishonest and/or ignorant as it conflates "honest" as the opposite of "dishonest and/or ignorant".

(I've wrapped the exchanges in BK quotes so no posters will be exposed to any BK quotes while maintaining the readability of the exchanges.)

Merely labeling opinions you dislike as 'dishonest' doesn't strike me as a particularly profitable endeavor.

That is a dishonest and/or ignorant depiction of what I am doing. I am pointing out specific arguments you make as "dishonest and/or ignorant".

I've asked you to please specify what you believe that I actually believe. Then I have a good guide on which to base your accusations on.

We weren't discussing what you believe. It's just one of many of your strawmen you are dishonestly and/or ignorantly bringing up.

Never said that at all. Please point out where I said that. I simply said that the logical assertion that I'm always lying doesn't give you a basis on which to establish the truth. That's logic.

You claim that your "logic" dictates that spotting dishonesty and/or ignorance means you know what would have been said if the actor was honest and/or not ignorant. But that is not possible unless there is an immutable statement that all honest and/or not ignorant people would say in that specific situation. Thus your "logic" implies that all people would say the exact same thing if they were honest and/or not ignorant. That means your logic is dishonest and/or ignorant because we can clearly see examples of honest people who say different things (or even nothing at all) in regards to the same topics.

To me it seems pretty clear.

Presupposition 1: You believe in X
Presupposition 2: People believe in X are being honest with their opinions.
Presupposition 3: People who do not believe in X are being dishonest in their opinions.

Is this not what you are arguing here?

No it is not.

Pretending that is what I am arguing is another of your dishonest and/or ignorant strawmen.

As for ignorant, why do you believe that unless someone agrees with you they are ignorant?

I don't.

That's your dishonest and/or ignorant strawman you are arguing with.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a dishonest and/or ignorant response, since I had not expressed any beef with the Catholic church and had nothing to do with what you quoted.

So you agree with what the Catholic Church teaches on homosexuality?

You claim that your "logic" dictates

The claim, "Ben Kenobi always lies" has the logical consequence of:

1, not being true, since the statement in itself is self contradictory should I quote it.

2. Prevents you from actually stating a true belief that I have.

2 is what you're getting tripped up on Aeson. 2 is a logical consequence of the statement, "Ben Kenobi always lies". If it were true, you'd not be able to establish a true belief that I have.

3. Evades the real question, "what does Ben Kenobi actually believe/"

4. Evades the real question, "what is Ben Kenobi actually lying about?"

5. Does nothing to actually address the topic of the discussion.

Blasting people with, "you're dishonest" is really just a label. You might as well just call me fat.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thus your "logic" implies that all people would say the exact same thing if they were honest and/or not ignorant.

You're the one making the assertion that I am ignorant. Not me, Aeson. I can't make an assertion that I've never stated. In order for an argument to draw this conclusion I have to make the presupposition that, "people who disagree with me are ignorant".

The only one who's tossed around any accusation of lying or ignorance is you.

[Aeson]

So you agree with what the Church teaches on homosexuality?

No.

Your response here is another example of your dishonesty and/or ignorance.

[Aeson]

You're the one making the assertion that I am ignorant.

Dishonest and/or ignorant. First you dishonestly and/or ignorantly argued as if I was saying "dishonest" only. Claiming I said "ignorant" only is also dishonest and/or ignorant.

The simple truth is that whether or not your misuse of logic and misinterpretation of statements are dishonest or ignorant is impossible to say. Either could explain it, as could a combination thereof. But it is definitely one, the other, or some combination thereof.

Not me, Aeson. I can't make an assertion that I've never stated.

I didn't claim you were making the assertion that you are ignorant.

In order for an argument to draw this conclusion I have to make the presupposition that, "people who disagree with me are ignorant".

No, it is not a requirement.

[Ben Kenobi]

No.

Then my question, "what beef do you have with what the Catholic church teaches?" - is a valid question. It's not dishonest when you've made it clear over the years that you do have a beef with what the Catholic church teaches.

Your response here is another example of your dishonesty and/or ignorance.

Look up 'Socratic Method'.

I didn't claim you were making the assertion that you are ignorant.

You've claimed, twice now, that I was making the assertion that, "those who disagree with what I believe to be true are ignorant."

You're the only one who's made any claims about any other poster in this thread of their ignorance.

No, it is not a requirement.

Yeah, it is. The argument's conclusion requires that particular presupposition.

I'm trying to diagram the logic in an attempt to explain it to you.

[Aeson]

Then my question, "what beef do you have with what the Catholic church teaches?" - is a valid question. It's not dishonest when you've made it clear over the years that you do have a beef with what the Catholic church teaches.

It had nothing to do with what I was taking issue with and which you quoted, which was your interpretation of my use of the words "be with".

Look up 'Socratic Method'.

I'm not seeing "create strawman at every turn and act like a moron" in the definition ... I think I'll stick with "dishonest and/or ignorant" to describe what you are doing.

You've claimed, twice now, that I was making the assertion that, "those who disagree with what I believe to be true are ignorant."

No I haven't. That's your strawman.

Yeah, it is. The argument's conclusion requires that particular presupposition.

No it doesn't.

I'm trying to diagram the logic in an attempt to explain it to you.

I don't need a diagram, it's straightforward.

You claim that if I claim you are "dishonest and/or ignorant" that I must then know what you would say if you were "honest". Which of course is moving goalposts first and foremost, since the proper reciprocal would be "honest and not ignorant".

More importantly, your claim is incompatible with reality. To reach the point where the given "honest" is in and of itself sufficient to make accurate predictions of the statements made by a hypothetical honest individual requires that all honest people would say the same thing in regards to issues you have been addressing. Since all honest people do not say the same thing, then we can conclude your "logic" is incompatible with reality.