You don't agree with me, therefore you are "intellectually dishonest"

[HughMoran]

This is typical behavior on a political forum with a broad spectrum of views (i.e. like DU), correct?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Voted no but it is normal behavior here.

[HughMoran]

3. That's an honest response

:think:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. I don't believe it's expected normal behavior. That was your question, wasn't it?

:eyes: :dunce:

[HughMoran]

8. If it's "normal" here to the point where you "expect" this type of counter to an argument

Then the answer is "yes" IMO.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. If you had specified DU then I would have answered the question differently.

[HughMoran]

11. There are political forums with a broad diversity of views that don't demonstrate this behavior?

I know there are small splinter sites where everybody agrees and those who "buck the system" are smashed to smithereens, but I was clearly using a forum like DU as a prototype - I thought that was obvious.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. If you want a more specific answer ask a more specific question.

[HughMoran]

19. Nope, yes or no only

There would be no point to asking this question any other way in my opinion. Asking for clarification/picking on my wording and/or stating that "other" types of behavior are more common is the whole point to this thread. I think I've already made the point I was attempting to make.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Yea by changing the question. Really backs up your point that it was obvious the first time.

[HughMoran]

27. I'm only human

It makes my point in the sense that people are turning on me for the "way" I asked the question, whereas the point was fairly obvious in my opinion.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Are you sure it's not Hughman?

[HughMoran]

31. It may be

;)

I'm not telling...

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

2. "Who Smelt it, Dealt it." When I read that it usually indicates that the respondent has nothing.

It's a way of saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." But means, "I don't have an intellectually honest response handy."

And so, I think it's funny that way.

I suppose it is to be expected in a large political forum with a diversity of membership, yes.

:patriot:

[cliffordu]

37. Hey, SKP - are all these

"intellectually dishonest" posts about moi???

[grantcart]

40. Yes

[HughMoran]

42. .

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

46. Well, look at what the Orly Taint drug in....

Howyadoin' ya little hoser?

[NYC_SKP]

47. No, that was what we call, "an Analogy". This is not really about your Flatulence.

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

48. Well.......

:rofl:

Butthead.

[defendandprotect]

4. I voted "NO" because saying that someone is "intellgectually dishonest" ...

often refers to people who simply refuse to acknowledge something perfectly obvious --

"Disingenuous" is another way to call that out --

Simply people who have a position they can't support -- and will waste your time trying

to ignore that reality!

That's not always true, I'm sure -- but it's an example I'm familiar with.

[Arctic Dave]

5. Seems to be the MO for all the talking head programs on cable television.

[HughMoran]

7. it's been the MO here for a long time too

you haven't noticed this?

[Arctic Dave]

24. Yeah, but we don't have to worry about our hair and make up.

[petronius]

10. "Expected" to me implies proper and correct - so what you describe wouldn't

fit that category but I think it's not unusual. However, I think "you don't agree with me so you're a stupid, deceitful (probably paid) freeper troll" is more common...

[HughMoran]

12. I changed the question

...so there would be less hair-splitting as to what I was asking.

[petronius]

14. So, what exactly do you mean by "typical"?

:P

My answer to the poll is 'no' - I think it's more typical to question the intellectual capacity of someone who disagrees than their intellectual honesty. Unless calling someone a mole/troll/disruptor counts as calling them intellectually dishonest...

[HughMoran]

15. Perhaps it depends on the thread

This question is controversial because many don't want to acknowledge how common this is and how dishonest this type of argument is. It's been discussed here on several threads recently, so I figured many would have put some thought into this subject.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Now that's intellectually dishonest.

[Bluebear]

21. It's a butterfly ballot, you never know what you're voting for til the edit period ends :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. Hanging chad perhaps.

[HughMoran]

22. Yes, exactly

:evilgrin:

[bananas]

18. Aha! You're changing the question because you don't like the results!

Changing the question after people have already voted is intellectually dishonest! :evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

20. Good, good - yes - this is what I was looking for

Now we're cooking with gas :evilgrin:

[Nikki Stone1]

13. If you don't acknowledge the facts, you're intellectually dishonest.

There's an important distinction there.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Ahem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170007

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Was I supposed to vote in the poll you posted?

:confused:

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Intellectual dishonesty occurs when one ignores facts to try and support their argument

The difference of course comes in what is an opinion and what is a fact. Take free trade, for example. The statement "Free trade is a scam that serves only to enrich a few at the expense of the many" is an opinion. The statement "Free trade has hurt people due to the loss of jobs overseas" is a fact. One does not have to agree with the statement to give an intellectually honest argument about free trade but one should acknowledge the second statement if they want to make an intellectually honest argument.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. More to the point is that if you don't agree with me...

you're one sorry, ignorant motherfucker.

("Intellectually dishonest" being simply a nice way of saying you're too stupid to understand me.)

[HughMoran]

32. lol

I like your argumentative technique ;)

I think agreeing on which facts are indeed salient is half the problem. It's very common to see facts "dismissed as irrelevant" (in not so many words) when they don't lead to the desired result or conclusion.

[L0oniX]

34. What's with all the "intellectually dishonest" polls tonight???

Who the fuck cares.

[Posteritatis]

38. Guess some people got offended when introduced to a definition of the concept. (nt)

[Double T]

35. .........forgot..........

"You don't agree with me, therefore"... I'm going to put you on 'IGNORE'.

[HughMoran]

41. That NEVER happens

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Only from the intellectually dishonest.

Becasue true intellectual dishonesty is not in person A disagreeing with person B, but in Person A disagreeing with Person A in two different threads (or even the same thread), and refusing to acknowledge it when challenged on it by Person B.

[TexasObserver]

39. That's certainly the unrelenting theme.

Don't you need some kind of numbering system for that?

And you need to say "that's rule number six I learned in that course I took last summer at the community college, and I use it everywhere I go!"

[CTyankee]

43. Well, judging from some back and forth posting in a couple of Amanda Knox threads,

I must say that some DUers who support her conviction were accusing those who didn't of being somehow American "expansionists" and "exceptinalists" which is a ridiculous assumption to make. There were some pretty far reaches that were personally insulting to many of us, who feel no such motivation in this case or in any other and who, in fact, disagree vehemently with the notion of "American exceptionalism" and recognize it for the evil it is.

If these accusations were supportable with background evidence, it would be one thing. But to come out of left field with them is intellectually dishonest...and down right wrong.

[pampango]

44. If you don't agree with me, you're a kool-aid drinker, apologist, enabler, and

"centrist" or "purist" depending on the topic. jk

I suspect it has a lot to do with human nature. When you passionately believe in something, it is difficult for some to accept that a poster presenting a counter argument can be anything other than a tool of an evil force.

That seems antithetical to the purpose of a discussion board. Perhaps DU should become a pronouncement board where we can each announce our "truths" and brook no counter arguments, just pats on the back (recs). ;) That way we don't have to deal with all the kool-aid drinkers, apologists and enablers out there.

[Junkdrawer]

45. Why is this post allowed....

While this is not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170007

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. I don't know, but I'm sure the Ford Motor Company has something to do with it. -nt