Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.
Then be of good cheer Odeon. You wanted a reaction 3 months ago and three months ago you got a reaction. Probably a bigger reaction than you ever imagined.
And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.
Why would I chase him around the board? I have resolved things with him for the past.
If you wish for more ninja cats you do not have to plead for the seeing of them. I have them in abundance.
It does not help that I see no substance behind what you say and what looks like contradictions and inconsistencies in your message along 3 months.
I am a pretty easy person to figure. I say what I think and will do so one novel at a time. That is me. My message today is pretty much identical to what it was 3 months ago. It may make me predictable or stubborn or opinionated and an absolute pain in the arse BUT it is transparent, honest and consistent with my set of values. (Which ironically flies in the face of the kind of mindset needed for intellectual dishonesty).
Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.
I was wrong about him? Well, without starting things up again, I really do not think so. I think I was spot on with him and I read a few random posts the last few days until I well and truly had my fill, just to confirm.
That said, I am happy to give credit where credit is due. At one point in this and after obviously more than a little coaxing and thought he did try to bridge the gap. That WAS him and I am please to recognise that. Took some guts. That is why I have called off hostilities with him. Jack was right, it WAS what I wanted from him and I got it.
Now taking that anomaly aside. I (as I say) looked at a few posts he has made in the last 3 months, some that I stopped myself from reacting to, and to a post they were exactly what I had been saying. In fact when you were promoting the "How would you know if you do not read him", well now I have and I was NOT wrong in my estimation.
This is looking to me like "Well my initial callout was based around your behaviour in the feuding between you and Zegh and now that you two are squared away, I think we should pretend that I said nothing. My underlying issue for baiting you in the first place is resolved so..." No.
But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.
Yes "really mate". It absolutely is emotional blackmail. It says quite transparently "If you do not drop this argument, we can't be friends. Chose the argument or my friendship". I do not play that game. Never have and never will. Makes me inclined to want to dig my heels in when I feel like I am being played.
As to whether or not you offer peace offerings, I do not believe I asked for that, in the same way I never asked for you baiting me in the first place.
So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.
I have yet to see me having lost anything so THAT may be the biggest misconception of them all....but not on my end.
Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.
"Should have" or "could have"? There is no specific designated to do much of anything here. That is simply you subscribing YOUR want of how "I" have to behave on here. Here is the answer to any such expectation (in advance and without you expressing any specific action or behaviour) "No, Odeon, but thank you for the suggestion".
See once that is out the way then it becomes a question of whilst I could, why should I? I know you have a very specific reading of intellectual dishonesty and want to apply it a very specific way but it really does not do what you want it to do. Here is what I mean. Its silly to say "If you subscribe to the idea or concept of a word then you subscribe to every possible negative connotation of what the word may remotely imply when carrying through this concept to absurd extremes."
Maybe sometimes a specific reading or a literal reading is better and I dare say more healthier and honest.
Want an example?
However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations
Recognise this? Yes, its part of your Intellectual Dishonesty definition. But it is not just any part of the definition/explanation. It is the part that you think thoroughly supports your position. You believe because you think that my behaviour meets an interpretation of what this part of an explanation of Intellectual Dishonesty, that is it a slam dunk or game, set and match.
Unless we see how this same interpretation may play out in ANY other environment. Pick a polarising figure. Let use Trump. Most people have an opinion on him and most people know who he is. Go up to a friend, colleague, or a random, and ask them this "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?" Now whatever their answer, I want you to say "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. One has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations".
I double dare you.
Truth is that these people having such an opinion on Donald Trump is not Intellectually Dishonest, and neither was I for exactly the same reasons. In the same reason that these people do NOT need to watch or read more to have a better informed decision to mitigate risk in being intellectually dishonest, is the same reason I don't.
You need to have a bit more. Now what if with these people you were to say "Look, I have some better arguments, and can show you that you were incorrect". Well it depends. Maybe you don't have better arguments, or dont have what THEY consider better arguments, maybe they have other reasons for not wishing to hear more ("Dude you are harassing me on a street, I don't even know you"). BUT in the event that they do listen or see a different point of view, then them now agreeing with a new position, or changing their mind is not intellectually dishonest, nor does it mean/suggest/imply that they were intellectually dishonest in the first place.
Had I not been saying quite clearly, "If I am wrong show me"? (paraphrased Just letting you know I still know what that means, my Tutor). If you do not believe me, I can show quotes to back this, because you know I do not have a problem in backing myself (Something I would struggle with IF I was Intellectually Dishonest, right?). So my reaction and my conduct is not intellectually dishonest. In fact for all my "not getting it" and being "too literal" I am very honest and transparent and consistent.
This is akin to the following situation:
Odeon: "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?"
Workmate: "He is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair"
Odeon: "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. One has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations"
Workmate: Fuck you.
Odeon: Haha fair call, what an idiot I was promoting this interpretation of what Intellectual dishonesty is. But hey out of interest could you look at this unfiltered and unedited clip of Trump, it may make you change your mind about something.
Workmate: Sure I guess
<<Watches Clip>>
Workmate: Well I initially thought he is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair BUT now, in light of this new piece of information that I was not aware of I think he is He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair/he is America's only hope. Go Trump!
Odeon: Well all's well that ends well. You know, you were not intellectually dishonest after all. It was a silly interpretation. In fact intellectual dishonesty is more about intent and whether people are being open and honest in the way they look at things. You appeared honest in your opinions, transparent, and open to new information, BUT you were not obliged to have to see everything of him to have an opinion. I mean when did you last read or actually watch anything of him?
Workmate: I dunno six months?
Odeon: But there, you had strong opinions regardless and they were not intellectually dishonest to have nor were you wrong in having or expressing them. So I was wrong saying you were intellectually dishonest.
Workmate: Dude are you tutoring me here?
Odeon: I like tutoring and pretending you are too stupid to have concepts or ideas of your own.
Can you see the flaw? (BTW My opinion of Zegh has not changed. But because he did all I asked I will not pursue hostilities, let's not try to confuse issues, right?)
Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:
Lots of exchange between us
Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.
Yes you called me dishonest without a qualifier, in the same way you said I was pretending and in the same way you said I was trying to be dramatic and infer something nasty in the term "ganging up" and in the same way you said I was tiptoeing. All of it was as wrong.
They were just as wrong as the Intellectual Dishonesty claim. They are all separate claims you made at me at different times and you made each of those charges for a reaction from me that you are now enjoying. Just as well we are mates.
As for the second point yes I was never dishonest about calling him out on his dishonesty nor dishonest about not reading him. If so show me what dishonest thing that I said. Back yourself. You will have to do a damn sight better than something generic like "Zegh is full of shit". Better also be something uniformed that I had no good reason to believe. No? So have you got an empty sack here or have you not?
I said this:
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?
More discussion
I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.
Because it would have made no difference. It is not worthless on your say so and your posting does not make it less inconsistent or moreso.
Is it intellectually dishonesty or a blindspot or something else completely. You seem to be hedging your bets $50 on red and $50 on black. THAT is the inconsistency. Moving between positions but not actually adopting either and no I believe that having a blindspot by its "blindness" is not intellectual dishonesty" (not that I find that an admirable trait nor a nice claim and not that I think I have a blindspot over all of this either). These are not a subsets of each other but rather different claims.
Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?
Sure can. Not sure I have had grounds to here.
Its more of the same. Dishonesty. Pretence. Intellectual Dishonesty. Tiptoeing. All the same to me. Defend them, abandon them, merge them into what you consider a better claim or change your mind. Its fine. I was simply shining a mirror to your posting history. You used the words you used and I am reacting to what you said. Which is what you wanted.
As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:
More discussion
As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.
But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.
Oh....."I" OBVIOUSLY had a problem with the phrase and THAT was my reason for starting a thread about it? Except, of course, that was not in any way shape or form correct. YOU had a problem with the phrase YOU said here in what you quoted
Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.
That was not me. That was YOU. 100% YOU. I did not have an issue with the word. I objected with what you were implying of what I thought in my own head about the word, or how I meant to infer or imply anything. As a result I started a thread so that I had "better alternatives" to use, should ever such an occasion come again, when two or more members of Intensitysquared took an interest in another member, and were negatively interacting with that person. Got lots of suggestions too.
Let's keep it real. I did not have a problem with the word nor did I the action. You did. You SAY I meant the word to be dramatic. I didn't. You say I was trying to infer something nasty. I wasn't. Where that was taking place was in YOUR head, not mine. It was either just a phrase or it was something nasty and dramatic. I simply used it to say that Butterflies and Zegh were collectively "criticising" DFG. End of. No implication of anything more and no judgement. That was best left to you to try to make unwarranted mileage out of.
Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?
I do not really mind what you do. I mention this as part of a large pattern. You make unfounded claims to bait me and I react to them. A lot of these claims are neither fair, reasonable or strong claims. None of them are true.
Now you can say "Oh but I merged that claim or I retracted that claim". That is perfectly reasonable to point out. Each of these things individually and at their face is fine. BUT (and here is the point of it), collectively and given the relatively short period of time to consider each of these claims COLLECTIVELY it looks like a metaphoric shotgun blast. Shotgun pellets will scatter and do damage but much of it negligible. Whatever or whoever is the recipient of said shotgun blast need not concentrate on the damage of wayward pellets but ought to look at the whole blast and all the pellets collectively. Same intent, same purpose and part of a greater and collective blast.
They were all equally as wrong. They were all unfair. They were all said for a reaction. They all collectively got a reaction.
I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?
Hahaha. I dunno, Odeon when you realise you were wrong in all of this tell me just what a bitch it is.
Just so we are on the same page here because I would HATE to second guess or put words in your mouth. You are not so fucking stupid to for a second believe that the fact that, just because Zegh wrote his acceptance of his part in things, that this makes me wrong about what I thought about him or that he is now somehow right...?
No? Great! I did not think so. Whew, that could have got awkward.
Again I did not take the easy way out of ...anything. I have since read some of what he did say over the last six months and I now, after taking the "easier way" (to read what he said) I am more assured of how spot on my convictions about who and what he is were all along. Reading is SO much easier than trying not reading and keeping a semblance of what he is talking about and who. The fact that I was as close as I was, is testament to the effort involved. Great work me.
I will save you the next argument if you like:
Odeon: "Oh...but there was something you missed from him at one point, Al".
Al: "Yes, yes there was......and?"
Odeon: "So therefore I was right because he said something in 6 months that you did not read and because you did not read everything he said in 6 months...."
Al: "I will stop you there. IF I WAS reading what he wrote, its possible I would have missed it anyhow. No one here reads everything everyone says on every thread. In fact an example of this is EVERY Peanut Gallery ever. How many people have read this thread? Jack is unusual in that regard. In fact the fact that I missed it and Jack supplied it is great. It was a little gem amongst the shit pile and Jack found it. It was all cleared up. That says nothing bad about intellectual dishonesty and rather makes the opposite point. It makes a greater point for doing what I said, adhering to my values and principles, and being honest and transparent. It also does not change my overall impression of Zegh. I am glad he posted what he did and yes I will hold true to what I said i would do.
Odeon: "too literal.....don't get it....intellectual dishonesty.....easy way out.....don't get it....too literal..."
So could you be a bit clearer with your point because that one was shit.
I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.
It was your choice too. This did not all come out of a vacuum. I hear a lot of "your choice, your choice, your choice" Not much about your part in things. As I said a few times. You wanted a reaction and you have one. Why be sad? You got a reaction. You want to get nasty over my reaction to you? Your choice. You want to blame me for reacting to your fishing for a reaction? Fine. You want to threaten friendship over it? Okay. You are right, choices are involved.
But you have some points to defend and opinions to back. I will leave you with it.