Dishonesty should be against the rules

[Angel]

Several forum members and I have been engaged in a debate against a forum member named, Artie. I caught this person twice in lies. These lies involve making inconsistent statements and I have clear and direct evidence which I posted on the forum where this debate is taking place. Now I see no direct rule against lying, but it can damage trust and debate quality when this is allowed and becomes a pattern. Lying in debates can involve, lying about your position, lying about informatoin, lying about who said what, etc. I'm not saying that anyone should call someone a liar for any reason, but when there's EVIDENCE of dishonesty going on, then shouldn't moderator action be taken? In my view, a liar is not interested in getting to the truth but rather trying to win a debate at all cost with even w/ dirty or DISHONEST tactics. So I question, why should a person be kept here when there's clear evidence of this behavior.

[Angel]

[Replying to post 38 by Angel]

You should either point out the inconsistencies and fallacies to the person you're debating with, or disengage with them. There's not much point in creating a thread of fallacies quoted from other threads. I suppose you could have a reverse donation thread, where people are noted for their inability to debate, but that doesn't seem like it would be in the spirit of this forum.

Well I dont intend to just look for logical fallacies but rather I will be looking at how someone reacts after they're point is clearly shown to be a logical fallacy or false. This is where the dishonesty tends to start in debates. If a person reacts by REPEATEDLY denying, twisting their position or the whole topic, etc then we can say that reaction stems from dishonesty. Disengaging is not a good option for me not only because I don't like people being dishonest, but also I don't want others to waste their time with a countless number of posts and be misled. I certainly would not want that happening on a thread that I start.

The best way to get a dishonest person to stop being dishonest is to put a rule in place and enforce it. This is the only way to get the person to not just be a problem for me but to STOP them in their tracks from being a problem to EVERYONE else on this forum.

[Angel]

We now have 3 different forum members complaining or bringing up dishonesty or dishonest tactics. Here's more evidence just for you Otseng and this is in addition to what I already posted:

Am glad you agree that the link that you provided was wrong then.

Yea, I'm pretty much done with you. You keep dishonestly putting words in my mouth and you're not even addressing the topic.

That is now another error on your part that you admitted to.

I never said my source was flawed, stop making stuff up. There is another thread about how dishonesty should be against the rules and here is a prime example of why it should. You are dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

Surely you are not accusing me of being dishonest?

You make up stuff because you are losing the debate, and you put words in my mouth and try to make it seem as if I said something when I actually didn't.

Am glad you agree that the link that you provided was wrong then.

You provided a link from Philosophy of Science. That is now another error on your part that you admitted to.

That is interesting. Am glad you agree.

Thank you for admitting that your reject your link.

I never admitted or said ANY of those things. I can see you're relatively new here, so I suggest you stop making up stuff if you ever want to be taken seriously on this forum.

I asked you before Otseng if you were okay with dishonesty but let me get more specific. Are you okay with a person twisting their position to cover up evidence that someone has brought up against their position?

Are you okay with members DENYING simple evidence and logic and continuing to assert their claim despite being shown evidence and logic to the contrary?

Are you okay with a weak atheist claiming that they have no views on God, and when evidence is presented that shows that weak atheist expressing some view on God, then the weak atheist denies it? Are you okay with the honest debater spending a NUMEROUS posts trying to convince someone of even matters as simple as these?

Please do tell me how much more evidence do you need to show that dishonesty can be a big problem. ONce we get past that then we can start talking about how to implement rules or when and how it should apply to PREVENT this pesky problem.

[olavisjo]

.

Please do tell me how much more evidence do you need to show that dishonesty can be a big problem. ONce we get past that then we can start talking about how to implement rules or when and how it should apply to PREVENT this pesky problem.

There is a simple solution to this problem, do what Keithprosser did, just tell your opponent...

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you from now on. I want you to know that I am.

Problem solved, no need for new rules. If this person does not modify her behavior, she will eventually be left with no one to talk with.

[JohnA]

Nobody should be accusing anybody of dishonesty on the forum ... even if one could prove it. We should be arguing about ideas, not about forum participants.

Then why can a user make 3 posts to me and call me dishonest (making stuff up), yet I receive an unrelated warning/comment for it, and none to the offending user?


This seems to be in direct contradiction to what otseng wrote above.

Unless, of course my opinion (fact, fiction) can never be fact, only fiction AND mods option are always fact never fiction.
Or Perhaps, it is up to mods to implement their opinion (fact or fiction) based on their preferences (like or dislike of a user, emotion at the time, etc.).

[JohnA]

We now have 3 different forum members complaining or bringing up dishonesty or dishonest tactics. Here's more evidence just for you Otseng and this is in addition to what I already posted:

Am glad you agree that the link that you provided was wrong then.

Yea, I'm pretty much done with you. You keep dishonestly putting words in my mouth and you're not even addressing the topic.

That is now another error on your part that you admitted to.

I never said my source was flawed, stop making stuff up. There is another thread about how dishonesty should be against the rules and here is a prime example of why it should. You are dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

Surely you are not accusing me of being dishonest?

You make up stuff because you are losing the debate, and you put words in my mouth and try to make it seem as if I said something when I actually didn't.

Am glad you agree that the link that you provided was wrong then.

You provided a link from Philosophy of Science. That is now another error on your part that you admitted to.

That is interesting. Am glad you agree.

Thank you for admitting that your reject your link.

I never admitted or said ANY of those things. I can see you're relatively new here, so I suggest you stop making up stuff if you ever want to be taken seriously on this forum.

I asked you before Otseng if you were okay with dishonesty but let me get more specific. Are you okay with a person twisting their position to cover up evidence that someone has brought up against their position?

Are you okay with members DENYING simple evidence and logic and continuing to assert their claim despite being shown evidence and logic to the contrary?

Are you okay with a weak atheist claiming that they have no views on God, and when evidence is presented that shows that weak atheist expressing some view on God, then the weak atheist denies it? Are you okay with the honest debater spending a NUMEROUS posts trying to convince someone of even matters as simple as these?

Please do tell me how much more evidence do you need to show that dishonesty can be a big problem. ONce we get past that then we can start talking about how to implement rules or when and how it should apply to PREVENT this pesky problem.

If you read the whole debate between Winpepusher and me, one would then realize that I did in fact not do anything dishonest here. He is merely claiming I did. I may have incorrectly interpreted some of his admissions assuming it applies in general with no exception to his clear biased, but instead of asking for clarification he accused me of being dishonest.

And the irony was that I ended up being penalized for this. Amazing if you ask me. This is way beyond my logic - which must be flawed because that is the only explanation I have.

[JohnA]

Here's another charge of dishonesty. Here you have 2 differnet people accusing the same person (John A.) of dishonesty. I hope more can be done to look into this rather than just making a general moderator statement to not call someone dishonest. Then again, I'm not sure if olavisjo and instantc actually reported John A but my point in bringing this up is to show how I'm NOT the only person complaining about dishonesty on this forum. I'm just one of the few that's willing to suggest that it should be added to the forum rules.

Do you think it is a nice thing to imply I am being dishonest?

Yes I think you are being dishonest, I can keep these citations coming if you want, I have plenty more replicating the exact thing you deny above, namely that strict liability in these countries works as a reversal of the burden of proof. See how Dr. van Dam is restating here the exact notion that I wrote in my original argument? Either all these legal professionals are "struggling to understand strict liability" as you say, or then you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

To remind you, here's my initial contention about strict liability that you have been challenging: (see how it corresponds to what Dr. van Dam is saying above)

Do you actually have a point to make, a question to ask?

The point is that you may be distorting what others have said. This is what I am trying to resolve.

Claiming someone is dishonest is different than proving evidence to support a claim to make it a fact.

[JohnA]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

Actually, you are dishonest now.
Your direct quotation supported my point. I showed you this.
Furthermore, it stated that a person can prove himself innocent. That is clearly false.
That is besides the fact that it;s an argument from authority that you presented.
And you rejected the EU humans rights that I submitted - you only accept what supports your point even when it does not. How is that logical?

The difference between your accusation and my accusation of dishonesty is that I can actual provide evidence to back up my claim. Your belief is that evidence is not needed for claims/arguments. So you are handicapped having this biased (that is clearly false) from the start. And your post above is evidence of that.

Also would this be classified as dishonesty when a users argument is being shown flawed (invalid, unsound), but he ignores these posts (or pretends to) that shows it the fallacies?

I have shown instantc's argument as flawed. Yet he ignores that and keeps on arguing with other users his same old flawed arguments.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 702#608702

I have no evidence that instantc read my posts where I have shown his fallacies.
And even if I did, I still would have no evidence to show he understands that his argument is flawed.
The only way I can get this is for instantc to acknowledge, either way. But I have historical evidence that instantc stops responding to me when I have shown his arguments as patently conclusively false.

Can users just ignore posts that show their argument false and keep on posting as nothing is wrong?
At what point does this become dishonesty, intellectual dishonesty or just a lack of understanding of debate or lack of understanding of basic logic (fallacies)?

How do we call out this? Is there a rule for this?

[Angel]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

Actually, you are dishonest now.
Your direct quotation supported my point. I showed you this.
Furthermore, it stated that a person can prove himself innocent. That is clearly false.

I agree that if dishonesty is made as a rule, then someone would have to show clear evidence of that by referencing posts and REPEATED acts of distorting someone's views, denying evidence, etc. Your charging of instantc of being dishonest shows some evidence that there are people that see dishonesty on this forum. I'm only making it an issue here so that Otseng will realize that it should be a rule, and that we need to come up with clear standards to address this problem.

So there goes more evidence for you Otseng.. the part of John A's post that I changed to bold font. When are you going to address my question of how much more evidence do you need to add a rule? Or at least tell me that you would do NOTHING even if it were a big problem here just so I can stop wasting my time on trying to help debates live up to what you advertise here.

[JohnA]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

Actually, you are dishonest now.
Your direct quotation supported my point. I showed you this.
Furthermore, it stated that a person can prove himself innocent. That is clearly false.

I agree that if dishonesty is made as a rule, then someone would have to show clear evidence of that by referencing posts and REPEATED acts of distorting someone's views, denying evidence, etc. Your charging of instantc of being dishonest shows some evidence that there are people that see dishonesty on this forum. I'm only making it an issue here so that Otseng will realize that it should be a rule, and that we need to come up with clear standards to address this problem.

So there goes more evidence for you Otseng.. the part of John A's post that I changed to bold font. When are you going to address my question of how much more evidence do you need to add a rule? Or at least tell me that you would do NOTHING even if it were a big problem here just so I can stop wasting my time on trying to help debates live up to what you advertise here.

But I have been given a warning (or was it a comment) about saying someone is dishonest. So, is this non exiting rule being implemented selectively by modes, based on some criteria that is not known.
The only criteria so far that I can deduce is :
It is my opinion, and my opinion is ALWAYS wrong.

I find it quite difficult to reconcile how pointing out someone's ignorant deems a warning, by it is ok to selectively implement a non-existing rule for dishonesty.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 011#602011

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 354#596354

This clearly does not apply to moderators:
"Here's the problem, everything thinks they are wonderful and other people are bad. it's better for you to stop comparing yourself with others. "

You can not win. Why bother is the question, it's all subjective. Anything goes, as long as the mods have a justification. This is not democracy, but this is not politics/economics, it is a website forum. So what do I know.

[otseng]

So there goes more evidence for you Otseng.. the part of John A's post that I changed to bold font. When are you going to address my question of how much more evidence do you need to add a rule? Or at least tell me that you would do NOTHING even if it were a big problem here just so I can stop wasting my time on trying to help debates live up to what you advertise here.

Calling someone dishonest would fall under rule 1:
1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Under no circumstances are anybody allowed to violate rule 1. This includes calling anyone dishonest.