What is honesty?

[Vort]

The only thing on this forum that consistently harshes my mellow is dishonesty in communication, or at least my perception of dishonesty in communication. It is the single factor that will reliably set me off.

Here are a few hypothetical situations. For each, please tell me two things:

• Is this dishonesty, or is it something else?
• What is the appropriate response to this?

Now, the hyptheticals:

• A new user, very young, joins the site, and proceeds to tell everyone about her views on social topics. To the shock and amazement of absolutely no one, her views are typical leftist ideas, as if read off a checklist.

  (No, I don't think this is dishonest, either. I'm just starting off easy.)

• A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false.

• A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he is not bearing testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.)

• A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

• List Member Y makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member X disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how Y could believe such a thing. Y responds in detail to X and provides some questions of his own for X to answer. X partially answers one or two of Y's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks Y some more questions. Y again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for X to answer (in convenient list form). X continues to ignore Y's questions, but then starts complaining that Y sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?
• A list member posts a detailed analysis of some point. During the subsequent discussion, List Member Z posts his own questions and objections. Someone points out to Z that his objections were answered in the original analysis. Z goes on to post other objections, and people continue to point out to him that his objections were answered in the original analysis. This does not stop Z. It quickly becomes apparent that, though speaking (or writing) from the heart, Z has not read AND WILL NOT READ the original analysis.

Interested to hear feedback. I may add more scenarios as they occur to me.

And by the way, I believe that all of these hypotheticals (except for the first) are dishonest. That is why I'm asking about them.

PS PC, I liked your answer to C. Wish I could Thank and Laugh in the same post...

Edited December 3, 2009 by Vort
Combining scenarios and reassigning genders in E

[prisonchaplain]

A new user, very young, joins the site, and proceeds to tell everyone about her views on social topics. To the shock and amazement of absolutely no one, her views are typical leftist ideas, as if read off a checklist.

No dishonesty. Mindfield of potential violation of the "politics = thin ice" rule though.

A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false.

New user is either dishonest or ignorant of LDS teachings and standards.

A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he does not bear testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.)

My attorney advices me not to comment while my case is still pending litigation.

A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

With issues of large-scale social injustice it can be a mark of spiritual discernment and empathy to recognize the general sins of groups against groups, without taking the accusation personally. IMHO, Pastor Dean Jackson did that when he and his congregation (Assemblies of God) made a heart-felt declaration of repentence to the LDS community for their hardness of heart towards them. In fact, Dean Jackson was relatively new to the community, and, if memory serves me right, he had not spent a signficant amount of time as an adult amongst LDS.

List Member X makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member Y disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how X could believe such a thing. X responds in detail to Y and provides some questions of his own for Y to answer. Y partially answers one or two of X's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks X some more questions. X again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for Y to answer. Y continues to ignore X's questions, but then starts complaining that X sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?

Interested to hear feedback. I may add more scenarios as they occur to me.

I'll confess that when posts are long and detailed, I often only respond to sections I find interesting. I usually don't get called on this practice because I don't attempt to engage in point by point debate. If you believe you are debating someone--well even then, it's common to smooth over areas of weakness or ignorance, and focus on points one believes bolster the position. You probably cannot enforce your expectation of point by point responses.

Edited December 4, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[ryanh]

You forgot one of my pet peeves:

F. A brand new, or very recent new member makes a post that starts off: "A friend of mine has this problem. You see, they . . ." And they proceed to describe the event/problem in greater detail than most any friend would be aware of.

[john doe]

The site rules are at the top of almost every page in the forums. If you believe a member of the site has violated any of them, click on the triangular icon at the top right of the post and state why you think it violates the rules. In general, it is not a good idea to feed the trolls. Most troublemakers usually violate one of the first 4 rules pretty quickly.

[NeuroTypical]

Trying to figure out why people post what they do, by thinking about their motives, used to consume time and give me grief too. Then I realized I don't care. I ain't here to fix people who don't want to see what's wrong with themselves.

I'm here to see if I can be of help to people who are interested in the truth. If I've learned something along the way that someone else finds useful, then hoorah.

So, yes I do argue with people who won't budge an inch. I do this for two reasons:

1- I enjoy verbal sparring

2- I learned a TON by watching other people argue, and I am aware that other people learn in the same way.

(Please note, neither of these reasons actually have anything to do with the person I'm arguing with.

LM

[pam]

I'm here to see if I can be of help to people who are interested in the truth.

I think that's the key though. When reading through Vort's scenarios, the ones which he gave are not those interested in the truth. They are being dishonest in stating that if they are. They want us to see their truth not try to understand ours. Most times I can pick those out easily when everything is prefaced by: "I'm not here to attack, I'm not here to disagree, I'm only here to learn." Red flag to me right there.

[Misshalfway]

Well, dishonesty bugs. There is just no doubt about that. But I guess I am not sure how much of it is our responsibility to correct. Not that calling someone out isn't called for now and again. It's just that doing so sometimes makes us part of the problem.

This medium of online communication has its problematic elements and I know I am not always able to convey the point or intent I hoped to. And then there is the fact that people think and communicate differently. How wonderful it would be if I could argue points with a perfect memory and all the proper proofs and logical integrity. The truth is, I am just not good at that kind of thing. So I do my best and when I have the time I do better. Some people's minds resonate with "intellectual logic" and they communicate that way. I am a girl kind and for better or for worse generally speak from the heart.

So.....what to do?

I spose we can wear ourselves out being the intellectual honesty police bashing people over the head with all their obvious failings or we can argue according to our talents in the spirit of the peacemaker.

I have my little list of pet peeves too. But am I qualified to hash someone else to bits? Am I so worried about the words being used that I fail to really hear the intent of the poster? Maybe I err too much on the side of trying to see good in everyone or try to pull good from the conversation (not that I don't have my cranky days). I appreciate the mods and others who are there to call out the wolves when perhaps I don't have the courage.

Well, that's my 2 cents.

[DigitalShadow]

I think most of the scenarios outlined have more to do with people being stubborn and ignorant rather than dishonest. If people truly believe what they are saying, just because you do not understand why they believe what they are saying, does not mean they are necessarily being dishonest.

[Maxel]

I think DigitalShadow has a point about a person's ignorance leading them to exhibit what seem to be dishonest behaviors. Perhaps in some cases a line should be drawn between intellectual dishonesty (i.e., holding double standards when evaluating evidence) and intentional dishonesty (purposely offering false information for selfish gain or to accomplish a "greater good").

A new user, very young, joins the site, and proceeds to tell everyone about her views on social topics. To the shock and amazement of absolutely no one, her views are typical leftist ideas, as if read off a checklist.

I don't think this person is lying (unless she's secretly a diehard conservative ). Probably not even dishonest intentions- possibly someone looking for real discourse (wading into a "nest of vipers", as it were), or to 'stir up trouble' among a group ideologically opposed to her.

A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false.

Well, the action is definitely dishonest. However, depending on the quality and coherence of his website, he may honestly believe that no one would be offended by whatever controversial comments are made there, and no matter how roughly a visitor is treated.

A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he is not bearing testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.)

That's intellectual dishonesty. Judging by her competency level, however, she may honestly believe in what she's saying and be unable to honestly see the double standard she's setting.

However, if this particular poster happens to be learned in the subject and is capable of advanced abstract thought, then this poster has moved from solely intellectual dishonesty to intentional dishonesty, crossing both lines.

A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

Both members could actually be exhibiting somewhat dishonest behavior, I think.

1) While foolish, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to group entire races together and label them. If the accuser refuses to offer evidence when pressured, however, he's crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty.

2) The second list member's objection is valid, but the counter-example could be intellectually dishonest is the intent is to prove that the first list member's assertions were wholly incorrect. If the intent is merely to show that "not all members of the bully and victim group were, respectively, bullies and victims", I don't think that would be intellectual dishonesty.

3) The first list member's refusal to acknowledge the new evidence presented could be intellectual dishonesty, and possibly intentional dishonesty. However, it could be honest (on both counts) if the second list member's evidence was entirely unsubstantiated, and subject to suspicion.

I think this example could go both ways- but I think the intention was that the first list member was being both intellectually and intentionally dishonest, while the second list member was defending his people against dishonest accusations.

List Member Y makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member X disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how Y could believe such a thing. Y responds in detail to X and provides some questions of his own for X to answer. X partially answers one or two of Y's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks Y some more questions. Y again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for X to answer (in convenient list form). X continues to ignore Y's questions, but then starts complaining that Y sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?

It sounds like X is ignoring evidence and/or purposely hiding the fact that (s)he is in the wrong. I'd say Y acted in a wholly honest fashion, while X abandoned honesty the moment it became inconvenient.

A list member posts a detailed analysis of some point. During the subsequent discussion, List Member Z posts his own questions and objections. Someone points out to Z that his objections were answered in the original analysis. Z goes on to post other objections, and people continue to point out to him that his objections were answered in the original analysis. This does not stop Z. It quickly becomes apparent that, though speaking (or writing) from the heart, Z has not read AND WILL NOT READ the original analysis.

If Z really didn't read the analysis, then to engage in discussion without admitting the fact (and pressing the same point after it's been answered) is dishonest. However, I sometimes don't respond to all the points made by another poster, especially in situations where lots of facts are traded with each post. I used to try to at least acknowledge the other poster's valid points, but over the past month I've gotten lazy...

[rameumptom]

• A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

This one seems to be pointed at a discussion I was in. I felt I was giving decent examples. It is immaterial to me whether you consider my examples as sufficient for you. I share my thoughts and attempt to defend them. You are definitely welcome to accept or reject them as you please.

[bluedreams]

• Is this dishonesty, or is it something else?
• What is the appropriate response to this?

Mmmkay

1. A new user, very young, joins the site, and proceeds to tell everyone about her views on social topics. To the shock and amazement of absolutely no one, her views are typical leftist ideas, as if read off a checklist.
   (No, I don't think this is dishonest, either. I'm just starting off easy.)
   Sounds a lot like me....with the exception that I'm not very young when compared to when I was a teenager going on boards to discuss things (of course, I also wasn’t leftist back then either). Glad you don’t think it’s dishonest. Can’t speak for all relatively young lefty-loving chicas, but as for this one I came over from the MAD boards specifically because I saw social issues being discussed. Can’t help it, but it’s one of my favorite things to discuss and I do it all the time in real life too.
   The appropriate response is to treat them like you would any other conservative young poster that comes your way: Talk, discuss, and try to maintain civility.

-A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false.

As a cardinal rule when it comes to boards (and a perpetual optimist as it is), I assume the best out of someone unless very strongly proven otherwise. If he gives this website than I assume that he honestly thinks it’s not offensive. What he thinks and how others view it can be very different without either party being dishonest. I can’t think of a time I’ve had a discussion with someone like this, but if there’s something specific he wants to discuss about on the site, I’ll discuss and tell him my POV on it. He can take it or leave it as he will.

-A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he is not bearing testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.)

Again, I assume that he actually believes that his scriptures prove the evils of someone’s beliefs. If I’m interested I will then go about and show him that his way is not the only way to read the text. He can then take it as he will. If he continues to argue the same point, I assume he’s a very stubborn person who cannot see a different view point nor is willing to reasonable discuss different views. At that point I usually quietly step out. It’s not worth the time or effort to go in unending circles.

-A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

Not dishonest and I’d probably assume both members are simply wrong in their approach. The first is taking the wrong approach to give his point that history and the troubles that it’s brought still have a very real effect on the group/race today. The other is also taking the wrong approach in stating that this does not excuse all of the problems within said group/race that are currently present. Both, IMHO, are correct to some degree. Both just happen to be very bad at communicating it. So to me the something else is miscommunication.

-List Member Y makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member X disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how Y could believe such a thing. Y responds in detail to X and provides some questions of his own for X to answer. X partially answers one or two of Y's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks Y some more questions. Y again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for X to answer (in convenient list form). X continues to ignore Y's questions, but then starts complaining that Y sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?

Not dishonest, something else. I try to see it possibly from the other’s shoes when in this type of situation (though, I can’t honestly think of a time someone has called me a meanie). Person X probably thinks that her answers were enough to answer Y, even if just implicitly. Y probably thinks that his points were relatively distinctive and deserve more individual attention. X probably feels to respond would be redundant and that Y is badgering. Y probably thinks he’s being reasonable because he feels that he still hasn’t received an answer in full. So I wouldn’t call it dishonest, I’d call it poor communication.

-A list member posts a detailed analysis of some point. During the subsequent discussion, List Member Z posts his own questions and objections. Someone points out to Z that his objections were answered in the original analysis. Z goes on to post other objections, and people continue to point out to him that his objections were answered in the original analysis. This does not stop Z. It quickly becomes apparent that, though speaking (or writing) from the heart, Z has not read AND WILL NOT READ the original analysis.

Possibly dishonest. I would label him unwilling to communicate, so I wouldn’t try to communicate back. If he doesn’t want to hear, he never will.

And by the way, I believe that all of these hypotheticals (except for the first) are dishonest. That is why I'm asking about them.

I think the only one that I’d feel comfortable with the label of dishonest is the last one (though there’s better words to describe Z). Either way, I learned pretty quickly not to become to irritated by those posting. And I’ve debated/read some very crazy stuff. I have three cardinal rules when discussing:
- assume the best until absolutely proven otherwise
- try to understand the person/individuals one’s trying to have a discussion with
- always maintain ones cool….try not to show too much irritation, even if the words seem nigh asinine to you
When I honestly feel I can’t maintain one of these I simply take my self out of interaction with the member as much as possible.
Just me thoughts
With luv,
BD

Edited December 3, 2009 by bluedreams

[Guest mormonmusic]

1. A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false.
   Dishonest. Naked self-exhibitionism. Requires Vortian discipline.

2. A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he is not bearing testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.)

Nothing dishonest about this at all, however, it's not intelligent. Such conversations only strengthen my belief that one can only know truth by personal revelation/confirmation, that there is a need for authority on the earth. Often the attitude of the person trying save me is so harsh that it also reaffirms my commitment to my own faith (LDS).

A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong.

Not dishonest; but to end all debates with "you're wrong and I'm right" shows you've run out of convincing arguments....

List Member Y makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member X disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how Y could believe such a thing. Y responds in detail to X and provides some questions of his own for X to answer. X partially answers one or two of Y's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks Y some more questions. Y again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for X to answer (in convenient list form). X continues to ignore Y's questions, but then starts complaining that Y sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?

Not at all dishonest; however, it shows only that X can't think of a valid response to Y's question.

A list member posts a detailed analysis of some point. During the subsequent discussion, List Member Z posts his own questions and objections. Someone points out to Z that his objections were answered in the original analysis. Z goes on to post other objections, and people continue to point out to him that his objections were answered in the original analysis. This does not stop Z. It quickly becomes apparent that, though speaking (or writing) from the heart, Z has not read AND WILL NOT READ the original analysis.

Not dishonest, just ineffective and requring some kind of "discipline" to keep these kinds of time wasters from making these kinds of posts.

[rameumptom]

I agree that if a person comes onto LDS.Net (or any other forum) with the intent to deceive, it is dishonest.

However, if two people disagree, is that dishonesty? If one person believes in global warming and another does not, are either dishonest, simply because they might have run out of "evidence"? I don't think so. I think two intelligent (or un-intelligent, for that matter) people can truly believe different things and be honest about it.

[Guest nauteckt]

All go home 2 , took on the project I changed yesterday was the casting and here it luck , came home and called and said that I was casting , first euphoria , and then scared that I 'll get on television screens , in principle found Internet home one star 2 here it ; âîò ýòîò there he is on the forum told me that indeed will be very difficult and scary. Do you think me or refuse to go to the end and that will be that you recommend to set the alarm for the morning or the goal , as right in front of a dental office .