# Dishonest vs. Pedantic?



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Something I read in a recent thread. It got me to thinking of other recent threads, such as RSS's attempt to have the Interchange closed down, his not so subtle attempts to get me banned, and some fall out from this whole thing.

So, let us expand this little question to make it not quite such a dichotomy. Dishonest (which can include dishonest arguments, namely fallacies), or just plain incorrect, vs. pedantic. The general opinion put forth was that "discussion" should constitute people posting their unsupported opinions, presented as fact, and/or people should feel free to use any dishonest form they feel like and not be called on it. So I felt like a captain just now and thought I would start a poll.

Dishonest vs. pedantic?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think you should try to stay within the realm of civility and reasonableness if you want people to listen to you. On the other hand, I don't necessarily want to do research to back up every single thing I might type.

This is an internet message board; I'm not applying for a doctorate.

I guess I try to stay away from shrill claims I can't back up.

I think most of us know who is shrill and who posts stuff that is likely to be accurate. At least after reading for awhile, most of us can figure that out.

When reading anything in a forum like this, I believe a bit of "Reader Beware" skepticism is necessary and appropriate.

I would hope people would not post deliberate lies, but our world is not a perfect one.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

A little of both I'd say. It depends upon what we are discussing. Science or philosophy? To me, science is empirical and experimental. Everything else cannot be stated as fact.

_I find this meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic.-Peter Griffin, Family Guy_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You people voting option 1 and 2 need to post your arguments, sources, and peer review!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You people voting option 1 and 2 need to post your arguments, sources, and peer review!


:aportnoy:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You people voting option 1 and 2 need to post your arguments, sources, and peer review!


That's dishonest, I don't need to do any such thing. This is America. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You are Capt. Ron, aren't you?

The science is indisputable!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> That's dishonest, I don't need to do any such thing. This is America. :icon_smile_wink:


Only for ~9 more months.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

What? You're not going to even vote in your own poll? And you call yourself a Captain. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> What? You're not going to even vote in your own poll? And you call yourself a Captain. :icon_smile_wink:


I wanted a few folks to vote before I cast my lot. Interesting to see who is voting where...but in several cases, I think the vote matches what we see on the forum. Good to see Jan still at least reads things here too!


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

"_If you are going to make a claim, be ready to back it up with facts_" does not necessarily equate to being pedantic.

Pedantry is concerned with "a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules" whereby one might pick up on certain things (spelling, grammar, definitions, non-core facts) and correct them. Pedants, particularly "dishonest" ones, sometimes use this as a tool to divert focus from the real issues at hand.

Backing up a claim with facts is simply part of good argument and intrinsic to the etiquette of debate.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

Only Captain Ron can conduct polls. Sorry, your's is invalid.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I would have to say Number 1 and 3.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rossini said:


> "_If you are going to make a claim, be ready to back it up with facts_" does not necessarily equate to being pedantic.
> 
> Pedantry is concerned with "a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules" whereby one might pick up on certain things (spelling, grammar, definitions, non-core facts) and correct them. Pedants, particularly "dishonest" ones, sometimes use this as a tool to divert focus from the real issues at hand.
> 
> Backing up a claim with facts is simply part of good argument and intrinsic to the etiquette of debate.


Stop being a pendant.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rossini said:


> "_If you are going to make a claim, be ready to back it up with facts_" does not necessarily equate to being pedantic.
> 
> Pedantry is concerned with "a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules" whereby one might pick up on certain things (spelling, grammar, definitions, non-core facts) and correct them. Pedants, particularly "dishonest" ones, sometimes use this as a tool to divert focus from the real issues at hand.
> 
> Backing up a claim with facts is simply part of good argument and intrinsic to the etiquette of debate.


Amen.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Rossini said:


> "_If you are going to make a claim, be ready to back it up with facts_" does not necessarily equate to being pedantic.
> 
> Pedantry is concerned with "a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules" whereby one might pick up on certain things (spelling, grammar, definitions, non-core facts) and correct them. Pedants, particularly "dishonest" ones, sometimes use this as a tool to divert focus from the real issues at hand.
> 
> Backing up a claim with facts is simply part of good argument and intrinsic to the etiquette of debate.


I agree that pedantry has a negative connotation that I would try to avoid. Given the three choices in the poll, I chose "pedantry" but I would prefer to interpret the option as urging "substantiation of one's claim with supporting evidence." While some discussions may be fast-and-loose, and not everything warrants the scrutiny of a doctoral thesis, I would prefer that claims come accompanied with some basis in reality for the most part.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> RSS's ... not so subtle attempts to get me banned ...


Now that's pure melodrama ... and quite amusing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> My melodramatic... and quite amusing attempt to get Wayfarer banned.


Fixed.

Yet you did not question its truth content. Very telling.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> I would have to say Number 1 and 3.


Howard, I think you are full of Number 2. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard said:


> I would have to say Number 1 and 3.


A HA! I win the pool!!!!

Pay up, suckers!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Something I read in a recent thread. It got me to thinking of other recent threads, such as RSS's attempt to have the Interchange closed down, his not so subtle attempts to get me banned, and some fall out from this whole thing.
> 
> So, let us expand this little question to make it not quite such a dichotomy. Dishonest (which can include dishonest arguments, namely fallacies), or just plain incorrect, vs. pedantic. The general opinion put forth was that "discussion" should constitute people posting their unsupported opinions, presented as fact, and/or people should feel free to use any dishonest form they feel like and not be called on it. So I felt like a captain just now and thought I would start a poll.
> 
> Dishonest vs. pedantic?


Perhaps what you want is another forum with strict debate rules. And I agree. After all evolution has no facts to back it - so it would be out.

There are other ways of debate, which I enjoy more so, anymore. After all if you read something 30 - 40 years ago, by omitting it, would you not be a lair just because you can't 30 - 40 years later pull it up? Some rules of argument create dead horses.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Yet you did not question its truth content. Very telling.


And now ... time for sanctimony _and_ memodrama.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Stop being a pendant.


Yes, er, exactly.

(irony)

:icon_smile:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rossini said:


> Backing up a claim with facts is simply part of good argument and intrinsic to the etiquette of debate.


Does everything _have_ to be a debate? Does every single post expressing an idea have to be perfect? Can't there simply be conversation sometimes? Just curious.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Howard, I think you are full of Number 2. :icon_smile_big:


It would be nice if what people said reflected reality but I am not married to the concept.

So,Is this what you're saying to me?^


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

mpcsb said:


> Does everything _have_ to be a debate? Does every single post expressing an idea have to be perfect? Can't there simply be conversation sometimes? Just curious.


I originally interpreted this forum to be that kind of place ... where one could have a conversation ... and discuss issues.

However, a point was reached some time ago where conversation became difficult to maintain given the divide that has been _created_ between liberal and conservative. Some who linger here take conversation beyond the heated to ugly very quickly. And lets fact it, without civility, debate is not even possible.

Of course, in the United States, civility has departed even our highest levels of government. Just look at the state of "argument" on the floor of the House ... and even the Senate. If it doesn't exist there, perhaps it's futile to expect civility within any group having a membership spanning the political spectrum. But if we don't make a stand for civility, it's a pathetic statement about each of us personally.

Look at the OP with it's less than subtle hints and implications. In all sincerity, the OP is more appropriate for the website Juicy Gossip than as a tool for starting a civil conversation or encouraging a serious debate.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

mpcsb said:


> Does everything _have_ to be a debate? Does every single post expressing an idea have to be perfect? Can't there simply be conversation sometimes? Just curious.


Of course not. Of course not. Of course there can!

This is where pedantry comes in.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My choice was #3 because I'd like to think that's the way I'm made. I try to be open and honest in my dealings with others and like to believe that others treat or respond to me in the same way. Years ago, as I was starting out, my world was pretty much all black and white (I'm talking right and wrong/good and bad here guys!). Over a 35 to 40 year timespan, a bit of grey crept into my reality and life became vastly more complicated and distressing. I prefer black and white and try to keep my actions/life that way. It just makes life easier for me. Folks, this wasn't meant to be a downer. Hope you all have a great day!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rossini said:


> Yes, er, exactly.
> 
> (irony)
> 
> :icon_smile:


On two levels 

Rats, you passed on the spelling I put in there :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Perhaps what you want is another forum with strict debate rules. And I agree. *After all evolution has no facts to back it - so it would be out.*


Actually, that is not true in the least. For a simple fact, take any undergrad micro-bio course. You usually do a few experiments to get bacteria to evolve. I hardly call undergrad bio "strict debate rules".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> However, a point was reached some time ago where conversation became difficult to maintain given the divide that has been _created_ between liberal and conservative.


I think most would agree here, that I am your biggest goad on the forum. The special attention you pay me is easily noted by anyone reading the forums. The thing is, I am probably more socially liberal than you are. I do not understand why you want to make it all into a dichotomy between liberal and conservative.



RSS said:


> Look at the OP with it's less than subtle hints and implications. In all sincerity, the OP is more appropriate for the website Juicy Gossip than as a tool for starting a civil conversation or encouraging a serious debate.


Subtle hints? I stated outright, you tried to get the Interchange closed down! You started a thread with that title; I do not see how this is even open for debate. And you question the potential for civility in my thread? Seriously RSS, examine yourself a little before you start casting aspersions. And as to civility, are you fostering it with this post? Encouraging a serious debate?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> RSS's ... not so subtle attempts to get me banned...


 That however is an outright lie. That is my reference, you arrogant ASS.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think most would agree here, that I am your biggest goad on the forum. The special attention you pay me is easily noted by anyone reading the forums. The thing is, I am probably more socially liberal than you are. I do not understand why you want to make it all into a dichotomy between liberal and conservative.
> 
> Subtle hints? I stated outright, you tried to get the Interchange closed down! You started a thread with that title; I do not see how this is even open for debate. And you question the potential for civility in my thread? Seriously RSS, examine yourself a little before you start casting aspersions. And as to civility, are you fostering it with this post? Encouraging a serious debate?


You know, if this were a gay forum this could be settled with civility by me saying "Girls you're both pretty!" But alas, such is not the case. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Yes, civility has been thrown to the wind.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

mpcsb said:


> you're both pretty!" But alas, such is not the case. :icon_smile_wink:


 Yes, I'd say that is certainly the case ... neither is pretty.



Wayfarer said:


> I think most would agree here, that I am your biggest goad on the forum. The special attention you pay me is easily noted by anyone reading the forums.


 Of course it's been a two-way street. But, from this point forward ... say anything you wish.

Given your ability to turn ethics and honesty on and off as if it were a faucet ... well ... as Barbara Bush said to Al Franken, "I'm done with you."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> But, from this point forward ... say anything you wish.


You call me an arrogant ass yet you constantly seem to think you grant people permission of what to say, where to post, etc. Again, I think you need to examine yourself prior to casting aspersions.



RSS said:


> That is my reference, you arrogant ASS.


Now, as to being civil, notice the difference. I suggest self-examination prior to cricitizing others. I would certainly think that is a civil reply to being called an arrogant ass in public.

You keep bemoaning a lack of civility. Again, examine yourself. You might find that person tossing civility to the wind every time he is remotely challenged.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> That however is an outright lie. That is my reference, you arrogant ASS.


You are joking, right? I mean, it was so obvious, it was noted by other posters.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> You know, if this were a gay forum this could be settled with civility by me saying "Girls you're both pretty!" But alas, such is not the case. :icon_smile_wink:


You can still tell me I am pretty. A guy likes to hear that once in a while :icon_smile_big:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You can still tell me I am pretty. A guy likes to hear that once in a while :icon_smile_big:


Can I? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Can I? :icon_smile_wink:


Hey, a guy can use all the compliments he can get. :icon_smile:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> It would be nice if what people said reflected reality but I am not married to the concept.
> 
> So,Is this what you're saying to me?^


Yeah, that's it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, that is not true in the least. For a simple fact, take any undergrad micro-bio course. You usually do a few experiments to get bacteria to evolve. I hardly call undergrad bio "strict debate rules".


You are getting something that is already in the genetic code, so it is not evolution. Some people with words just make it seem like evolution, because, they believe in evolution and they push it.

Again, it is evidence of something, but how it is interprepted is theroy. Probably in less than ten years there will be another evolution belief about this evidence. But, will evolution be cemented into your head no matter how many times they change their theroies?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Silly me, believing in evolution!!!

WA, could you please tell us where you get your information?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> *You are getting something that is already in the genetic code, so it is not evolution.* Some people with words just make it seem like evolution, because, they believe in evolution and they push it.
> 
> Again, it is evidence of something, but how it is interprepted is theroy. Probably in less than ten years there will be another evolution belief about this evidence. But, will evolution be cemented into your head no matter how many times they change their theroies?


Silly me. I should have realized to just come to you for an expert opinion! So I suppose MRSA and "super" MRSA, MDRTB, etc. were "already in the genetic code"?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You can still tell me I am pretty. A guy likes to hear that once in a while :icon_smile_big:


Not to appear pendantic but, use of the adjective pretty in these parts would require a substantial demonstration of proof, to be believable! :devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Not to appear pendantic but, use of the adjective pretty in these parts would require a substantial demonstration of proof, to be believable! :devil:


Use the search feature  I have posted pics of myself a couple of times, including once in a kilt.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> On two levels
> 
> Rats, you passed on the spelling I put in there :icon_smile_big:


Hence the "er" (and it was a most witty misspelling),

and don't call me Rats! :icon_smile_big:


----------

