Language and Logic (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:06 (3886 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: While I am a traditionalist and try to use older meanings of the word, I have no problem with someone using a word in a different sense to what I am using so long as it is clear which sense it is being used.
> > > 
> > > There is no need to accuse anyone of twisting words or having biases. Though for the latter we all do that to some degree.
> > 
> > There is certainly a time and place for relaxed definitions. But in the context of the discussion we were having, using both definitions is intellectually dishonest, whether you intended it to be or not, and you know it.
> 
> Here we go again Tony ... I am being intellectually dishonest now.
> 
> I used a word ... I very carefully gave a sense of how I was using it (because I knew it had other senses) and I am being intellectually dishonest?-Yes. You are. You know full well, by your own statement, that the mechanical definition is only applicable to inanimate objects and you are applying it simultaneously to both animate and inanimate and calling them equal. -I am fairly certain that is a text book case of intellectual dishonesty.-
"Intellectual Dishonesty
What is meant when one uses this term? Some possible meanings:
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc."

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.