Thursday, July 13, 2017

Dishonesty?


Okay, so I'm going to be more removed from my computer for a week or so, but I am interested in questions of honesty. Or, put another way, my honesty has been questioned on a blog post that is older and more difficult to reach, so I'm starting this new blog post to give a chance to address it.

The charge has been made that I've "lied," or, if not lied, presented myself in a "dishonest" manner in my blog posts and interactions with commenters. Now, of course, I am not a perfect man and of course I make mistakes. But I can honestly say that, at least in the blogosphere, I have never intentionally lied. I've never intentionally made a claim that I knew to be false in hopes of, whatever, making my case "stronger..." (Who would do that? I don't get it... I don't think I'm unique in this regards... I suspect that most people who are arguing a point or defending a belief in formats like this are, of course, trying to tell you honestly and without lies what they believe and why. Again, who would do that?)

If not lies, then the charge has been that I've been "dishonest" in presenting myself or answering questions (or something, it's still not clear to me).

Given that it's not clear to me what in the world the charge is and given that I of course, do not wish to even appear dishonest, I've requested these gentlemen to present ONE SPECIFIC charge and defend it as to why they think what I've said MUST be a lie, or MUST be dishonest. Make your case. As a point of fact, I have never intentionally done or said anything on the blogs that was intentionally dishonest or less than factual (short of jokes and rants, of course).

So, fellas, this is your chance to briefly present ONE instance of me lying that you can prove I said something intentionally dishonest, or of me being dishonest somehow in something I've said. Present the words and why it must be the case that I'm intentionally being dishonest or lying, as opposed to simply disagreeing with your hunches or hold another view than you do or another interpretation.

For example, I think that reasonable people across the spectrum can look at Trump's words and see that he has repeatedly made false claims. Abundantly and foolishly made false claims in unprecedented numbers. There are records of these claims on line.

Now, whether or not he is lying or just ignorantly making the false claims or doing so because he simply doesn't care about truth and may not recognize the difference (I fear the latter may be the case), the point is, he has made an unprecedented number of false claims.

Now, this is not a lie. It has been documented. Google it, I won't do your work on something so obvious. It's not a lie that I've pointed to this reality. Now you may disagree with this opinion and say, "Well, it's not documented but Clinton made more lies and bigger lies!" and you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm speaking of what is documented. There is nothing dishonest in my claim. You may ultimately disagree with the opinion, but it is not dishonest.

So, I'm asking you to provide, briefly and clearly, one instance of me actually being dishonest and then prove it.

If you can't do so, then admit it. If you can prove it, then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it.

What I suspect is that Bubba, at least, is speaking of me not answering questions in a timely enough (to his feelings) or clear enough (to his tastes) manner and that this is "evidence" of dishonesty. As opposed to a simple misunderstanding/difference of opinion, which is how I would describe such problems/disagreements.

After all, I have routinely experienced people not answering the question I'm asking and instead, taking the conversation off in a different direction or answering a different question... or just not answering it at all. And yet, I would never suggest the many, many (dozens?) of conservatives who have done this are arguing dishonestly or in bad faith. Just that they're either not understanding the question or are unable (for whatever reason) to answer the actual question asked of them. Now, I could certainly start calling all these conservatives dishonest, I just don't think that's a reasonable or fair guess as to their motivations.

Don't abuse this and load up dozens of comments please. I'm asking for brevity and clarity and hard data, not hunches based on wild interpretations of what I've written (as opposed to what I've actually written). I'll answer as I get a chance.

43 comments:

Craig said...

I've pointed one out in the comments of the thread in question. I also believe I've done this at my blog. So if you'd like to prove me wrong, go ahead.

Marshal Art said...

I'm still waiting to see my last comments posted at the previous thread. You don't seem to anxious, willing or interested to see if I've tried to post any comments, as you've said they are not appearing in the normal manner and required you to seek them out. As I have no way of knowing how to resolve this issue from my end, I'm left with only you to do what needs to be done, without which I have no way of knowing if you've received them at all, haven't yet chosen to look for them or have chosen to dismiss, reject or otherwise deny their posting.

Anonymous said...

Again, I don't have much time. Briefly, the posts that you all put on the last entry did not meet my request that you provide ONE simple, brief example of why you suspect this false thing. You all posted many words, many charges, not much in the way of actual support.

Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not. YOU appear to think that when he said he just grabs them by the pussy, that it was hyperbole, not real world. I DO NOT THINK that is a rational understanding of his words and all that we know thus far about him.

Thus, it is a difference of opinion on the meaning of his words, NOT a false charge and certainly not a lie.

Do you understand the difference?

I am looking for something pretty specific:

Dan, when you said "x" it was false, or dishonest or a lie. Here is the proof that it is false.

1.
2.
3.

If you all can do that, do it. If not, admit your mistake.

I don't want any other words or explanations. I'm giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Ball's in your park.

~Dan

Bubba said...

The comment I posted and which you did not publish directly addresses that request, Dan: I should know, I wrote it -- but apparently that sort of direct, authoritative knowledge only matters when it's yours.

Bubba said...

Dan:

You continue to ask for proof of a lie, but in the previous thread, I asked you, "When is it not some gross offense against humility to attribute bad faith to a person's motivations?"

Your answer?

"I don't know. If they do something that is CLEARLY and unmistakably bad faith. I don't know what that looks like." [emphasis mine]

As I pointed out then: Since you don't know what it looks like, we have no reason to expect you to be a good judge of a particular example. And since you've never given a standard of evidence that you would accept, there's nothing to keep you from rejecting ALL evidence as insufficient.

You now say, "If you can prove it, then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it."

But you would always retain the option of declaring that the evidence doesn't meet your standard of proof, because you have not defined what that standard is. Your claim that you would have no choice but to admit dishonesty (or "at least" its appearance) is inaccurate.

--

From that last thread, there's one carefully written paragraph of yours that is a buffet of hypocrisy and dishonesty, double standards and at least one outright lie.

"Read slowly. Understand.

"IF someone claims that they know something perfectly - something which can not be proven and which they certainly have not proven - that is the very definition of arrogance. If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION.
"

Your position has been that the meaning of a text can never be clear beyond all reasonable, good-faith disagreement -- and in this very paragraph you're disputing those who disagree -- but here you act as if the meaning of an entry in a dictionary (and the meaning of a person's claim) is unmistakably clear: there's nothing here about how you're only pointing to your merely human and fully fallible interpretation of that dictionary definition (or that other person's claim). No, you think it's fine FOR YOU to treat a text's meaning as unmistakable, even as you castigate others for doing the exact same thing.

Moreover, having griped about the figurative language of personification in my writing that the Bible teaches the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus...

"I would say that, as a point of fact, the Bible does not 'teach' anything. It is text. We can find facts or truths or points to think about in the text, but the Bible isn't 'teaching' us. It CONTAINS teachings of people, but the Bible is not teaching.

...you now have no problem telling us that a text -- a claim, a comment -- is itself arrogant. An inanimate artifact of human communication doesn't teach, but this lifeless object CAN be arrogant: it's an incoherent claim, except that it's another example of your attitude that an act is okay only if AND when **YOU** do it.

And your attributing arrogance to the comment and not the commenter is one of the clearest examples of your dishonesty.

[continued]

Bubba said...

[continued]

In defending my use of personification, I explain that I see no meaningful difference between saying that a text teaches and that its author teaches through that text, seeing an essential unity between the writer and what he writes.

You're using personification in denial of that unity, to disassociate the communicator and the communication.

You write, "I'm not judging their character."

You most certainly are. This is an obvious lie.

You have repeatedly criticized the persons who would make that claim and NOT JUST THE CLAIM ITSELF.

"Indeed, if anyone is pretending, it's those who insist that no possible different understandings can exist when, clearly, in the real world, they do exist." [May 14, emphasis mine]

"And I only accuse people of being arrogant readers when they insist that they and they alone (well, and those who agree with them) are the True Readers and those who disagree with their human interpretations are objectively wrong or immoral or God haters or liars." [June 23, emphasis mine]

You used to recognize that you were criticizing other people and not just their comments, acknowledging the obvious fact that people are responsible for what they say and write, but only now do you absurdly try to disassociate the writer from his writing.

The reason you're trying this is obvious, to deny my charge of hypocrisy, you're grasping for straws to distinguish your accusation of arrogance (a lack of humility) with my accusation of deceit (a lack of honesty): I'm criticizing the person, but (only now) you say you're just criticizing the comment.

That's nonsense.

And while I do think your m.o. is generally to avoid deliberate falsehoods in favor of obfuscation and equivocation, here I think is very strong evidence of a deliberate lie.

You're lying that you're not judging the other person's character, and if you really think you've been nothing but honest, it seems you're lying even to yourself.

It seems you'd rather tell a lie (and maybe even swallow your own lie) -- no matter how implausible that lie, and no matter how obviously false the statement is in the context of what else you've written -- rather than face up to your flagrant hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Again and to make it even clearer, here is the format I'm requesting...

Dan, you said, "X"

X is demonstrably false, here's why

1
2
3

Not only is it demonstrably false, but YOU know it is demonstrably false. Here's how we know you know...

1
2...

Like that. Short. Simple. Clear.

Your many rambling words are undoing you.

More later.

Dan

Bubba said...

Dan, last week you wrote:

"IF someone claims that they know something perfectly - something which can not be proven and which they certainly have not proven - that is the very definition of arrogance. If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION."

You are indeed judging that person's character, so it is a falsehood to claim that you're not: "I'm not judging their character."

We know that you're judging the person's character because, in your previous reiterations of your position, you disparaged the person and not just the comment.

1. On May 14th, you said that, if anyone is pretending, it is "those who insist that no possible different understandings can exist," criticizing the person and not just the comment.

2. On June 23rd, rather than say you were only accusing comments of being arrogant claims, you were quite explicit in accusing people of being arrogant readers: "I only accuse people of being arrogant readers when they insist that they and they alone (well, and those who agree with them) are the True Readers and those who disagree with their human interpretations are objectively wrong or immoral or God haters or liars."

We know that that you do not really mean that you're not evaluating comments wholly independent of the commenters who made them, for a few reasons.

1. Comments are inanimate objects, artifacts of communication, so they cannot possibly possess an arrogant attitude or any other kind of attitude; the only arrogance that can be exhibited in a piece of writing is the arrogance of the writer, and I don't think you're quite so stupid as to believe that a text has a literal life of its own.

2. Earlier in that thread, you lectured us about the difference between the writer and the writing, saying that a text doesn't actually teach; this pedantic quibble over personification implies either an effort on your part to avoid figurative language or an attempt to be seen to do so, because (as you put it) "in instances where this is a disagreement about meaning/intent/understanding of various texts, I think it helps to be more precise."

3. The entire point of the original blog post was to urge people like Stan to practice humility, implying that they don't. Asking about "if we are both using our human judgement to make this call," you say the "thing" is humility:

"We all have our opinions when we read the Bible...But they are human opinions... we can't prove our opinions. They are human opinions and thus, it is not rational or fair for some to say that they are the ones who speak authoritatively for what God intends."

"In all things, humility, this is a reasonable opinion on unprovable matters and, I'd say, consistent with biblical teachings."

In NONE of this were you telling "comments" to be humble, you were telling the COMMENTERS to be humble: it is the commenters who "have [their] opinions" as they "read" a text. The claims they subsequently write don't THEMSELVES read the Bible, nor do those claims have their own opinions.

4. The motive for this lie is obvious: in responding to my charge of hypocrisy -- that you're calling people arrogant based only on what they've written, while you balk at my calling you dishonest on the very same grounds -- you'd rather grasp any thin reed to explain that there really is some significant difference than admit that you don't play by the rules you seek to impose on others.

Marshal Art said...

"Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not"

Yes it is. It is a lie, because he did not actually say that he grabs them by the crotch, though you continue to insist that he actually engages in that behavior. Without absolute, rock-solid proof (of the level and degree you demand of us), then you cannot claim he actually engaged in the specific behavior to which he did not admit. Indeed, in the very quote above, you lie. "...when Trump says he just grabs them..." He absolutely did NOT say that. Go to the tape again and listen, hear and then tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

"You (Trump) can do anything.."

"Grab 'em by the pussy..." -Trump

YOU, Marshall, interpret that as a hypothetical.

I interpret it as literal.

That I interpret his words differently (more rationally, given the data, I'd say) than you is not the same as lying. It's just not.

Dan

Craig said...

I guess my pointing out in a simple direct manner an example of you lying doesn't fit this new format. Of course since you refused to post it, no one will know for sure.

Clever, dishonest but clever.

Marshal Art said...

"I interpret it as literal."

Of course you do. You need it to be true because your hatred for Trump is even less rational, less Christian and certainly far less gracious if you don't. (Of course, it's not at all Christian or gracious either way.)

The point here is more specific, however. It's not a matter of your self-serving interpretations of what he said. It's about what he actually said versus what you have been saying he said. You lied about what he said, and lied about what he did (given you've never provided any proof that he actually did/does what you claim he did/does).

And once again, I've pointed you to the link and transcript representations more than once. So it's not like you were mistaken beyond your first misrepresentation of the facts. From that point, you clearly lied, preferring to portray him in the worst possible light (itself a form of lying) as if his actual record wasn't bad enough.

For example, it was quite enough for me that he was divorced multiple times, owned or ran a strip club (or an establishment that included nude women as a profit draw) and was in general, a blowhard and braggart who shot his mouth off. As such, he was never a consideration for my vote throughout the primary season. It was only when he was up against the other low character candidate with any chance of actually winning the presidency that I gave him any support at all. It was a good move on my part. The point is that I saw no reason to lie about the guy given all that was well known already. You seem to have no problem doing so in one way or another.

Stretching the truth, exaggeration...these are examples of dishonesty...lying...even without need to provide definitive examples of the absolute extent of his speech or actions. Indeed, even calling him "evil" is a lie...not necessarily because he is or isn't, but because his predecessor and his main opponent for the presidency are staunch supporters of evil themselves (abortion, SSM). Calling him evil, as a reason to oppose him, while ignoring the evil of those you support suggests the evil you support isn't evil. That's lying as well.

The question now is, are you doing this intentionally, or is there something wrong with you that you can't see this clear reality?

Craig said...

Dan continues to claim that someone somewhere has claimed to have "perfect knowledge" or to "know something perfectly", yet I've never seen anyone make those claims, nor any evidence of such claims. Seems to me that making false claims about what people have said could reasonably be considered lying. Especially when the falsehood has been pointed out repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

So,you are saying that your opinions are your opinions, not something you know perfectly? I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people treating their opinions as if they are facts. So, are you and I in agreement on that?

And, before moving on to Bubba's last, can we agree that Marshall is simply mistaken in treating his opinions (that Trump meant that he can commit sexual assault only in theory, not as a confession of actual actions he's done? And that my interpretation that his comments are tantamount to an admission of sexual assault is somehow a lie?) as known facts?

Dan

Craig said...

We're not talking about my opinions, but about your claims. If you can't prove your claims, your claims are false, if you continue to repeat said claims after being corrected, you are lying.

If you change the subject from your claims to my opinions, your obfuscating.

Craig said...

In the absence of any actual data relating specifically to actual acts engaged in by Trump, neither of you is dealing in fact.

One factor against your opinion is the lack of women accusing Trump of committing this particular act against them in an unwanted manner.

But that's only if facts are important.

Anonymous said...

Marshall made a claim: Dan is lying about what Trump said. As a point of fact, I am not lying, I do think that is what Trump was admitting and even bragging about. Thus, Marshall has made an incorrect fact claim. Agreed?

Are facts important to you?

Dan

Craig said...

By diverting the discussion away from claims you have made, to claims that others have made, you simply reinforce the questions that have been raised about you.

You specifically wrote a post about your behavior, yet now choose to focus attention away from the topic of the post.

One wonders why.

Anonymous said...

I'm "diverting" the conversation directly TO Marshall's claim about me (IE, about my behavior), that I lied. I have now demonstrated why that charge is false, a mistake on his part.

I'm checking to see if you all understand why it's a mistake and if you truly agree with me that people should not confuse their opinions with facts. Do you?

Will you answer the question?

Dan

Craig said...

Sure, facts and opinions are not the same.

But that doesn't mean you've proven your claim or not been dishonest.

That doesn't change the factyou are diverting the issue from your honesty to the issue of opinion v. facts and Art's honesty.

But keep it up.

Marshal Art said...

You've demonstrated nothing...except that I am correct in referring to your anti-Trump assertion as the lie it is. Again, we're not talking about interpretations, but what you have actually been saying. He did not admit to grabbing women that way. That's simply and absolutely clear by the very words recorded 11 years ago and broadcast by anti-Trump forces now. By saying you consider it (now) a clear admission is only YOUR opinion, not in the least bit a fact or evidence that you didn't lie about his behavior. YOU said he admitted doing it. THE ACTUAL RECORDED CONVERSATION makes no such statement whatsoever. You'd have had no argument had you simply stated from the beginning that it suggests he might have grabbed women in that manner. THAT would have been a rational implication of his words. But it was in no way an admission that he actually does it, and your initial claim was that it was. You continued to make the assertion after having been corrected by the presentation of the actual video, so you lied...blatantly and without question. NOW, you're pretending you were only making an inference that you think is likely the case. Tap-dancing is lying as well.

In the meantime, I'm making absolutely no suggestions as to whether or not Trump engages in such behavior, or ever has. I'm only referring to the words that he said on the video and nothing more. Unlike you, I don't need to "infer" what can't be proven to have problems with his character. There is enough that is beyond doubt and easily researched that I don't have to make shit up. I didn't do it about Obama, or Clinton or anyone else. YOU lied. And now you lie by pretending you didn't.

Bubba said...

Dan,

I strongly prefer a substantive reply to my comment, of course, but I would appreciate, at the very least, an estimate for when you expect to return online AND when you expect to be "moving on" to my comment, since those two events might not be simultaneous.

- On July 11th, I submitted to the previous thread a comment that directly addressed your demand that I demonstrate your dishonesty "and prove that [you] have made the argument in an effort to be dishonest and misleading." Having pointed out that dishonesty entails material omissions and not just deliberate falsehoods, and having pointed out where I believe you're being hypocritical, I also noted quite explicitly my belief that you're not being honest in writing that you're judging someone's comment but "not judging their character."

- You never did approve that comment and allow it to be published.

- On July 14th, in this thread, you explained, "the posts that you all put on the last entry did not meet my request that you provide ONE simple, brief example of why you suspect this false thing." I then disagreed with that assessment outright, but you *STILL* haven't published my comment.

(I would also point out quite explicitly that, if you REALLY believe that a text's meaning is NEVER clear beyond any reasonable, good-faith disagreement, you could never conclude that a comment doesn't meet the standards you demand.)

- I subsequently commented here about the obvious dishonesty in your claim that you're "not judging [the commenter's] character," and you refused to address the comment because it didn't meet the format you requested.

(You also griped about the length of my two-part comment -- "Your many rambling words are undoing you." -- but I was fairly succint, certainly meeting your original request not to "load up dozens of comments." That original post of yours was some 808 words, and my two-part comment was some 877 words; I had no idea that the line between brevity and rambling was so razor-thin.)

- I then immediately reformulated my criticism to fit within a single comment AND fit your arbitrary formula. You still haven't addressed the substance of it.

It's now been a week, Dan.

Certainly, you've evidently been offline most of that time, but you still had time enough to post another couple hundred words (~260) in three comments asking pointed questions to Craig and Marshall.

For the second time in two threads, you seem available to comment, just NOT interested in addressing my questions or criticisms. Previously, I asked a simple yes-or-no question that you STILL haven't answered (since "clear" and "meaningful" aren't synonyms), and here I'm ANSWERING a request you made quite directly to me, calling me out by name in your original post.

That first thread began with your claiming, "I like reading conservative Christian commentary. Call me crazy, but I do. It helps me to think through positions and invariably raises questions." Here you claim, "I am interested in questions of honesty."

Really? Where's the evidence? And at what point should a reasonable person conclude that your evasive behavior undermines your claims of intellectual honesty?

There's another question from the earlier thread, one you haven't answered: you say you don't know what proof of dishonesty looks like, but you insist that we submit such proof to your evaluation.

"If you can prove [the charge of dishonesty], then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it."

You've always had other options, including ignoring the evidence or claiming that it just doesn't meet some standard of evidence that you never get around to defining, much less adhere to in your own writing.

Only an honest person gives himself no option but to face up to the ugly truth.

Anonymous said...

Still out of town, still limited access. Should be home today, but then, I should have been home yesterday.

I dealt with Marshall's first because it was the easiest to deal with. Agreed? I mean, clearly that I disagree with his (exceedingly naive) interpretation of Trump's words is not evidence of lying, correct?

Dan

Marshal Art said...

Again, Dan...and you lie by pretending this isn't the case...the point did not revolve around "interpretation" of Trump's words, but was about what he ACTUALLY said versus what you CLAIMED he said. You continued to insist he admitted to having grabbed women by the crotch after having a link to the video provided to you in which he never makes any such admission. Now, as you do with Scripture, you infer what you need to be true as if "interpretation" relieves you of admitting that you lied about what he said.

What's more, there is no "naivete" in my "interpretation" as I offered no interpretation of what he said in the first place, but merely referred specifically and distinctly to the ACTUAL words he spoke in the taped conversation.

IF the point had been about what either of us think he meant or intended to imply, you might have a defense against a charge of lying, as it would have all been opinion in the first place. But that wasn't the case at all. It was simply:

1. Trump said A.

2. Dan insisted Trump said B even after having A been confirmed by the link to his words provided for you.

That's called "lying". Now you lie again if you are insisting it was all about interpreting his words.

Bubba said...

Dan,

I appreciate the reply, but I would still like an actual date for when I can expect a substantive response to my criticism, because checking this thread gets old fast, even when you're commenting but only about other subjects.

I generally avoided the present argument over Trump, choosing instead to focus on my questions. Fat lot of good that has done, you still haven't answered my yes/no question on whether the Bible is clear on the virgin birth, since "meaningful" is not synonymous with or even necessarily related to "clear."

I think the whole Trump thing is a distraction, and I *do* wonder whether it's deliberate, since you brought up the issue in a new post after I raised that yes/no question, and the issue revolves around a months-old article on the threat of violence from the right and an old audio recording of Trump's that came to light last year.

Honestly, I think Marshall more accurately describes what you've written, but I'm certainly not going to waste time on the question of which disagreement is more readily resolved.

I will say only this:

I do believe that a genuinely honest man could address my complaint, e.g., by recognizing the inconsistent behavior, apologizing for it, and making an honest effort to insist only on the standards that he himself is willing to live by.

But I can see how you would find my complaint quite difficult, and I can understand why you'd want to focus on other subjects, even if I think it's increasingly contemptible that you do so.

---

And on the subject of your hypocrisy -- and this ties back quite directly to the criticism I've posted here, the second time in a single comment conforming to your arbitrary format -- there's one other point worth making about this argument over Trump.

You've been judging a man by his verbal communication -- an audio recording of his impromptu speech rather than online writing -- and you haven't had any hesitation in condemning the man himself and not just his statements. In the previous thread, you repeatedly called Trump a pervert and a sexual predator and even an oppressor.

You have no problem using only Trump's words to condemn him for a lack of chastity and self-control, just as you have had no problem using only our words to condemn us for a supposed lack of humility.

But you object to our using only your words to condemn you for a lack of honesty.

By your own behavior across multiple subjects, you have no grounds to object. You can dispute our conclusions -- an honest man would deny charges of dishonesty, BUT SO WOULD A LIAR -- but you are in no position to demand evidence above and beyond that which you use to castigate the character of others.

If you can judge others only by their words, we can certainly judge you only by yours.

Anonymous said...

I'm asking about Marshall's specifically because it is such an easy and obvious example of me not lying and Marshall apparently not understanding that it's not a lie. I'm trying to understand if you all understand reality as it relates to something so easy and so obvious because if you do not understand reality that might be an explanation of why you find lies and dark meanings everywhere. If you can't see it in Marshall's misunderstanding and misstatement then how can you hope to see you in anything else?

It's an easy question a simple yes or no question...

I have never said that Trump's actual recorded words as it relates to "grab them by the pussy" are anything other than what he actually, literally said. I am not saying he has other words beyond the actual quote.

I have never said that. I am not saying that.

Do you understand this simple and easy reality?

Dan

Craig said...

I tend to agree that this Trump fixation is more smoke than substance.

I'm pretty sure the Bible talks about being judged by the standards we use to judge others. Personally I'd be a little concerned if I was judging folks as harshly as Dan.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit.

The man is a self-confessed serial adulterer, a naked teenager ogler who has boasted and laughed freely about his sexual exploits and exploitations... I'm being judgemental for pointing out what he freely and openly giggles about with like-minded teenage boys?

So that appears to be a "No, I do not understand reality" from you, Craig, is that right?

Dan

Craig said...

Only if pointing out reality means "do not understand reality".

You conveniently ignore the fact that I've been critical of Trump's moral failings for months.

But, grab this distraction and run with it.

Craig said...

Oh and my point still stands, are you prepared to be judged by the same standard you apply to others.

Anonymous said...

God, yes! If I EVER start hanging out backstage at beauty pageants to sneak peeks at naked teenage girls, having serial affairs with women and treating them as objects to be ogled, owned and manhandled, by God Almighty, judge me! Hell, punch me in the mouth!

Yes, we will be judged by our actions and if they're harmful in the way Trump's actions have been harmful, we should take action.

That is my point and it stands.

As does my question: do you understand that I never argued that Trump said some words that he didn't say?

Do you understand reality?

Dan

Anonymous said...

Re: judgement and grace... Understand, let us all embrace grace. And part of Grace is protecting the innocent, stopping victimization. We, in my circles, work with people who have done awful things. I understand about grace and forgiveness. But allowing an unrepentant serial abuser and oppressor to run free, to give him the keys to the presidency!... That is not grace. It's stupidity and naivete and the opposite of Grace!

Let's embrace grace, but not stupidity.

Dan

Craig said...

Thank you for such a straightforward and unambiguous response, it didn't actually answer the specific question I asked, but it was direct.

It does raise some questions, but given the nature of Bubba being left hanging on so many things I think it's best if I leave those aside and allow you to direct your full attention to Bubba. Given the patience and restraint he's shown I'd hate to be the reason why his comments get short shrift.

Marshal Art said...

"Trump IS a pervert and a sexual predator. By his own repeated admissions and boasting. Not a pervert in the sense of "ew! he does things my religion does not approve of...!" but a pervert in the sense of oppressor, of one who ogles teen aged girls who are half or all naked and then boasts and laughs about it publicly... in the sense of grabbing women by the pussy and boasting and bragging about what he can get away with because of his position of power..."

From Dan's post "Threats" May 29,2017, though Trump never actually said he actually grabs women in that way.

"You are taking the word of a man who laughs about grabbing women by the fucking pussy..."

"I know that the man makes false claims at the drop of the hat, but why would you doubt that he does grab women by the pussy when he jokes about doing so, but accept his claim that "they let me" because of his celebrity?"

From Dan's comment of July 5, @ 9:27PM, though Trump never actually said he actually grabs women in that way. But then of course, there's the "quote" of Trump from the "Stupid Lies" post of Nov. 28, 2016:

"I grab them by the p$%#y... I can't help myself."

The most egregious lie, since the video clearly shows he did NOT say that. One would think that if one intends to use quotation marks to surround a statement, the point is to relate what was ACTUALLY said. But, as Trump didn't ACTUALLY say that, Dan ACTUALLY lied in presenting those words as an actual quotation of Trump's actual words.

So as to interpretations, I interpret Dan's intention was to portray Trump in the worst possible terms, as if the guy doesn't do enough without Dan's help. I'm told doing such is referred to in Christian circles as "bearing false witness", for which Dan needs to both acknowledge and apologize. I relieve Dan of the obligation of apologizing to me as if I had actually engaged in "exceedingly naive interpretations" of anyone's words...Trump's OR Dan's.

Bubba said...

Dan:

In the prior thread, I submitted a comment that directly and explicitly addressed your demand for evidence of dishonesty, but you still have not approved that comment for publication, claiming that it was off-topic, a claim I continue to dispute.

Instead, you created a new thread demanding evidence, and I provided that evidence again, in a two-part comment that was only 70 words longer than your initial post, but you refused to address that evidence claiming that my comment was too wordy and demanding that I submit your evidence in an arbitrary format of your choosing.

I then re-reposted that evidence, in a single comment that fit your template, and your reaction has been to delay a substantive response and to focus on your disagreement with Marshall.

I then asked for an actual estimate for when I could expect that response, and you refuse to give one, instead demanding that I chime in on this other argument.

At some point this kind of filibuster DOES become evidence of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.

--

You write that you ask, "because it is such an easy and obvious example of me not lying and Marshall apparently not understanding that it's not a lie."

Well, I'm not interested in answering because it's hard enough to get you to answer my actual questions or address the substance of my criticisms: you still haven't answered my question whether you personally believe that the Bible's teaching on the virgin birth is clear, since your comment about whether the doctrine is "meaningful" is an answer to a question I didn't ask.

This whole routine is very familiar, Dan. Late in the previous decade, you evaded addressing any of six areas of apparent disagreements between your beliefs and the Bible's clear teachings, by subsequently insisting that I first address some supposedly awful comment by another online commenter named Mark: I was supposed to denounce that comment sight unseen, because you deleted it *BEFORE* ever making it some vital issue between us and then insisted that I take your word on just how awful the comment is.

Here, we're in better luck, since I believe that all the comments remain in the public record.

I'd appreciate your relaying the precise details of what went down.

1. Trump said something: quote what he said -- complete sentences, unabridged by ellipses -- and link to a complete and accurate transcript of the entire conservation so his comment can be judged in context.

2. You said something about Trump's comment: quote what you said verbatim -- again, complete sentences -- and link to where you said this so YOUR comment can be judged in context.

3. And Marshall said something about your comment: quote it verbatim -- complete sentences -- and link to where he said it so HIS comment can be judged in context.

Giving the whole issue a cursory glance, I have thought that Marshall has the better end of the argument, but I haven't followed it closely -- and so I could be wrong.

Marshall and I tend to agree on things, I certainly hold him in higher esteem than I do you, and I like him on a personal level more than I do you, *BUT*: If it is as you say, I'd be HAPPY to take your side on this and reproach Marshall for his comment.

"Do you understand this simple and easy reality?"

I hope that I will, if you will simply show me what was said.

Marshal Art said...

"Let's embrace grace, but not stupidity."

Stupidity would have been allowing Clinton to become president. That is beyond dispute based upon her policy positions alone, without having to deal with her own egregious character flaws. It's sad that we were left with the choices we had, but not stupid to vote for the lesser of the two low character candidates...one of whom was certain to win. And so far, he's not as bad as I had feared, though I still wish it was Ted Cruz.

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, I'm going to repost the comment which I submitted to the previous thread, the comment that Dan did not approve for publication: one can see how it directly addresses his complaint, but I also want to direct everyone's attention to another part of the comment -- my noting how Dan treats a dictionary definition as evidently clear beyond any honest and reasonable disagreement.

I have more to say on that subject, momentarily.

First, below is what I submitted to that other thread, on July 11th...

Bubba said...

[From July 11:]

Dan:

Dishonesty doesn't just entail deliberate falsehoods, it also entails material omissions, which is why the oath before giving legal testimony involves telling "the whole truth" and not just "nothing but the truth." A truly honest man wouldn't seek to define dishonesty down.

About your demand that I demonstrate your dishonesty "and prove that [you] have made the argument in an effort to be dishonest and misleading," you required no such proof for yourself in insisting that a person's statements is proof of arrogance, that his external behavior is sufficient evidence for his internal state of mind.

Instead, you wrote that the claim that a text is unmistakably clear "fits the dictionary definition of arrogance."

Even apart from previous discussions -- where it took several threads and literal months to induce you to admit the obvious, that you deny the causal connection between Christ's death and our forgiveness; and where you never did tackle Stott's actual arguments from the text of Matthew 5 that Jesus didn't overturn Scripture, only going so far as to google his name and ramble about the person apart from the arguments (a literal ad hominem) -- there is plenty of evidence of your dishonest behavior here.

- You have never proven that knowledge of a claim REQUIRES an ability to prove that claim (so by your own standards, your assertion remains nothing but an opinion -- a hunch).

- You have never answered my question about whether the virgin birth is a clear teaching of Scripture; the closest you came was to say it's not clear "in the sense of being a meaningful 'teaching' of the Bible/of biblical authors," but "clear" and "meaningful" aren't synonyms or near-synonyms or EVEN necessarily related concepts: a meaningful idea can be quite obscure, and a clear idea can be quite trivial.

- And there's that argument about the dictionary definition of arrogance.

Take another look at your defense of your position:

"If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION."

The comment is arrogant, but not necessarily the commenter? Are you saying that a humble person can make an arrogant claim? Are you saying that the concept of arrogance applies to sentences and other inanimate objects wholly separate from the person responsible for those sentences?

And weren't you the one who insisted that texts do not teach? Texts cannot teach, but they can somehow be arrogant?

And if that's the case, what was the point of your initial blog post? To criticize "arrogant claims" WITHOUT implying anything about the character of those making the claims?

"The thing is, humility...

"In all things, humility, this is a reasonable opinion on unprovable matters and, I'd say, consistent with biblical teachings.
"

Do you really expect us to believe you were urging inanimate sentences to practice humility and not the conservative Christians who wrote those sentences?

You can't be serious -- and it's obvious you're not being honest.

--

You feel free to reach negative conclusions about others' character based on what they say, but you don't extend that freedom to others, and you have not persuasively argued that there is a difference, on the question of epistemology, between arrogance (an absence of humility) and mendacity (an absence of honesty).

If you want to have any credibility in insisting that I can't criticize your character based only on your comments, you should disavow your willingness to criticize the character of others based only on their comments -- either that, of provide proof of their internal state of mind beyond their external writing.

Bubba said...

(That first, anonymous comment was from me. --Bubba)

Dan Trabue said...

I'm back after a week of being away in Canada and then a weekend of helping my mother in law and doing church. Still haven't had much of a chance to sit at the computer and I'm back off to work for now. Will return as I'm able.

Dan Trabue said...

But for a short comment: Bubba, I'm dealing with the comments raised here. If I deal with Marshall's first and that hurts your feelings or you feel entitled to demand I deal with your questions first and if I fail to do it your way, then I'm being dishonest, well, if you're saying that, I hope you can see how that is a dishonest and irrational demand.

You'll just have to wait and get over it.

Being busy and doing things in a different order than you wish it would be is not dishonest. And it would be dishonest to say it is, or irrational, perhaps.

Dan

Bubba said...

Dan, I appreciate your providing feedback even while I don't find it completely persuasive -- and, since my own time is short today, I'll explain why I reposted that comment another time.

---

A good friend of mine works for a small business that has hourly employees, salaried employees, and salaried employees on commission, and there are occasional payroll problems across all three groups.

The paychecks are usually correct, but when they're wrong, they are ALWAYS short, with the owner underpaying the employee for the hours worked or the bonus accrued. The supposed accounting errors are always in the owner's favor, never in the employee's favor, and this is a very long-standing problem.

I *DO* agree with Hanlon's razor in that one should never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but at some point it's no longer plausible that a person's so-called mistakes are accidental.

--

You say you're dealing with this thread, but you began by making this thread a pretty explicit continuation of that earlier thread, where I believe my criticism came first: "my honesty has been questioned on a blog post that is older and more difficult to reach, so I'm starting this new blog post to give a chance to address it."

And even if Marshall was the first here to comment, I don't see where he formulated his comment to meet your arbitrary format, even though you insisted that he do so before I even commented in this particular thread:

[QUOTE, EMPHASIS MINE]

Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not. YOU appear to think that when he said he just grabs them by the pussy, that it was hyperbole, not real world. I DO NOT THINK that is a rational understanding of his words and all that we know thus far about him.

Thus, it is a difference of opinion on the meaning of his words, NOT a false charge and certainly not a lie.

Do you understand the difference?

I am looking for something pretty specific:

Dan, when you said "x" it was false, or dishonest or a lie. Here is the proof that it is false.

1.
2.
3.

If you all can do that, do it. If not, admit your mistake.

I don't want any other words or explanations. I'm giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Ball's in your park.


[END QUOTE]

Marshall replied but not in that format, but you're still addressing his point.

I explained the rationale for my criticism, and you reiterated your request for that format, I MET THAT REQUEST, AND YOU'RE STILL FILIBUSTERING.

Beyond delaying a response to the evidence THAT YOU REQUESTED, in the format that you demanded, you're now dragging me into that other argument with Marshall:

"I'm trying to understand if you all understand reality as it relates to something so easy and so obvious because if you do not understand reality that might be an explanation of why you find lies and dark meanings everywhere. If you can't see it in Marshall's misunderstanding and misstatement then how can you hope to see you in anything else?" [emphasis mine]

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, DAN.

If you want to tackle Marshall's complaint first, fine, but give me an actual date when I can expect a substantive reply to my criticism, so I don't have to continue wasting my time checking this thread until then.

Or if you will not do that, lay off with the additional requests; you say you want to tackle one subject at a time, AND SO DO I. Put our conversation on hold instead of insisting that I chime in on a different conversation.

Or if you cannot do even that, give me the tools that will allow me to answer your question: quote the relevant statements in full and provide links to the complete context.

Demonstrate that we have the give-and-take of a good-faith disagreement by actually giving on your part.

Marshal Art said...

Just to clarify, I do believe I've met the requirements to satisfy Dan's format for response, even if I did not do so initially. The proof of his lie was in the repeated references to the actual Trump video wherein Trump's exact words are easy to understand. Thus, what remained was to focus on the lie, which was that Trump didn't actually say what Dan said Trump said. About a half dozen or so comments above, I listed several examples of Dan misrepresenting what Trump said, as well as pointing out to Dan in other comments that his, or anyone's, interpretation of what Trump meant when Trump uttered his words is irrelevant to the charge of lying.

If one intends to point to examples of that which exposes the low character of another, one must be truthful in providing actual examples. Making claims about what that other person said requires that evidence bears out the claim, not interpreting the other person's words to fit one's charge of low character. The lie Dan told is clear: Trump grabs women by the crotch. Dan bases this on words that were not an admission that he actually engages in this behavior. I provided evidence of Trump's actual words that clearly demonstrates this truth. Trump could just have easily said, "Shoot 'em in the head." as an example of what women will let celebs like him do. Dan expects us to assume it means he actually has shot women in the head. It's absurd and it's an irresponsible suggestion as bad as any made by Trump himself. The worst that can be said is that Trump used "Grab 'em by the pu**y" as an example of what women will let celebs like him do. To suggest it means he has actually done it, when he never actually said he's done it, is bearing false witness...lying.

This is true even if I believed he actually grabs women this way. That is, I may be inclined to believe he does such things, but for me to say he actually in fact does it would be a case of me lying. And it would be even more true if I said it after having heard what he actually said. I would have to admit that, no, he didn't actually say he grabs women that way even though I might continue to believe he's capable and likely may have.

Dan lacked the grace and honor to admit he said what wasn't true, and he continues to demonstrate he lacks grace and honor by refusing to concede that Trump never said it and that his words don't in any way confirm that he behaves in quite that way.

By the way...lying? That's kind of a sign of bad faith discourse.