[buddha-l] it's not about belief

[curt]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 14:07 -0500, curt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Feigning ignorance is a common form of disingenuousness - but does not 
>>define it. Any argument that is "lacking in candor" - like intentionally 
>>misrepresenting your opponent's positions - is disingenuous.
>>    
>>
>
>So that raises the interesting question of why you characterize your
>dialogue partners as disingenuous, which suggests that they are
>deliberately and calculatingly misrepresenting you. Would it not be more
>charitable to characterize your dialogue partners as misunderstanding
>you or simply being mistaken in their interpretation of your words? 
>  
>
Yes - but it would have been disingenuous of me. Besides, being called a 
Nazi by a nitwit makes me irritable, and, therefore, uncharitable.

>There is a subtle distinction between saying something inaccurate and
>lying.  
>
I was saying that you were lying. As in intentionally misrepresenting 
what I was saying. And also making the crudest possible ad hominem attacks.

- Curt