You just now made that up. You said nothing about other people, and in fact had been addressing me directly for several posts in a row. Were you also telling other people that you’re “out”?
Yes, but then you later responded to “It is an example to illustrate the assertion I made that deception is not always unethical” with “Terrible example, then” — complete with rolled eyes. It appeared you had changed your mind.
Actually, the issue of deception was intrinstic to the OP. I know this because I wrote it. Kimstu knew it too, because she used the very term in the thread’s 5th post: “I agree that being deliberately deceptive doesn’t necessarily imply being a troll. It does imply being a jerk, but that’s not the point… A troll, as you say, is someone who’s being deceptive, outrageous, or otherwise inflammatory merely for kicks, rather than because the poster’s genuinely trying to defend their position.”
Don’t you ever feel embarrassed? Shut the fuck up, and fuck off. I’ve never, ever, come across quite such a spectacular asshole as you. Once again, just shut the fuck up, and fuck off.
I concede that deceiving a serial rapist is not not ethical. You must concede that it is misplaced as you are arguing that deception in debate is ethical if it drives a higher rhetorical purpose and is not malicious. Your argument is that the deception is not required for self preservation but may be ethical anyway.
No debate has ever killed anyone. Using deception to save your life in a debate is thusly unecessary.
Because deception is generally ok to save lives or grievous bodily harm does not allow the ethicality of deception in a debate, or in Great Debates. It may be so, but A does not allow B.
Hypothesizing that deception in debate can be ethical is intriguing.
Claiming that someone must/can/will use deception in a debate to save someone’s life or liberties, or to prevent their sister from rape is ridiculous.
Good one, Grienspace!