>>1886092>>intellectually dishonest in argumentsPeople have an overarching belief, for example, 'car-centric cities are bad'. Being 'dishonest' about this would mean refusing to acknowledge or give any valid points which contradict this idea, and, using arguments in support of your position, even when you know they are tenuous.
It means refusing to acknowledge any nuance or yourself give the counterpoints to your central belief.
Most people argue like that. Most people are 'intellectually dishonest'. They want to 'prove their point' and while contradicting it might show they are reasonable in their thinking, people arguing against them will typically just latch onto this nuance to say 'look, he knows he's full of shit!'. There isn't a climate of ideas which encourages it.
Complaining about people being 'intellectually dishonest' is intellectually dishonest. Usually people who say that actually don't care about the value of a rounded perspective or giving concessions, they simply disagree on the overarching belief and use 'intellectually dishonest' as an intellectually dishonest arguement point to serve that central disagreement.
Hypocrisy is another bullshit criticism. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hypocrisy, you're being overly reductive and dim, and likely are a massive hypocrite yourself.
