For the quote you faked, one would need to know quite a bit about the Koran to identify the quote as having originated there, or one would have to know a little about Darwin's nature to know he was unlikely to make such a statement.
Gosh, how widespread can that knowledge be in an atheism board?
And no, one wouldn't even need to know that much; one would merely need to notice the incongruous mixture of religious and scientific writing.
... so I attributed it to you providing a fake quote on purpose. That is pretty much the definition of dishonesty.
No, it isn't. Look it up.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonest
characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness
Well, don't stop reading...
Merriam Webster said:
characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : unfair, deceptive
Your faked quote lacked truth, as it attributed a quote from the Koran to Darwin. It lacked honesty as you knew the quote did not originate with Darwin, and you attributed it to him anyway. It lacked trustworthiness, as anyone trusting that you provided a legitimate quote from Darwin would be mistaken. So, 3 for 3 in the definition of dishonesty department.
But it contained a truth that I was honestly communicating: the truth that Darwin
would have had to have said something like that in order for the previous poster's contention
to be correct. When you ignore the "unfair, deceptive" clause in M.W.'s definition, and mulishly insist that truth has to be literal, you are defining all sarcasm to be dishonest. And, for that matter, all fiction -- as though "It was a dark and stormy night" were dishonest on the grounds that anybody trusting that its author was talking about an actual night that really was dark and stormy would be mistaken. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's an idiotic opinion.
... you probably should have answered my question about the Lincoln meme. Here it is again. "Do you think that's dishonest?"
Yes.
I don't believe I have danced around it, I'm the one who called it dishonest to begin with. I'm not sure why you would think I would call it dishonest, and then immediately turn around and say it wasn't,
No, you didn't call the fake Lincoln quote dishonest, until just now. Nobody called it dishonest. Instead, you implicitly excused it from being dishonest, by contrasting it with mine, by claiming it was more obvious about being fake. Why did you even do that if you think it's dishonest too? Why do you claim you called it dishonest? Are you under the impression that "The above Lincoln meme is obviously a fake because it is anachronistic, the internet did not exist when Lincoln was alive." means "It's dishonest."? Or are you mixing up which quote we're talking about? Or are you mixing up what you said about one quote with what you said about the other?
just like I'm not sure why you think intentionally attributing a quote from the Koran to Darwin, with no indication that makes the reader aware that it was a fake, was anything but dishonest.
If you are sincerely not sure why I think what I wrote wasn't dishonest, even after I painstakingly explained it to you, then that's a problem with you, not a problem with me.
Was it dishonest when some guy first created that fake Lincoln quote on purpose? Yes or no?
Yes. I will repeat it as many times as you like, it was dishonest. You even said I was doubling down on the accusation, so I'm pretty sure you realized I was standing behind it.
Oh, for the love of god! The accusation I said you were doubling down on was the accusation
against me, not some at-that-time non-existent accusation against the Lincoln artist. Duh! You appear to be seriously unable to keep track of what you were talking about when.
noted in that same post that you were providing a fake quote, and laid out your reasoning for doing so.
Well, yes, I probably should have, were I to have assumed that TFT readers were idiots of the sort who couldn't figure both of those things out for themselves. But I thought you were more intelligent than that.
You might consider that I immediately noticed it was a fake, labelled it as such, and revealed where you obtained the original quote you modified and attributed to Darwin.
I do indeed consider it. My expectations concerning the reading comprehension of TFT readers, which I relied on when I made that post, received a theory-confirming observation, when you did that. Why on earth would you think you have a point?
I don't assume that everyone who reads this board is as familiar with the Koran and Darwin as you and I seem to be... In short, never underestimate the stupidity and/or gullibility of people on the internet.
You have successfully shown people on the internet can be quite stupid, yes; but first produce somebody who says he took my fake quote literally, then you'll have something to base an iota of a case for criticizing my post on. Until then, explain this:
Now, if you will excuse me, I have a meeting with the other Greys to hash out how we are going to wrest control of this planet from the Reptillians.
Your claim lacked truth, as it asserted an appointment, a purpose, and an extraterrestrial identity you did not have. It lacked honesty as you knew you did not have any such meeting to go to. It lacked trustworthiness, as anyone trusting that you provided a truthful claim about your itinerary would be mistaken. So, 3 for 3 in the definition of dishonesty department, according to your asserted criterion for dishonesty. Are you claiming that you yourself are a dishonest person? Or are you ready to finally admit to yourself that sarcasm is not a species of dishonesty?