To make an analogy, which involves accusations of baby killing in a completely unrelated context, imagine an abortion opponent who calls someone a baby killer in a context where it’s not obvious he’s talking about abortion. When questioned on this, he replies “I sincerely think abortion is baby killing, so my description was accurate, to the best of my knowledge”. What’s wrong with his reasoning?
What’s wrong with his reasoning is that if you’re trying to honestly and accurately communicate, you need to describe someone’s position in uncontroversial terms. It doesn’t matter whether you personally think abortion is baby killing; you’re communicating with people who don’t, and it’s not your place to say “well, if I assume my side of this controversial issue is right, then my description is accurate”. If you want your description to be accurate, describe it in ways that would give an accurate impression even to people who disagree with you.
“He thinks terrorists should have access… well, that’s true because I personally think he has no good or principled way to exclude terrorists” is at worst just that kind of deception. (At best, of course, it’s pedantry after all.)
To make an analogy, which involves accusations of baby killing in a completely unrelated context, imagine an abortion opponent who calls someone a baby killer in a context where it’s not obvious he’s talking about abortion. When questioned on this, he replies “I sincerely think abortion is baby killing, so my description was accurate, to the best of my knowledge”. What’s wrong with his reasoning?
What’s wrong with his reasoning is that if you’re trying to honestly and accurately communicate, you need to describe someone’s position in uncontroversial terms. It doesn’t matter whether you personally think abortion is baby killing; you’re communicating with people who don’t, and it’s not your place to say “well, if I assume my side of this controversial issue is right, then my description is accurate”. If you want your description to be accurate, describe it in ways that would give an accurate impression even to people who disagree with you.
“He thinks terrorists should have access… well, that’s true because I personally think he has no good or principled way to exclude terrorists” is at worst just that kind of deception. (At best, of course, it’s pedantry after all.)