Yes.
X never mentioned a "distaste" for "such things as truth, values, human justice, or principle."
To say that she did, and what's more did it repeatedly, is a lie.
("Distaste" in any case is an absurd noun choice.)
It would not be a lie to write, "I can not, from my philosophical perspective, imagine truth, values, human justice or principles existing for a moral relativist."
It would be dumb, and show an extremely limited imagination, and even more remarkably limited social circle, but still, it would not be a lie.
It is a lie to say that a moral relativist has "mentioned" having a "distaste" for things she has never "mentioned" having a "distaste" for -- things "such as truth, justice, human values or principles."
Posting that someone has "mentioned" something repeatedly is attributing to them, as their statement of their position, your conclusion. This is dishonest.
It is also a simple concept.
It is my impression that you aren't actually missing this simple point, but, uncomfortable with what your cohorts have revealed about themselves, are merely trying helpfully to assist in the obfuscation. |
