3 ms·
That depends on your definition. Googling brings up "dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief" Thus I think a sca
by cel1ne 10y ago
That depends on your definition. Googling brings up
"dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief"
Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.
- BobCat 10y agoAn honest kidnapper would have mentioned the Lindbergh baby was already dead...
- throwanem 10y agoA trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.
- posterboy 10y agoSubstantial discussion without accurate semantics is impossible, whereas splitting semantic hairs is substantial discussion in its own right. And the hairsplitting accuracy is necessary because the literal question of good and evil is hardly insignificant.
- kwhitefoot 10y agoIt is not insignificant but it is not the point of this discussion. The word honest was being used in a restricted context. One might argue that trustworthy might be a better word in this context but the meaning was clear nonetheless.
- posterboy 10y ago>The word honest was being used in a restricted context That seems to be the problem, then. Call it a restricting context and we are back to the matters of good and evil.