regarding intellectual dishonesty: it is inescapable and sometimes unfortunate that humans evaluate arguments in view of the speaker's identity. human instinct, honed through evolution, makes appeals or attacks on ethos very convincing. how could we discredit any person for taking these types of informational shortcuts when the inclination to do so is so natural?

even if we did, how could we solve the problem? are we ready to bring blind academic peer review to the declining world of journalism? to social media?

dare to imagine the intellectual honesty of an anonymous world, and then open 4chan.org

that was a complete thought

then?!?!?

security is an interesting concept because you can't always guarantee that you'll need it, but without it things will almost assuredly go south

the most common problem people have with security is when it impedes on their privacy, because if they don't need security they prefer privacy. but if they do need security to save them from danger, they'll prefer security. the problem is that people don't think they need security because while secure, they aren't aware that they're secure because the goal if security is so you don't have to worry

you can't prove that abolishing the nsa will lead to a spike in preventable terrorist activity but it probably will and would you prefer privacy then

the real test of someone's intellectual honesty is whether they view the same argument differently based on who's making it

topical example
if you live in a red or blue state or don't care about the outcome of an election, you should vote third party; not because they'll win, but because enough votes will give them a platform from which to win in future elections

now what if the person making that argument didn't vote, or didn't vote third party? you might think to yourself that this person is a hypocrite, right? but, more importantly, do you disregard the argument because of this information not about the argument but about the person making it?

when laid out like this you'd probably like to think that surely you separate the argument from the individual, but do you actually practice this mindset, or do you attach arguments to the individual presenting them, and therefor discredit the argument based on the individual rather than the merit of the argument?

similarly, most people will think that if bad people support someone, then the person they support must also be bad. the kkk endorsed trump, therefore black people shouldn't vote for him. black people? when did trump talk about deporting black people? it doesn't matter, the kkk hates them and supports trump, therefor trump is culpable for their actions

don't be dishonest with yourself