[rst]

Schneier himself makes the same point even more forcefully. Quoting:

"The term 'dishonest minority' is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don't follow the rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as well as common crime."

[silverbax88]

The usage of the term 'dishonest', is, by very definition, a moral judgement. Saying a word means something else doesn't make it true.

[Goronmon]

But if the author redefines a word within the context of an article or other piece of work, it seems a tad trite to continue to complain about how it's use doesn't agree with some standard definition.

So yes, I would argue saying a word means something can make it true with the context of the author's writing. It basically becomes variable declaration at that point.

Do you disagree?

[silverbax88]

Yes, I disagree. Because what you are describing is what's known as 'informal logic'.

If I can convince someone that something is true, such as "red is equal to blue", even when it isn't, then it allows an entire logical argument to be built on that falsehood. The argument may be perfectly sound as long as everyone agrees with the original falsehood.

If I say 'red is equal to blue' and you agree, then I can follow up and say, 'bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue'. This is a silly example but it's commonly used in politics and newspapers daily.

I might accept that an author could redefine a word temporarily, in some instances of fiction; however, never in a technical or nonfiction work could this be considered acceptable or even credible.

[Goronmon]

I guess I'm not understanding your perspective.

From my perspective it seems you are being overly rigid when you are complaining about the usage of the word 'dishonest'. And I don't find your example useful because I believe it's triviality ignores what makes arguing over the definition of a word difficult in the first place.

Plus, from my perspective, I'd have no problem with the statement "bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue" if "blue" was previously redefined as meaning "red".

[UnFleshedOne]

Not to nitpick, but bulls are color blind...

[olalonde]

Hey guys, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2047175

[timwiseman]

Except its not, at least not as the term honest is strictly defined. To quote mirriam webste, honesty is being free of deception. While it is often immoral to decieve, there are definitely exceptions to this, which is precisely the point. You can be deceptive, and thus dishonest, while being highly moral, at least in cirtain circumstances.

[obfuscate]

You can't sever a word from its connotations just by pointing out exceptions.