Originally Posted by taustin
Either he really believes in what he says he believes in, and acts accordingly to the limits of his ability and willingness, in which case we can assume he's dishonest and untrustworthy because he says he's dishonest and untrustworthy, or he doens't, in which his claim about what he believes is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Where exactly does he say that he is dishonest? And even if he did say so explicitly (which I very much doubt), wouldn't that be a classic paradox
However much one disagrees with the ideas of communal property and piracy, someone else's belief in or defense of those ideas doesn't make that person inherently dishonest
Diap's on firmer ground calling Giggleton delusional (though I'm not thrilled about the ad populum) because at least Diap's joking about the plausibility of his opponent's arguments and beliefs.