Hey there AriKatsaris... So we're move back up here now - with Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable taking full advantage of the highly-biased comment-response system (which prevents people from responding to Katsaris' gibberish directly unless they have sufficiently fellated the ruling clique here). And "downvoting without comment" - apart from being so babyish that it qualifies for child support - enables something of an attempt to control the dialogue.
Eventually we will get to he nub, which is that Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable thinks that the State is necessary (of course without ever having examined what his betters throughout history have thought about the issue - reading the literature is for lesser mortals): in other words, he has no understanding whatsoever of the dynamic consequences of the paradigm to which he subscribes.
Dishonesty takes many forms, young Aris: first and foremost is claiming expertise in a discipline in which you're an ignoramus. Legally it's referred to as "misleading and deceptive conduct" to attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in a field in which you have no training: compensation only happens if there had been a contract that relied on your economic expertise, of course... we can be thankful that's not the case, however the overarching principle is that claiming to be an expert when you're not is dishonest - the legal sanction is subsidiary to the moral wrong.
Secondly, it is dishonest to perform actions for reasons other than those that you give as justifications. Your Euro-fearmongering and Islamophobia (the Harris-Hitchens "We can bomb the brown folks coz some of them are evil" nonsense) mark you out as someone who has staunch political views, and those inform your decisions (your stated reasons are windows-dressing - and hence dishonest).
You practice misdirection all the time. Again, dishonest.
You're innumerate, too. That's not a mark of dishonesty, it's just a sign of someone who does not have the tools to be a decent analyst of anything.
We can do this for as long as you like: right up until you have to go stand in line for the next outburst of sub-moronic schlock from J K Rowling, if you like.
EDIT: some more stuff, just to clarify...
Here's the thing: I don't expect Aris "I Don't Need to Read the Literature Before I Bloviate" Katsaris (the Morally-Unimpeachable) to have a sudden epiphany, renounce all the nonsense he believes, and behave like an adult.
What I expect to happen is that over time a small self-regarding clique will change their behaviour - because unless it changes, this site will be even more useless than it now is, and right now it's pretty bad. Not Scientology bad, but close enough to be well outside any sensible definition of 'rational', and heading in the wrong direction.
(This is a semi-serious introduction to the metaethics sequence. You may find it useful, but don't take it too seriously.)
Meditate on this: A wizard has turned you into a whale. Is this awesome?
"Maybe? I guess it would be pretty cool to be a whale for a day. But only if I can turn back, and if I stay human inside and so on. Also, that's not a whale.
"Actually, a whale seems kind of specific, and I'd be suprised if that was the best thing the wizard can do. Can I have something else? Eternal happiness maybe?"
Meditate on this: A wizard has turned you into orgasmium, doomed to spend the rest of eternity experiencing pure happiness. Is this awesome?
...
"Kindof... That's pretty lame actually. On second thought I'd rather be the whale; at least that way I could explore the ocean for a while.
"Let's try again. Wizard: maximize awesomeness."
Meditate on this: A wizard has turned himself into a superintelligent god, and is squeezing as much awesomeness out of the universe as it could possibly support. This may include whales and starships and parties and jupiter brains and friendship, but only if they are awesome enough. Is this awesome?
...
"Well, yes, that is awesome."
What we just did there is called Applied Ethics. Applied ethics is about what is awesome and what is not. Parties with all your friends inside superintelligent starship-whales are awesome. ~666 children dying of hunger every hour is not.
(There is also normative ethics, which is about how to decide if something is awesome, and metaethics, which is about something or other that I can't quite figure out. I'll tell you right now that those terms are not on the exam.)
"Wait a minute!" you cry, "What is this awesomeness stuff? I thought ethics was about what is good and right."
I'm glad you asked. I think "awesomeness" is what we should be talking about when we talk about morality. Why do I think this?
"Awesome" is not a philosophical landmine. If someone encounters the word "right", all sorts of bad philosophy and connotations send them spinning off into the void. "Awesome", on the other hand, has no philosophical respectability, hence no philosophical baggage.
"Awesome" is vague enough to capture all your moral intuition by the well-known mechanisms behind fake utility functions, and meaningless enough that this is no problem. If you think "happiness" is the stuff, you might get confused and try to maximize actual happiness. If you think awesomeness is the stuff, it is much harder to screw it up.
If you do manage to actually implement "awesomeness" as a maximization criteria, the results will be actually good. That is, "awesome" already refers to the same things "good" is supposed to refer to.
"Awesome" does not refer to anything else. You think you can just redefine words, but you can't, and this causes all sorts of trouble for people who overload "happiness", "utility", etc.
You already know that you know how to compute "Awesomeness", and it doesn't feel like it has a mysterious essence that you need to study to discover. Instead it brings to mind concrete things like starship-whale math-parties and not-starving children, which is what we want anyways. You are already enabled to take joy in the merely awesome.
"Awesome" is implicitly consequentialist. "Is this awesome?" engages you to think of the value of a possible world, as opposed to "Is this right?" which engages to to think of virtues and rules. (Those things can be awesome sometimes, though.)
I find that the above is true about me, and is nearly all I need to know about morality. It handily inoculates against the usual confusions, and sets me in the right direction to make my life and the world more awesome. It may work for you too.
I would append the additional facts that if you wrote it out, the dynamic procedure to compute awesomeness would be hellishly complex, and that right now, it is only implicitly encoded in human brains, and no where else. Also, if the great procedure to compute awesomeness is not preserved, the future will not be awesome. Period.
Also, it's important to note that what you think of as awesome can be changed by considering things from different angles and being exposed to different arguments. That is, the procedure to compute awesomeness is dynamic and created already in motion.
If we still insist on being confused, or if we're just curious, or if we need to actually build a wizard to turn the universe into an awesome place (though we can leave that to the experts), then we can see the metaethics sequence for the full argument, details, and finer points. I think the best post (and the one to read if only one) is joy in the merely good.