That's sometimes called "Just Asking Questions", and is sometimes a passive-aggressive way of arguing with someone. You don't state a position, you just ask (leading) questions, without ever stating a position that can be refuted. When someone calls you on it, you say that you're "just asking questions".
It can be a real dishonest, manipulative technique. You're running close enough to that to set off peoples' defense mechanisms. So, even if you're doing it in complete innocence, if you want to not have people upset with the way you're carrying out the conversation, change your style.
Yes, yes, I'm well aware that's a common tactic. However, it is completely fair given the conversational context to ask the poster for clarification for their actual beliefs in what determines "real truth", given that they have stated multiple situations that they find disagreeable for ascertaining "real truth." To shut down valid discussion and shout down fair questioners by throwing around accusations of logical fallacies is not conducive to debate and discussion. It creates a chilling effect that poisons the conversational well.
By the time you asked your question, I thought it was rather clear that darmoddy didn't think there was a real arbiter of truth. That tipped the scales somewhat toward me thinking you were manipulative rather than honest. Even so, I was careful not to actually accuse you of dishonest manipulation.
Sure. But when I'm trying to have a conversation, it's a total pain to have the other side trying to go Socratic Method on me. State your position, and I'll state mine, and then we'll talk. Trying to talk with someone who won't state their own position, but wants to make you answer questions about yours, is... not much of a "dialog", frankly.
