The irrelevance of anonymity in discussion

[_karl61]

its okay to not be up front on who you are as Brigham Young himself did this - from ohiohistory.org

"Brigham Young,

the administrator and diplomat of the church, was evidently con-

scious of this failing of his more zealous colleagues, for he made

this significant comment in a sermon:



I know that when I have traveled with some of the Twelve, and one of

them has asked for breakfast, dinner, supper, or lodging, we have been

refused dozens of times. Now, you may think that I am going to boast a

little; I will brag a little of my own tact and talent . . . when I had the

privilege of asking, I was never turned away--no, not a single time.

Would I go into the house and say to them, "I am a Mormon Elder;

will you feed me?" It was none of their business who I was. But when

I asked, "Will you give me something to eat?" the reply was, invariably,

"Yes." And we would sit and talk, and sing, and make ourselves familiar

and agreeable; and before our departure, after they had learned who we

were, they would frequently ask, "Will you not stay and preach for us?"

and proffer to gather in the members of their family and their neighbors;

and the feeling would be, "Well, if this is Mormonism, I will feed all

the Mormon Elders that come." Whereas, if I had said, "I am a Mormon

Elder; will you feed me?" the answer would often have been "No; out of

my house."10

10 Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young (19 vols., Liverpool, 1854-78), IV,

305."

[_Zoidberg]

Anonymous trashing of private persons is a far different matter. One does not become public merely because one wants to teach at a university, post on public internet boards or defend one's religion, race or ethnic origin. Trashing their reputations, their professions, their integrity, their honesty -- anonymously -- is repugnant. Those who cannot see the repugnancy are, in my view. sociopathic -- and the internet tends to attract those types.

Of course, trashing anonymous private persons is perfectly okay. I, along with some other anonymous posters, became the subject of your wrath even though it seems like you can't really accuse me of the same "hypocrisy" as everyone else - I don't go to church or pretend to be an active Mormon. Which, of course, you didn't botther to find out before you called me a dishonest, immoral coward.

[_asbestosman]

You have reduced my argument to what it is not.

Could somebody who is not anonymous please step forward and say that anonymity is usually considered a virtue, rather than a vice, when used to criticize a living person?

Of course not. Automobiles are not a virtue when they are used to rob banks either.

The automobile isn't the problem and neither is anonymity.

[_rcrocket]

Anonymous trashing of private persons is a far different matter. One does not become public merely because one wants to teach at a university, post on public internet boards or defend one's religion, race or ethnic origin. Trashing their reputations, their professions, their integrity, their honesty -- anonymously -- is repugnant. Those who cannot see the repugnancy are, in my view. sociopathic -- and the internet tends to attract those types.

Of course, trashing anonymous private persons is perfectly okay. I, along with some other anonymous posters, became the subject of your wrath even though it seems like you can't really accuse me of the same "hypocrisy" as everyone else - I don't go to church or pretend to be an active Mormon. Which, of course, you didn't botther to find out before you called me a dishonest, immoral coward.

Well, I certainly apologize for tarring you with the brush of apostacy if it isn't warranted. And, no, my position should not be read to say that trashing anonymous persons is "perfectly okay," but I think you like many others here simply conflate the argument with the person so to be able to claim an ad hominem. Not all disagreements are attacks upon the person. Just because I think your arguments display nasty cowardice does not mean that your posts should be ignored because you are a nasty coward. Just a thought.

[_harmony]

Not all disagreements are attacks upon the person.

Truer words were never spoken.

Oh, and I never say Joseph is a pedophile. I usually call him a liar or an adulterer, or a combination of the two. But there are others who get hung up on age 14, it's true.

[_Zoidberg]

Well, I certainly apologize for tarring you with the brush of apostacy if it isn't warranted. And, no, my position should not be read to say that trashing anonymous persons is "perfectly okay," but I think you like many others here simply conflate the argument with the person so to be able to claim an ad hominem. Not all disagreements are attacks upon the person. Just because I think your arguments display nasty cowardice does not mean that your posts should be ignored because you are a nasty coward. Just a thought.

Well, okay. First of all, I'm not a nasty coward and I don't see why you keep calling me one. Second of all, if you think that us supposedly being nasty cowards has nothing to do with our arguments, why mention our alleged nasty cowardice at all, if it's not meant to be an ad hom?

If you are in favor of 1984-type society, feel free to lobby your convictions. But this is neither the time nor the place to do so.