The evils of Anonymity vs the Benefits (especially for bob)

[_asbestosman]

So rcrocket is against anonymous attacks. I'm just wondering how far his hatred of anonymity goes. Does rcrocket frown upon anonymous suggestion boxes at work? How about anonymous surveys about one's boss? Is it wrong to criticize the government anonymously? Is it wrong to vote anonymously in elections? Is it wrong to be an anonymous informant or whistle-blower? Is it wrong to take advantage of the witness protection program after testifying in court? Is anonymity acceptable for doing peer reviews?

Was it wrong for Joseph Smith to initially publish revelations using codenames for people?

[_rcrocket]

So rcrocket is against anonymous attacks. I'm just wondering how far his hatred of anonymity goes. Does rcrocket frown upon anonymous suggestion boxes at work? How about anonymous surveys about one's boss? Is it wrong to criticize the government anonymously? Is it wrong to vote anonymously in elections? Is it wrong to be an anonymous informant or whistle-blower? Is it wrong to take advantage of the witness protection program after testifying in court? Is anonymity acceptable for doing peer reviews?

Was it wrong for Joseph Smith to initially publish revelations using codenames for people?

I hate nothing here. I point out the moral wrongness of using a mask to rob a bank; using darkness to write graffiti on a wall; using the internet to defame and criticize living people anonymously.

If I posted something illogical or immoral, I would expect you to point it out to me. But, I would not assume that you "hate" me. What you're doing is reducing my argument to the absurd which anybody can do for any argument.

I do not frown on anonymous suggestion boxes at work, just as I do not frown upon the internet. I would, however, frown upon somebody using an anonymous suggestion box to libel somebody.

I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.

I stand by my position on this, and I assure you that most right thinking persons believe the same way. Not going to find many of these here.

rcrocket

[_asbestosman]

But, I would not assume that you "hate" me. What you're doing is reducing my argument to the absurd which anybody can do for any argument.

Good, I don't hate you. And no, I'm not trying to to reduce your arguments to the absurd. I'm trying to understand them and using absurd examples is merely intended to help you clarify by forcing your hand as it were.

I do not frown on anonymous suggestion boxes at work, just as I do not frown upon the internet. I would, however, frown upon somebody using an anonymous suggestion box to libel somebody.

I completely agree with your sentiment there and I think most here do. Where I think we all differ is that we draw the line between libel and criticism in a different place than you do. I didn't see anything libelous in mms's post even though it was crtitical and possibly worth of church discipline. Even he recognizes that, but he is also talking to his bishop about it so I suppose what action to be taken will be left up to that bishop.

I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.

I stand by my position on this, and I assure you that most right thinking persons believe the same way. Not going to find many of these here.

Your statement is too vague as my absurd examples demonstrate. Most right thinking persons believe that while libelous anonymous public statements about living persons is wrong, yet there is a good reason for anonymous criticism of living people. You have already admitted as much with the anonymous suggestion box.

Again, where we disagree is with regard to what counts as slander/libel vs what is merely criticism. Perhaps most right thinking people are not lawyers and therefore have a different view than you do on that matter. ;)


Let me also state that I am not saying that no critics post libelous stuff anonymously.

[_Who Knows]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock. But since i live in utah, and would be subject to judgements by other Mormons i work/live/interact with, I'm anonymous.

Sorry crock - that's the way it is. Prospective employers do google searches to look up potential new hires. I wouldn't want some TBM denying me a job just because i don't agree with his religion. I wouldn't want some neighbor not let their kids hang out with my kids just because I don't agree with their religion. I don't want some TBM harrassing me for being an exmo.

The world ain't perfect, and the members of the church certainly ain't perfect. Therefore, i'm anonymous.

[_karl61]

So rcrocket is against anonymous attacks. I'm just wondering how far his hatred of anonymity goes. Does rcrocket frown upon anonymous suggestion boxes at work? How about anonymous surveys about one's boss? Is it wrong to criticize the government anonymously? Is it wrong to vote anonymously in elections? Is it wrong to be an anonymous informant or whistle-blower? Is it wrong to take advantage of the witness protection program after testifying in court? Is anonymity acceptable for doing peer reviews?

Was it wrong for Joseph Smith to initially publish revelations using codenames for people?

I hate nothing here. I point out the moral wrongness of using a mask to rob a bank; using darkness to write graffiti on a wall; using the internet to defame and criticize living people anonymously.

If I posted something illogical or immoral, I would expect you to point it out to me. But, I would not assume that you "hate" me. What you're doing is reducing my argument to the absurd which anybody can do for any argument.

I do not frown on anonymous suggestion boxes at work, just as I do not frown upon the internet. I would, however, frown upon somebody using an anonymous suggestion box to libel somebody.

I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.

I stand by my position on this, and I assure you that most right thinking persons believe the same way. Not going to find many of these here.

rcrocket

Mr. R.C: be careful with that thought: somethings that are wrong in one circumstance maybe right in another.

[_Who Knows]

I didn't see anything libelous in mms's post even though it was crtitical and possibly worth of church discipline.

What are you referring to here?

[_asbestosman]

I didn't see anything libelous in mms's post even though it was crtitical and possibly worth of church discipline.

What are you referring to here?

"My major issue was the apparent belief by many over there that the average active member of the church should actually know about matters that have been intentionally avoided by the church in an effort to portray an "adoring history." It seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility and these people would be so hard on people for not knowing about polyandry and Joseph Smith's plural marriage issues, etc."

I'm not saying that such is an exommunicable offense. I'm just saying that some bishops might be less okay with such thoughts than others an may therefore consider such discipline as revoking a temple recommend or something.

[_asbestosman]

In a perfect world, I'd agree with crock.

In a perfect world there would never be a need for anonymity. But even amoung good people, anonymity is very useful. If, for example, a woman really wants to know if her pants make her butt look big, she should get anonymous feedback--otherwise the wise amoung us will simply refuse to answer that question.

[_Zoidberg]

Not to beat absurdity to death, but since when is privacy something to look down upon? What is it, 1984? "Right thinking persons" - give me a break.

I happen to be a private person for different reasons, most of which I'm not going to explain because I don't feel like it. And I'm certainly not going to send a copy of every form of ID that I possess to Bob here.

Like Who Knows, I happen to live in the state where most people not only routinely try to discretely find out what kind of underwear people around them (who neither volunteer this information nor consent to release it) are wearing, but consider it perfectly appropriate to share their findings with others. I'm pretty open-minded, but I can't help but consider such behavior aberrant and, frankly, perverted.

So I go online to get a little privacy, only to find Bob barking at anonymous posters and trying to impose his arbitrary definitions on the rest of society. Good grief.

[_rcrocket]

Not to beat absurdity to death, but since when is privacy something to look down upon? What is it, 1984? "Right thinking persons" - give me a break.

I happen to be a private person for different reasons, most of which I'm not going to explain because I don't feel like it. And I'm certainly not going to send a copy of every form of ID that I possess to Bob here.

Like Who Knows, I happen to live in the state where most people not only routinely try to discretely find out what kind of underwear people around them (who neither volunteer this information nor consent to release it) are wearing, but consider it perfectly appropriate to share their findings with others. I'm pretty open-minded, but I can't help but consider such behavior aberrant and, frankly, perverted.

So I go online to get a little privacy, only to find Bob barking at anonymous posters and trying to impose his arbitrary definitions on the rest of society. Good grief.

If you see nothing wrong with hurling anonymous and public insults at a living and identified person, then why don't we leave it at that and move on?