Turns out - rcrocket is a bishop -

[_beastie]

Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.

No doubt. It is no doubt sociopathic of me to post anonymously on the internet speculating about whether or not Joseph Smith deliberately endangered people's lives in order to satisfy a real estate deal.


You are so perceptive. Your ward is so lucky to have such a perceptive man as bishop.

So tell, me, Bob. Why do you deliberately seek the company of sociopaths?

[_rcrocket]

But when that person comes into a public place, with the bank robber's mask. to defame, injure and criticize, on the one hand, while putting on a facade on the other hand, then God and society will condemn them.

Hmmm... do you think that when that person comes into a public place, without the backrobber's mask, to defame, injure, and critize, without a facade on the other hand, God and society will NOT condemn them?

What difference does the mask make?

Is it somehow less bad to kill someone if they have on a mask? Is cruelty less harmful to another if one does not know the true identify of the perpetrator?



~dancer~

Why don't you ask your honorable friends, people with standing in the community, and without reference to the internet, as to which is more honorable:

Publishing in the local newspaper (assuming it will accept for publication), a signed libel against a local Rabbi, attacking him personally, attacking his moral behavior, accusing him of misbehavior with ecclesiastical funds

versus

The same thing, but anonymously.

Of the two, and assuming the libel to be untrue, which would society say is the least honorable publication?

But, I also believe that a sociopath cannot self-diagnose sociopathic behavior.


rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.

No doubt. It is no doubt sociopathic of me to post anonymously on the internet speculating about whether or not Joseph Smith deliberately endangered people's lives in order to satisfy a real estate deal.


You are so perceptive. Your ward is so lucky to have such a perceptive man as bishop.

So tell, me, Bob. Why do you deliberately seek the company of sociopaths?

I couldn't care less about your anonymous musings of historical detail. You cross the line when you attack living and known persons, such as myself, anonymously.

[_beastie]

You're going to have to alter your example, Bob, and include the fact that if the individual were to use his/her own name, he/she could be placing not only him or herself, but also his or her family, in jeopardy.

That is what you do when you post with your real name on the internet - about anything.

I couldn't care less about your anonymous musings of historical detail. You cross the line when you attack living and known persons, such as myself, anonymously.

So, in your opinion, I have attacked you in such a way to be justifiably called a sociopath?

[_truth dancer]

Why don't you ask your honorable friends, people with standing in the community, and without reference to the internet, as to which is more honorable:

I was wanting your opinion.

My opinion is that it is cruel to purposely harm another with or without the mask.

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

You're going to have to alter your example, Bob, and include the fact that if the individual were to use his/her own name, he/she could be placing not only him or herself, but also his or her family, in jeopardy.

So, rape is justified when a woman chooses to go jogging alone? Bank robbery is justified when one chooses to deposit his funds in a bank? Crank and obscene phone calls are justified if a man decides against an unlisted number?

Yes, I may be putting myself in jeopardy by using my name in all my letters, my emails, and internet posts, but you are the one choosing to do the damage. Who is in the wrong?

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Why don't you ask your honorable friends, people with standing in the community, and without reference to the internet, as to which is more honorable:

I was wanting your opinion.

My opinion is that it is cruel to purposely harm another with or without the mask.

~dancer~

And, since you see no difference, socially, whatsoever between an anonymous libel and a signed libel, I guess that answers your question. But, I can assure you that no reasonable person would likely agree with you.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
You're going to have to alter your example, Bob, and include the fact that if the individual were to use his/her own name, he/she could be placing not only him or herself, but also his or her family, in jeopardy.



So, rape is justified when a woman chooses to go jogging alone? Bank robbery is justified when one chooses to deposit his funds in a bank? Crank and obscene phone calls are justified if a man decides against an unlisted number?

Yes, I may be putting myself in jeopardy by using my name in all my letters, my emails, and internet posts, but you are the one choosing to do the damage. Who is in the wrong?

Bob, this doesn't even make sense. How in the world do you leap to justifying rape because a woman is jogging alone from my statement?

I'm saying that the reason people post anonymously on the internet is usually due to safety issues, not due to wanting to hide behind a mask. When I first started posting on the internet, I used my real name, too. Then I got a phone call from a total stranger on the net and freaked out over how much information anyone could look up about me if they wanted to- a single woman with three children. I have never used my real name again.

I wrote a letter when I left the church explaining exactly why I left, and gave it to my bishop and my family. I signed my real name. They know it all. I'm not ashamed of what I say about the LDS church, and I certainly do not believe I've said anything so vicious to you that you are justified - using your real name - calling me a sociopath or deliberately deceptive.

I post anonymously on the internet because I don't want some nut looking up information about me, and potentially my family.

by the way, I'm genuinely curious. Just what have I said to you that justifies you calling me a sociopath, and deliberately deceptive?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

How can you judge someone by a standard refuse to accept?

You don't. Rather you judge them by the meta-standard you both accept: an honest endeavor for one to live by his or her own stated standards.

Good answer!

[_asbestosman]

beastie wrote:
You're going to have to alter your example, Bob, and include the fact that if the individual were to use his/her own name, he/she could be placing not only him or herself, but also his or her family, in jeopardy.



So, rape is justified when a woman chooses to go jogging alone? Bank robbery is justified when one chooses to deposit his funds in a bank? Crank and obscene phone calls are justified if a man decides against an unlisted number?

Yes, I may be putting myself in jeopardy by using my name in all my letters, my emails, and internet posts, but you are the one choosing to do the damage. Who is in the wrong?

Bob, this doesn't even make sense. How in the world do you leap to justifying rape because a woman is jogging alone from my statement?

He's not speaking of justifying rape. Perhaps he could have clarified his point by asking you whether you would recommend that women not jog alone so as not to put themselves at risk. In other words, do safety issues mean that someone is in the wrong when there are safer things to do such as never jogging alone, or never posting your in real life name on the internet? You yourself mentioned safety issues.

I'm saying that the reason people post anonymously on the internet is usually due to safety issues, not due to wanting to hide behind a mask.