Turns out - rcrocket is a bishop -

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.

Well then become a reprobate and then no one will judge you.

Or not.

[_truth 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.

I didn't say I see "no difference, socially, whatsoever between an anonymous libel and a signed libel," but regardless....

I get the impression that you somehow think it is OK to be cruel to another so long as you don't have a mask?

Or that so long as one posts with their full name the nastiness doesn't matter?


~dancer~

[_barrelomonkeys]

In my experience most of them aren't judged harshly. Hypocrisy is a nebulous term though. Does it refer to having standards you have not yet attained or something more?

What is your definition of and why do you believe reprobates are not judged harshly by society?

They may not be hypocrites, while those that don't live up to their ideals are, but they're still judged harshly.

I think this is a good definition of hypocrisy:

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrisy

[_beastie]

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.

There's just too much tortuous reasoning to state that asserting that people post anonymously on the internet due to safety issues is the equivalent of blaming a woman for being raped because she jogged alone.

Put this in perspective - bob feels justified calling me a sociopath and a liar because of how I've "attacked" him on this board. I invite you to go read my exchanges with him to decide whether that is a rational argument. So somehow, he is morally superior to me because he uses his real name? Come on.

[_asbestosman]

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.

I didn't say I see "no difference, socially, whatsoever between an anonymous libel and a signed libel," but regardless....

I get the impression that you somehow think it is OK to be cruel to another so long as you don't have a mask?

Or that so long as one posts with their full name the nastiness doesn't matter?

I'm sure that's not what crockett means. I think he's just saying that the nastiness is worse when done anonymously, kinda like hate crimes are (in some opinions) worse than those not motivated specifically by hate.

I wonder though, is anonymous libel analogous to hate-crimes? The crime itself is already dispicable even without it being motivated by hatred, but if motivated by hatred, is it somehow worse? Should it even matter?

[_asbestosman]

There's just too much tortuous reasoning to state that asserting that people post anonymously on the internet due to safety issues is the equivalent of blaming a woman for being raped because she jogged alone.

I'm not so sure, but regardless, I think rape is too terrible to even implicitly compare it to anything other than itself, child abuse, or possibly murder. Otherwise it becomes subject to vain repitions such that the terribleness of it is seemingly diminished.

Put this in perspective - bob feels justified calling me a sociopath and a liar because of how I've "attacked" him on this board. I invite you to go read my exchanges with him to decide whether that is a rational argument. So somehow, he is morally superior to me because he uses his real name? Come on.

No Beastie, I don't think you're a sociopath and I strongly encourage anonymity. At the same time, I wouldn't blame some who uses their real name for any nasty things that befall him/her any more than I would blame the victim of a crime (say a Nigerian money scam) no matter how foolish that person was.

[_cksalmon]

No Beastie, I don't think you're a sociopath and I strongly encourage anonymity. At the same time, I wouldn't blame some who uses their real name for any nasty things that befall him/her any more than I would blame the victim of a crime (say a Nigerian money scam) no matter how foolish that person was.

How'd you know about that? Are you getting some of the inheritance, too?

[_asbestosman]

No Beastie, I don't think you're a sociopath and I strongly encourage anonymity. At the same time, I wouldn't blame some who uses their real name for any nasty things that befall him/her any more than I would blame the victim of a crime (say a Nigerian money scam) no matter how foolish that person was.

How'd you know about that? Are you getting some of the inheritance, too?

Yes, but only because I live in Nigeria . . .

;)

[_beastie]

No Beastie, I don't think you're a sociopath and I strongly encourage anonymity. At the same time, I wouldn't blame some who uses their real name for any nasty things that befall him/her any more than I would blame the victim of a crime no matter how foolish that person was.

Yes, it is difficult to use rape as a comparison, but I'll go with it since that's what Bob suggested, and with your interpretation, I think I understand what he was trying to say.

So perhaps Bob was referring to the fact that I said it's irresponsible for someone with children to post using their own name. He thinks that is the equivalent of blaming a woman who jogs alone for being raped.

No, of course that isn't what I meant. There are two issues here - the crime (or act of nastiness) and personal responsibility to try and protect yourself and those around you.

If a woman jogs alone in an area known to be dangerous, and gets raped, it is not her fault she got raped. She did, however, behave irresponsibly, and that is her fault. The criminal is responsible for the rape. The woman is responsible for her irresponsible behavior.

If something happened to Bob or his family due to his posting with his real name, it would not be his fault. He has, however, behaved irresponsibly - in my opinion -by posting with his real name on the internet, and that is his fault.

These are two distinct issues.

Some people really cannot keep these two issues distinct. More commonly the scenario is a woman getting drunk in a bar in a bad part of town with strangers and ending up getting raped. The woman is not to blame for being raped, and the rapist alone is responsible for the act of rape. The woman is responsible for choosing to get drunk in a bad part of town with strangers.

Certain behaviors increase risk. It is responsible to take that into consideration. It is irresponsible to pretend that you shouldn't have to take these things under consideration. But that should not ever be twisted to imply that a victim is to blame for being victimized. It was the perpetrator's choice to take advantage of the victim's irresponsible behavior.

[_asbestosman]

If something happened to Bob or his family due to his posting with his real name, it would not be his fault. He has, however, behaved irresponsibly - in my opinion -by posting with his real name on the internet, and that is his fault.

These are two distinct issues.

Some people really cannot keep these two issues distinct. More commonly the scenario is a woman getting drunk in a bar in a bad part of town with strangers and ending up getting raped. The woman is not to blame for being raped, and the rapist alone is responsible for the act of rape. The woman is responsible for choosing to get drunk in a bad part of town with strangers.

Certain behaviors increase risk. It is responsible to take that into consideration. It is irresponsible to pretend that you shouldn't have to take these things under consideration. But that should not ever be twisted to imply that a victim is to blame for being victimized. It was the perpetrator's choice to take advantage of the victim's irresponsible behavior.

Doesn't sound sociopathic to me at all. Then again, sociopaths are known to be pretty smart ;)

Your thoughts mirror my own--at least as long as I'm right about you not being a sociopath . . .
;)

Nice post.