In a debate, the identity of another person is not only beside the points, it should not at all be factored into a response to...said points. Don't you see that to respond with knowledge of the other person hinders you? It opens the door for unjust condemnation, blinding you from the truth or lack of truth in their arguments. If a person signs anonymous, it is not because they are weak or ashamed, it is because they want you to deal with their points... not your ill conceived notions of their character.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I fully agree that ill conceived notions of people's character, good or bad, are superflous in debate and/or discussion.
I am going to be controversial, though, and say this: Do you not see that lacking knowlege of the person also shackles you? How much context and understanding do I gain from a comment if I know that it it something that you've said, James? Or the James Orr said? Or Josh Haas? Of even someone I don't like. Knowlege is like the Force. It can be used for the Dark Side more quickly and strikingly, but more profoundly and graciously through the Light. What is the purpose of knowlege? Of knowing who we are talking to? To defend our fragile egos by flippantly dismissing people or to fully understand a person's assertion?
I also say this
For whatever that's worth. I hope that link worked, they never seem to for me.
Q, it is clear when a person is simply "putting off steam" or behaving like a dog as you might put it. There is truth for dogs and pigs alike! Let's give it to them!
At what cost do you gain your understanding through a supposed contextual understanding of another person? A regimented social structure that allows for little personal grow or transcendance!
This is the main problem in human existance: I don't know you, man.
I had a big, long comment written here. And then I realized - nobody really cares.
More people care than you think.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, Cory. It's refreshing to see people really thinking things through. I'm somewhere inbetween. I always put my name behind my comments because I think it's an announcement of the new humanity I'm finding in Jesus Christ (to borrow from Chris). Yet at the same time, some circles have so much rarified air influencing them that they look at the name in order to decide how much the thoughts should be considered or discredited. Unlike the gospel, people elect conditionally.
There are benefits of my friends knowing I'm not James Lyons since I comment as James Orr or Earth Bound James. Micah knows me better than someone who's never met me, and he can probably come to a truer rendering of my intent. But I just read on Tony's Biasell's blog that Jeff Crotty won't listen to an anonymous commenter because he "doesn't know their heart." What's that about? I don't even know my own heart. But that's an example of what I've interpretted as the extremely rarified air surrounding many things Calvin Crest. It's, "I have no reason to think you're even alive unless you're my friend." It's not gospel-like because it's conditional election.
Knowing who someone is gives you a better idea of what they're trying to say. Talking with Hannah about what I've wanted to write about Christians employing violence as a method for about five weeks gives her a very good idea of what I was trying to say. Micah, being my best friend through all these years gives him a good idea, but not as specific as the one Hannah has (even though it's still pretty good). I do hope someone who doesn't know me will be able to pull some things out. I hope someone who thinks I'm unvirtuous will be able to look past that and see what I'm trying to say as well.
Good point, anonymous, but have you considered that perhaps people post anonymously for the same reason they look at this anonymously. They could be doing something they know is wrong/divisive, but they can't stop from writing anonymous comments any more than they can take their eyes off of the voluptuous melons found here. They are addicted to the guilty pleasure of anonymity, whether commenting on a blog, masturbating to the beauties found here, or both. It's an addiction, I tell ya...it's a frickin' addiction.
I only do it out of good clean fun!
jly
blog is not always synonymous with debate. if the debate is to be un-hindered then the post that is commented on must be anonymously posted as well then we have a closed "door for unjust condemnation, blinding you from the truth or lack of truth in their arguments". the knowledge that one commenting has is just as great and leads to the same type of stereotypical commenting. there is an initial "ill conceived notion of character" that then gets expressed in the comment. it isnt a neutral playing field period. so if the debate is to be neutral then post and comment anonymously or post and comment with a security in dealing with each others messed up state.
james orr plesae clarify the "air" you talk about as i breath the air daily. clarify at brycosby@hotmail.com if you want.
I think I'm done thinking about it now.
Bryan, it seems like an exclusive club. Crotty won't respond to someone or listen to someone unless he thinks he knows their heart. King david didn't even know his own heart. Nate was sent home from a discipleship program because he wasn't discipled enough before he got there. I've had numerous comments go without any type of response at all. Maybe it's because people calvin crest need to know my heart before I'm worthy of their thoughts. That's why I called it conditional election. It comes across that way. If you dance the dance first, you're ok. If you don't, you're out of luck.
I'm not approving of leud anonymous comments or ones that are only posted to give the blogger the middle finger. I'm saying I agree with James in that someone not posting a name with their comment shouldn't disqualify it.
I think it really depends on the type of comment being posted. In J-Ly's post, he says that "In a debate, the identity of another person" is beside the point. The post which started this conversation, unfortunately, was not a debate! It was a post by Tony praising Rick. Tony was not saying "Here is a debate about Rick and how he served camp that I want to argue about." If Tony had, in fact, done that, then J-Ly would have a point. But he did not do that, and thus whoever posted anonymously was being disrespectful to the intent of the post by trashing Rick. Although I agree that, in a debate, the identity of a commenter has little bearing on the points being made, the abuse of anonymous comments when there is no debate going on, especially on Tony's blog, has reached the point at which Tony and the rest of us who see all the childish abuse he receives are sick of it. If you are afraid to put your name to something you say, you shouldn't say it at all. If you provide your name but your points are disregarded because of it, then the fault lies with the person, not you. But if you post in secret, even if you are sincere and humble in your attempt to engage in debate, then you risk being dismissed as an internet troll, and have no right to complain if and when your points aren't taken seriously.
No one trashed Rick. The anonymous poster was expressing regret because he felt he did not support Rick enough while he was there, and he posed the question that perhaps others felt the same way. THEN everyone felt that they had to defend themselves. OF COURSE they had supported Rick. HOW DARE this anonymous poster suggest otherwise. The guy wasn't accusing anyone of anything. He was expressing his own doubt, and wondering if he was alone in that. Others chimed in, pretending ot know Rick's heart. How do we know what Rick is feeling? Simon had to rush in to protect his daddy, and the flame war was on. Anonymous even posted again, explaining himself more clearly, but by then the topic wasn't on people's hearts and the good work Rick had done - it was on the whole issue of being anonymous. Well, if you felt you hadn't been as supportive as you could have been to someone you care for and respect, maybe you wouldn't sign your name to it either. But it is still courageous to express your doubt in a public forum.
Even when people sign their names, they are accused of being spineless. See Cosby's blog, where Tony called a guy "scum" even though he signed his name. That's a nice Christian attitude.
I agree. The Calvin Crest crew does seem to be an exclusive club. There is no room for outsiders, because new thought might throw off the delicate balance of belief they've established for themselves. God forbid someone question that! Why - it's like questioning God himself - who seems to spend a lot of his free time talking to all of them personally.
Maybe Tony will get the Executive Director job he's obviously been eyeing, Simon will come over and fill the Program Director shoes, and God's plan will all fall into place in that myopic little corner of the world.
Of course, these thoughts don't matter at all since I posted anonymously and you therefore don't know my heart.
Anonymous, maybe you just have a hard time letting go.
i personally love the drama, it reminds me of the soap opera's i watch. Everybody needs that in their lives, i suppose. I wish people would get all hot and bothered about something more important than rougue comments. In the words of Mariah Carey, "Shake Shake it off" Maybe we should better stewards of our time and put the energy everybody putting into this huge conversation in to things like this:
http://www.fmsc.org/
Where they could use some passionate people to get a point across.
Jesus asked Peter three times to feed his sheep, How does this fill a belly? probably mostly with anger and hate, last time i checked that still leaves me hungey
I don't support people being jerks. I don't ready tony's blog because he asked me not to last summer when we had an altercation. I've gone a few times in order to see specific things, but that's all.
James on the other hand is one of my closer friends. I come to his blog because he usually inspires me some way. We're friends in the "hanging out in the same apartment last night" sense, not the I met him on the internet sense.
He posted a thing about anonymous comments that was really about not devaluing someone. It's not like the gospel to say someone is worth more. A day after reading it I thought, "He's probably responding to something," and went to the two likely places - tony's blog and cory's blog. It was obviously on Tony's blog.
The world often seems to turn into "about calvin crest." This post wasn't about Calvin Crest or Tony, but now the comments are turning it into that. Lets just let it be what it is - a post telling us not to believe one person is worth more than another.
I'm a little overwhelmed by all this Calvin Crest stuff. Understand that I don't feel the need to defend it - but I do want to know where this is coming from. Not so I can go run and tell Tony. It's important to me.
Don't do it here.
You can email me at pina@yirah.com. Please. It's not fair to talk about something like this, and not explain where it's coming from.
I'm pretty sure that Josh and James Orr hit this on the head. JLy's post stemmed from Tony's blog, as I understand it, but it's not what it's really about. Why drag it back in? Why the drama? Who has James offended? How and why? Let that person come forward and state the offense before him, and if they be so bold, before the rest of us closet-hiding anarchists.
Does any/everybody know about 'I statements?'
Post a Comment