Friday, March 06, 2009

Anonymity

DAVID WALTZ SAID:

“Hello Steve,__So, anonymity is OK if it endorses a Reformed cause, but is evil is it portrays a contrary opinion against a Reformed individual…__James White’s diatribe__Got it; crystal clear…__David”

David is confounding a number of distinct issues:

1.TF was commenting on pseudonymity, not anonymity. People can have different motives for both.

Sometimes pseudonymity and anonymity are morally equivalent. If a writer is using a transparent pseudonym, that’s equivalent to anonymity. Or if he’s using a pseudonym that doesn’t point to a known individual other than himself (e.g. Mark Twain),that’s equivalent to anonymity.

2.But oftentimes, pseudonymity is a deceptive practice. It’s an attempt to trade on the authority of respected figure whose name is being co-opted for that purpose. A low-tech form of identity theft. That’s the issue regarding spurious patristic writings which TF was addressing. So David’s accusation is a diversionary tactic.

3.People can also have different motives for anonymity. Depending on the individual, the motive can either be licit or illicit. There are times when anonymity merits censure, and other times when it does not. It depends on the motive

4.David is apparently charging Reformed bloggers with hypocrisy on this issue. Now, David is welcome to hold a Calvinist to basic standards of moral consistency.

At the same time, there’s a basic difference between self-consistency and consistency with what a second party says or does. It is not inherently hypocritical for one party to be inconsistent with what a second party says or does. If Calvinist A is a premil, Calvinist B is an amil, while Calvinist C is a postmil, no one is thereby guilty of hypocrisy.

To my knowledge, Reformed bloggers never held a conference to issue guidelines on moral parameters of anonymity. If they did, I wasn’t invited, and I didn’t receive the memo.

5.All David is doing here is attempting to implement a divide and conquer strategy whereby he hopes to show some disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere over the moral parameters of anonymity, and then allege hypocrisy on the part of the concerned parties.

Even if he were successful in demonstrating individual disagreement between one blogger and another, that–of itself-would fall far short of demonstrating hypocrisy.

Of course, Calvinists are sinners, too. So it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he can document some instance of moral inconsistency on our part. But I don’t see where the documentation he has furnished thus far succeeds in doing so. And if he’s not alleging hypocrisy, then what does this exercise amount to?

6.From the Catholic standpoint, moreover, disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere is only to be expected. After all, we don’t have Mother Church to whip us into line. Disagreement within the Catholic blogosphere is far more problematic than disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere. Is Mother Church a deadbeat parent?

12 comments:

  1. David Waltz -
    I pointed out at his web site that TurrentinFan's anonimity is different than drive by trolls in comboxes - that is what Dr. White was complaining about.

    And TurrentinFan shows himself that he is not like that; because he faces his opponents and has had several formal debates at his website; several against Roman Catholics, 2 or 3 against Matthew Bellisario.

    So, - David - you are comparing Apples and Oranges. So, there is no double standard or hypocrisy in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Steve,

    You said:

    >>David is confounding a number of distinct issues:

    1.TF was commenting on pseudonymity, not anonymity. People can have different motives for both.>>

    Me: I would like to focus on just one of your six points at a time. In my opening post (One “good” rant deserves another), I wrote:

    “Now, I am in agreement with TF concerning the misuse of spurious writings to bolster ones apologetic and/or theological position(s). However, the value of the double posted thread is significantly diminished by the all too apparent double-standards at play.”

    In other words, I did not take issue with TF’s comments “on pseudonymity”, as such, the basic thrust of this new thread of yours seems a bit suspect.


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Ken,

    You said that I am “comparing Apples and Oranges”. I must disagree here: it would be “Apples and Oranges” if I was comparing/confusing pseudonymity with anonymity—I was not doing that.

    As for whether or not it is accurate to portray the anonymous combox posters in question as, “drive by trolls”, I shall live that for others to decide.

    Once again, I was merely pointing out what I considered (and still consider) was an example of a double-standard. James said:

    “…if it’s anonymous, it’s anonymous, you know, and uh, eh, eh it should be given exactly as much weight as well as anything anonymous is given…”

    To include an anonymous contributor on his blog, and then broadcast the above, is a double-standard (IMHO).


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  4. Arrgh...I hate not being to edit: change "live" to leave!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once again, I was merely pointing out what I considered (and still consider) was an example of a double-standard. James said:

    “…if it’s anonymous, it’s anonymous, you know, and uh, eh, eh it should be given exactly as much weight as well as anything anonymous is given…”

    To include an anonymous contributor on his blog, and then broadcast the above, is a double-standard (IMHO).


    Grace and peace,

    David


    Mr. Waltz,

    Feel free to take out your problems with James White on your blog. Feel free to contact Turretinfan about the reasons he posts under that name and not his real name.

    But realize as well that at this blog, we have a rule that specifically says this is not the place for you to take out your grudges against other bloggers.

    You have already been corrected. Dr. White is talking about combox trolls. That's the specific referent for the word "anything." If you have a problem with that,or you believe he needs to be confronted, call the Dividing Line. If you think that James is operating under a double standard, that's your problem, not ours. Talk to him or TF about it instead of dragging your personal problems with his statements about this from blog to blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David,

    I agree with Gene. It's unethical for you to use Tblog as a proxy to attack TF or White. This is a guilt-by-association tactic. It's cowardly of you to use Tblog as a stalking horse to attack third-parties.

    If you have some evidence that I, personally, am guilty of a double standard, you're welcome to present your evidence, but otherwise you need to confront the accused directly rather than hiding behind second-parties.

    ReplyDelete
  8. beowulf2k8 said...

    “The books of Kings and Chronicles (not to mention the book of Hebrews) are morally repugnant by the standards of most online Calvinists because to them anonymity is deceptive and no anonymous person should be listened to. Really, the problem with them is, if you don't use your real name they won't be able to persecute you and hunt you down to burn you at the stake. Too bad Miguel Servet didn't have an Internet or he might have known that.”

    For someone who claims to be an Anabaptist, you don’t live by Anabaptist ethics. You regard a Calvinist as the enemy, and because he’s the enemy, you feel free to say anything you like about him, however defamatory. You make no effort to love or bless your enemies. Rather, you revile them. You hate your enemies. And it shows. You’re the antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount.

    I’ll give you one chance to document your libelous claim that canonical anonymity is morally repugnant to most Reformed bloggers. What Reformed bloggers reject the canonicity of Kings, Chronicles, and Hebrews on moral grounds? Give us a full list of who you’re referring to, as well as direct quotes to support your allegation.

    If you can’t do that, then your’re a liar. And you should consider the fate of liars in the Book of Revelation.

    I’m waiting for you to either document your charge or withdraw it. If you can’t or won’t do one or the other, I’ll summarily delete your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll bet Beowulf is proud he doesn't post his real name lest legions of angry Calvinists storm his mother's basement to burn him at the stake.

    Of course in his delusion, he doesn't realize that legions of Calvinists are in fact lamenting how stupid people are these days.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BEOWULF2K8 SAID:

    "Quit practicing the art of your father, subtlety, and admit that the logical conclusion of your 'anonymity is evil and we shouldn't listen to any anonymous person' rhetoric results in having to take Kings and Chronicles out of the canon."

    In this very post I drew a distinction between licit and illicit anonymity. Therefore, your inference is not a logical conclusion from my premise. Quite the opposite.

    You're a spiritual fraud. You pretend to be an Anabaptist, but you're just another hate-monger.

    You've abused your posting privileges for the last time. Since you're a dishonorable disputant, I'll delete your comments whenever I run across them.

    I hope you like hot weather–since you'll be spending quality time in the lake of fire with your fellow chronic liars.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey Steve,

    A very recent example would be your “Pseudo-Turrettini thread”, in which it is YOU who mentions the third party in question. YOU brought up TF first, and then complain when I take issue with your “defense” via the combox of the thread.

    If you do not wish to hear contrary opinions why don’t you start moderating comments like TF; or better yet, not allow them at all like AOMIN…

    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete