Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:35:41 -0400
From: logickal cryptik
Subject: Re: I am not CRYPTIK.
> I am not CRYPTIK.
No, you certainly aren’t, especially if you capitalize the entire pseudonym! 😛 If anyone jumps to that conclusion and points the finger at you, they’re the real “rock-throwing trolls” now aren’t they? Regardless, if I’d known those facts about you, I probably would have chosen a different example (my driveway resembles said mud trough, thus the example.) I don’t mean to cause real-world trouble. Apologies!
—
I’m tired of people pretending that wearing their name tag makes their message more legitimate when it doesn’t. Most of the people who are making a big fuss over “real names on the Chatlist” are doing so because they want to find ways to hurt people who disagree with their opinions and they’re powerless to injure another person without their identity. Of course, they may also simply want to be able to say “so-and-so is a known idiot or bad person, so anything they say is easily dismissed” but that’s just a weaker variant of the same malicious behavior. Why do you need a “real name?” What is your purpose for having that name? These are questions for your own introspection.
If a person’s argument against a message involves attacking the messenger, that’s called an ad hominem fallacy. “Well you don’t even use your real name, so we don’t have to listen to you!” is an ad hominem fallacy. If an idea stands on its own merits, you don’t need to know the name of whoever is challenging you because you can defend it easily. Taylor Kish presents no challenge when you are firmly in the right.
If Taylor Kish’s rants are such a threat to your ideas, why do you feel threatened by Taylor Kish? Come to think of it, how do you know that Taylor Kish isn’t the poster’s real name? What, you did a search to see if they owned a car or house in the county? Is that how you determine legitimacy?
It doesn’t matter what’s on the name tag. What matters is what’s being argued. That’s all. I don’t care one bit what your name is because your statements are right, wrong, or somewhere in between. If one wants a lawnmower repaired then ask for names, but to argue about politics and morality and other subjective things? No one should care who you are, where you live, what car you drive, who your political connections are, or how big your house is.
Now, to Taylor: you can’t complain about Al complaining about being called a name when you dismissively group people into the label “liberals.” The box called “liberals” you’re trying to jam people in so you can dismiss them is full of individuals who rarely fit such sweeping generalizations. In fact, that’s also a logical fallacy. You don’t get to paint people who disagree with you into the “liberals” box so you can dismiss them. Just because I’m defending your right to speak your mind doesn’t mean I support you doing the exact same things I’m ripping on your opponents for doing. When you name-drop “liberals” and then generalize while linking Al into that generalization so you can dismiss “them” (and him by association) you’re effectively name-calling. Al’s grievance is legitimate. Please try to argue more logically and less emotionally in the future.
Taylor Kish is as full of fault as any of you. What a surprise! Humans make mistakes! People get mad! Who’d have guessed? If we impaled everyone who set us off, 64 would look like Vlad III owned it and I’d have nowhere to get my Nissan fixed.
Let’s all try to argue like rational, level-headed adults, and stop trying to take chunks of meat out of one another over ideological disagreements and factual errors. In the immortal words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Or, if it appeals to you more readily, “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” posed an equally wonderful suggestion: “Be excellent to each other.”
While I’m here, what is the “extension service?”
Signed,
Dewey Bunnell’s “horse with no name”
(Currently in the desert for Chatlist purposes)