Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re^18: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

by CountZero (Bishop)
on Oct 05, 2011 at 06:13 UTC ( #929712=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^17: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

Believe me, I understand all those arguments and they are not wrong, but it just "hurts" the way I see anonymity. For me it literaly means "without a name" and you stick a name on the AM.

And remember, the worst of atrocities have been done under the umbrella of "it is best for society". :)

For me "anonymity" is a goal in itself, for you it seems that it is just a cloak which allows one to hold a conversation for which one cannot be held accountable or censured by negative XP and the "branding" allows such conversations to be held clearly. I think that is a perversion of the concept of AM.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James


Comment on Re^18: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
Re^19: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Oct 05, 2011 at 10:22 UTC
    For me it literaly means "without a name" and you stick a name on the AM.

    Sorry, but "Anonymous Monk" is already a name. Just as "The artist formerly known as Prince" is a name. Even "He who must not be named" is a name. In legal cases, "Mr X", "Ms J", "Baby P", "Corporal N" and "Private Y" have all been considered perfectly acceptable concealers of identity in courts of law. You would have PM act to a higher standard to satisfy your "beliefs"?

    The simple fact of life is that anonymity at PM is a sham. There are a bunch of Gods here that can and do use their privilege to see through that sham. Which makes your arguments, arguments in favour of a purer kind of sham.

    And when reasoning becomes devoid of logic, we move into the realms of belief. You are expressing the opinion that your beliefs should be imposed upon everyone here at PM.

    In this world there are those who reject modern medicine in favour of snorting ground up Rhino horn or Tiger penis. There are still others that reject even simple procedures like blood transfusions. Which is fine when it is their own lives, but when they risk those of their children we can and do intervene.

    You are talking about your idealogical preferences. Do you know the difference between an idealist and an extremist?


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      You are expressing the opinion that your beliefs should be imposed upon everyone here at PM.
      Not at all. I just expressef my ideas and the arguments in favour if it. About the counter-arguments, I said "I understand all those arguments and they are not wrong, but it just "hurts" the way I see anonymity". My own, personal way of seeing anonymity. Perish the thought I would impose my views upon someone else. And in any case, the argument goes against you too: why would you impose your view of anonymity? Furthermore, given that there is no "branding" of AMs (yet), it seems my view is more in line with current practice. :)

      You are talking about your idealogical preferences. Do you know the difference between an idealist and an extremist?
      Yes, it is my idea of "anonymity". Please feel free to worship any other idea. I may be an idealist or even an extremist (nothing wrong with either of them), but I am not a fundamentalist. So have no fear that a mob of torch-wielding zealots will knock on your door if you do not bow to my ideas.

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Re^19: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 05, 2011 at 11:10 UTC

    And remember, the worst of atrocities have been done under the umbrella of "it is best for society". :)

    Godwin again -- your argument must be ironclad!

    For me "anonymity" is a goal in itself, for you it seems that it is just a cloak which allows one to hold a conversation for which one cannot be held accountable or censured by negative XP and the "branding" allows such conversations to be held clearly. I think that is a perversion of the concept of AM.

    For all your talk of governments, just what do you think anonymity is used for?

      For all your talk of governments, just what do you think anonymity is used for?
      Did I say otherwise? You limit the use of anonymity to this aspect only. My definition includes this partial (but important) property of anonymity as well and proposes anonymity as a goal in itself and allows no external limitations. For you anonymity has a goal outside of itself (hide from someone, protect someone from bad things, ...) and thereby makes it weak and open to exceptions, reductions, restraints, ... .

      To counter my definition of anonymity one must attack the idea, the concept of anonymity itself. To fight your form of anonymity, you attack (some of) the use that is to be made of it.

      Such attack is much easier. It suffices to say: "Anonymity is fine, unless you use it to do xyz".

      Hence my concept of anonymity which is pure and does not have a goal outside of itself. It is all or nothing.

      To give an analogy: "You have the right of habeas corpus". No-one (except some backward dictatorships) would dare to take that right away from its citizens. But saying "You have the right of habeas corpus, unless you are a presumed (on the flimsiest of evidence, if any at all) terrorist caught in a military action in some far-away country", seems to be much easier to accept. One should ask why? In my point of view it is because most people think of the "habeas corpus" idea as only applying on "themselves" (i.e. our tribe, country, ethnicity, ...), whereas in my point of view it is a basic human right. The difference in view may be subtle, but the effects are major.

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

        Did I say otherwise?

        Yes you did, esp when you decided to read my mind and tell me the reasons I'm using Anonymous Monk -- you can't make your mind what you're arguing for -- I guess you really are a lawyer

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://929712]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-10-24 13:11 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (131 votes), past polls