There's something particularly amusing when ignorant jerks get their dander up and decide to attack someone else. Our old pal DaveScot has taken a brave leap in the dark, accusing me of being a "hypocrite extraordinaire", and landed, predictably, with a resounding thud. Says our intrepid correspondent:
Ed Brayton posts this seemingly virtuous opinion that anonymous ID proponents should not have their real names exposed.
Yet among my first experiences with Ed Brayton was him exposing my real name in a public comment on Panda's Thumb. Ed lifted my real name from a private email I sent to him. I don't particularly try to hide my real name, which is why Ed got it in a private correspondence, but I don't advertise it either.
Now I ask you, when you catch a guy redhanded in such duplicity how far can you trust him in other matters?
Ah, Dave old boy, if only you had taken the time to develop adequate reading comprehension skills you might have avoided looking, yet again, like an ass. First of all, had you bothered to read the actual post on why I think it's a bad idea to "out" MikeGene, you'll notice that my argument is entirely utilitarian. Indeed, I begin the argument by noting that actions have consequences. My argument, in a nutshell, was not that outing him was intrinsically immoral, but that outing him would serve no purpose and achieve nothing worthwhile, but would likely trigger a negative reaction and feed into the idea that we are out to destroy the careers of those who advocate ID. My argument was pure cost/benefit analysis. I also did indicate, at the end, that we must not ignore ethical considerations, but the basis for that ethical statement was purely utilitarian.
Perhaps Dave could stop for a moment and consider the differences between himself and MikeGene. Dave is not a junior academic whose hope for tenure might be at risk. Dave is not a scholar in this area at all, he is just another internet message board lurker with his nose shoved so far up Dembski's behind that if he got a cold, it is Dembski who would have to sneeze. And outing Dave had nothing at all to do with his advocacy of ID but solely with his ridiculous behavior on my blog, where he dumped dozens of comments, one after the other, all highly insulting and totally devoid of substance, and then announced that he was just playing games.
Lastly, I will note that on my blog I have long had a disclaimer that reads, "All e-mail replies may be publicly reprinted on this blog unless you specifically request otherwise, in which case they may still be reprinted in whole or in part without attribution." Dave chose to send me email that included his real name despite this disclaimer, and he made no request for it not to be reposted. Hence, he has no one to blame but himself.
I do think it's wrong, both ethically and practically, to reveal someone's identity if doing so puts their career at risk or threatens their academic freedom. But neither of those things were even hypothetically present in DaveScot's case. The worst thing that could happen to him was to have his own embarrassing behavior exposed to those who didn't know his identity, and for that I would suggest the real blame goes to the person who exhibits that embarrassing behavior.
- Log in to post comments
One thing that strikes me about DaveScot, compared, say, to myself or to your own admission of having outed people for the wrong reasons before (but not DaveScot's case), is the recalcitrant b*stard admits no wrong.
He never apologized for doing you wrong, nor is he likely to now...whereas I sincerely apologized for my attempt to out MikeGene, and took down the posts, and wrote him personally with an apology, and you admitted erring with:
I say this to you as someone who, many years ago, participated in the outing of a prominent creationist, John Woodmorappe (that is his pseudonym, not his real name). It's something I regret now, though I think the circumstances made it more justified than your actions here (Woodmorappe was, while writing under his fake name, citing articles written under his real name that appeared to contradict his creationist views). Quite frankly, it was mostly a matter of ego for me then,
The ethics of the DI and their sycophantic followers never ceases to amaze me.
Was it a rule utilitarian analysis, or an act utiltiarian one?
:)
That Uncommon Descent (wouldn't Common Dissent be a better title?) site is creepy. As I read the posts (left undeleted) I keep getting visions of the typers giggling and twitching like Chief Inspector Dreyfus. They seem like a wacky bunch.
Is it THIS guy?
http://www.utexas.edu/ssw/faculty/springer/
I just want to know, because I posted a few things on the "blog" and actually managed to get in a few "interesting" back and forths, but here comes old DaveScot who deletes me and all my posts for apparently no real reason and without explanation. If this is the same guy, just look at him. He is just screaming douchebag. He looks gay to boot.
Is it really worth it to trade pot shots like this? I think that having a scientific/political blog with integrity and making posts to call specific people names like "ignorant jerk" and "ass" are pretty much mutually exclusive.
beervolcano:
No, that's not the same person. I thought so at first as well, but I was wrong.
Gretchen wrote:
Is it really worth it to trade pot shots like this? I think that having a scientific/political blog with integrity and making posts to call specific people names like "ignorant jerk" and "ass" are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Worth what, exactly? It doesn't cost anything. And it is kind of fun to poke fun at a guy who so clearly deserves it. I don't think that has anything at all to do with integrity. Integrity simply means being ethical and I don't think there's anything unethical about calling an ass an ass. I didn't make the post to call him names, I made the post to defend myself from a false accusation and I think I did so. In the process, I also called him an ignorant jerk and an ass. But since he fits both of those things perfectly, I don't think that's a mark against my integrity (my maturity, perhaps, but not my integrity). I try and treat people in a manner that corresponds with how seriously they should be taken; frankly, that is about the level of seriousness that he deserves.
Okay, maturity. It's certainly true that there are a lot ignorant jerks and asses in the world. It is quite another thing to deem this important enough that it merits them a post in a blog like this. Being wittily caustic and cutting to the chase is one thing, smacking of livejournal is quite another.
Well, I try and keep my urge to verbally disembowl stupid schmucks to a minimum, but I have to feed the monkey once in a while. Helps keep me sane.
Verbally disembowling someone would be pointing out, in an acerbic manner, the precise failings of their position. Calling them names is more like clobbering them with a baseball bat.
Okay, so I did both. I can live with that. :)
It doesn't cost anything.
Don't be so sure. I came to this site following someone else's science blog and with certain (high) expectations of the bloggers. Reading this entry doesn't make a very good first impression.
BTW, the comment facility here is pretty buggy. I'm trying this for the first time - it does not seem to work for me under Firefox (consider, for a moment, that the urge to post this remonstrance was sufficient to make me dust off Internet Explorer!) and even under IE fields appear and disappear unexpectedly. Maybe you could pass word along to the owners.
Odd. I use Firefox, and haven't had any problems.
Well, the cause of one person's remonstrance is cause for another's applause. Doesn't phase me one bit to see Ed indulge in a little name-calling, especially in response to the same directed his way and supported with reasons why the monikers fit. Regardless, it's definitely not the norm here in my opinion. Most importantly, and all too rare on some other blogs, you can count on Ed to serve himself some crow and admit or correct himself when he's made a mistake.
Ed: I'm sorry to say that I'm just not buying your argument here and I think that DaveScot (for once) has a point. Regardless of whether or not you were correct, the fact is that you revealed his name and believed him to be the Assistant Dean of SOMETHING. I'd say that potentially puts his livelihood at risk. You knew the consequences and you did it anyway.
Your disclaimer does remove some blame from you, but I feel that you were hypocritical on this matter.
FishyFred wrote:
Ed: I'm sorry to say that I'm just not buying your argument here and I think that DaveScot (for once) has a point. Regardless of whether or not you were correct, the fact is that you revealed his name and believed him to be the Assistant Dean of SOMETHING. I'd say that potentially puts his livelihood at risk. You knew the consequences and you did it anyway.
I don't see why it would put him at any risk. For being an asshole? That's the only thing he was doing. There is no law against acting like an asshole. It had nothing whatsoever about his views on anything. And again, my argument was based upon utility only, on the question of what we have to gain by outing ID advocates. The situation with Dave had nothing at all to do with that. I don't have an ethical problem with outing internet trolls, which is the only thing Dave was (and frankly, all he still is).
FishyFred,
Are you saying that people can't look back on their past behavior and learn from what they have decided was a mistake? Seems to me Ed's position has evolved (oops, that may be why some have a problem with it). I think Ed has a more ethical take on the subject than DaveScot does. The problem it seems to me is that Ed's position is pretty moderate, which is not something the people over at Uncommon Descent can relate to - it's pretty symptomatic of political discourse in this country at the moment.
Tim,
I think the problem here, is that we know DaveScott - more than we wish to, and you do not.
Ed was/is a lot milder on DaveScott, than I, and a lot of PT contributers, who have also had dealings with him, ever would be. Calling him a hypocritical bottom-dwelling scumsucker, would be an insult to bottom-dwelling scumsuckers that I would not be willing to make.
But, FishyFred, look at history, look at the facts: The Godfather of ID, Phillip Johnson, retired and got emeritus status; Dean Kenyon, who famously tried to teach creationism to undergraduates, retired nicely and got emeritus status at his college. Dembski insulted the president of the school and got three years more on the job.
Creationists don't get fired for being creationists. Few of them get any trouble at all on the job. Being "outed" as a creationist doesn't put one's job at risk, even when it should -- at least not according to the actual cases we have.