Since when have I been unwilling to rebut someone's arguments, Dru?
Spewing B.S. and diverting the subject like trying to rebut my argument here with an attack on "moderators" is for sure a sign of weakness. You've had offwhite celebrate the brilliance of your dazzling spray, and I'm not questionning that recognition which you very much deserve -- but don't push it.
Apparently you need a little refresher:
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)
Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.
2) and 3) are the relevant issues here. You claim that anonymity somehow makes a person untrustworthy. Bullshit because ALL information on the internet is inherently untrustworthy. The value of unknown avatars is that you cannot discount their arguments ad homionem so it forces you to examine the content of what they say. The only relevance is the content of posts and since you have nothing to go on with respect to content, because you keep recycling the same stale arguments thast your opponents do, you ask for identity so you can choose to reject a person's ethical argument ad hominem. Lets not forget this discussion is about ethics and anonymity is just a sideshow.
