Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Yes, you ARE reiterating. Missing the point, too!

Posted by Prometheus on 2010-November-10 02:21:09, Wednesday
In reply to Reiterating posted by Amicus on 2010-November-9 15:56:28, Tuesday

I don't know if you just have the issue all muddled and confused in your mind, or you're deliberately employing sophistry, but I lean strongly toward the latter because you talk like someone who has studied rhetoric. You keep using common rhetorical trickery in your responses.
Prometheus is not a real name (moving on). It is too, publicly listed here. This is the information that is being asked - an indicative and route sourced effort that could otherwise be undertaken less successfully by me without your consent irrespective;
The point you're ducking here is that seeing my nick on this board tells you nothing about which other posters I have interacted with closely enough that we can vouch for each other beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again you're being disingenuous, and defeating your own point. You're telling me that the information you're asking for is publicly listed as an argument for why it can't compromise anyone's privacy, but then why would you need anyone to send it to you? If you're just looking for a list of nicknames, you can collect them yourself from the board. The reason you're asking people to send you information is that you're looking for something beyond what is publicly available, and it's that "something beyond" that is the cause for concern. You're not just missing an important aspect of the point; the part you're missing is 100% of point that you purport to be refuting, and the part you're devoting 100% of your attention to is no part of that point.
It is misleading to call these "names" out of context, which is where one might misinterpret
First of all, I made it clear what I meant in the first line of my post:
I don't just mean real names, I mean don't anybody give out the nicknames, let alone e-mail addresses, of anyone who would vouch for you or anyone who you would vouch for without that person's permission.
Since I made it clear that I was talking about sending nicknames, and that is what you were asking for, as you have confirmed, then what purpose does it serve to complain that's it's misleading that I used the word "names" in the subject of my post, especially when I clarified my meaning in the very first line, and used the term "nicknames" thereafter?

I'll answer my own question, because I know exactly what purpose it serves. It's a stock rhetorical device to zero in on some minor point that you can nit-pick at in order to distract your audience from the main point, when the main point doesn't depend to any extent on whether you're right or wrong in what you're nit-picking about. This is called a "fallacy of misdirection" or "red herring".

I'm sure you'd love to make this all about whether a term I used was somehow misleading about some aspect of your post, and argue back and forth about whether I was clear enough that I was talking about sending nicknames as opposed to just real names, because it's all a distraction - even if your criticism were valid (which it isn't), that would have absolutely no bearing on the main point.
I clarified that I am not requesting (relevant) e-mails, because it doesn't matter if you use a custom e-mail solely for this purpose - it only serves as a communicative medium and is given no significance.
First of all, it's ridiculous to say that I was misleading anyone just because you later changed your request in response to my objections, even if you don't admit that that's what you did. You made no such statement in your original post, you only emphasized that you were looking for addresses:
Correct spelling and case is relevant – I need addy’s NOT names and NO personal information at this time, for our mutual safety. Your addy should be the subject, and the only content the two lists for question 1 and 2.
Then you turned around and said that I was misleading, because you were now suggesting using a custom e-mail for this purpose, in the very same response in which you claimed that there had been misleading interpretations.

In any case, you're evading the point by bringing this up and then harping on it. I made it clear since the beginning that my point was not to try to convince people not to volunteer or not to send you their own information. My point was that nobody should send information about other people without their permission - either their e-mail address, or the fact that you'd vouch for them or that they'd vouch for you. My main purpose in outlining the view of "the jaded cynic" was not to convince people not to participate, but to get them to realize that there are reasons why some people might object to being included in someone else's response. Your so-called "clarification" is irrelevant to that point, because how would any of your respondents be able to provide "custom" addresses for people who have not given permission to send you information about them? It's not the respondent's own information that's at issue. The issue is what liberties the respondent is taking with information about other people without their permission.

(How much does anyone want to bet that if he responds, he'll focus on the first part, about whether he "changed" or "clarified" his request and whether I misled anyone, rather than responding to the more significant part, which is that the whole argument misses the point?)
There is a distinction between asking people to think about the reputability of a specific person, and asking people to think about a specific kind of reputability and then attach a person
I haven't asked anyone to consider anyone's reputability, I've only asked people not to give out information about other people without those other people's permission, even if they themselves consider the information innocuous. So all this is irrelevant in addition being a bunch of turgid blather.
the former involves a subtle priming best avoided. The universe, intrinsic or extrinsic, is very manipulable when it involves subjectively bound assertions - as any judge worth his or her salt will attest of any jury.

Excessive or projected significance inhibits lateral thinking and earnest perception; we'll be OK.
This is called "argument by bafflement": string together a bunch of grandiloquent language that sounds erudite and profound but really doesn't say anything, much less address the point. People are supposed to be reluctant to tell you that they don't understand what you're saying or how it's relevant for the same reason why people were afraid the point out that the Emperor was buck naked - for fear of appearing inadequate (specifically, appearing unable to comprehend the complexity of such eloquent metaphysical prose).

You can reiterate and "clarify" all you want, argue semantics, spew pseudophilosophical drivel, but the fact remains that you haven't even attempted to address my main point, only to distract from it. I think I made it abundantly clear in my initial post:
The question for you is not to determine whether you think the wild-eyed optimist is a gullible fool or the jaded cynic is overly paranoid and overthinks things to the point of paralysis. It's to realize that it's not your place to make that determination for all the BCers you trust and all those who trust you, it's each individual's place to make that call for themselves, and to decide for themselves if they want their e-mail addresses and friendships with other BL's revealed.

- Prometheus, getting tired of going around in circles

Prometheus

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Do not engage in campaigns of harassment against other posters.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.