I think the suggestion would have the exact opposite effect. People would look at the disclaimer and dismiss the arguments out-of-hand if it didn’t meet their preconceived biases.
“A Brit, posting about the US military? WTF does he know about it? Pommy bastard!”
Let the comments and arguments stand by themselves, unless knowing the background of the poster adds creedence or relevance to the post.
So if an Middle Eastern poster is making you think long and hard about the legitimacy of some violence in Iraq or Israel, you’re suddenly freed from the burden of evaluating his arguments by going “Oh, pfft! It’s just some biased arab!”
And if that’s not the likely outcome of this sort of conditional “free” speech and you’re actually evaluating posters based onthe merits of their posts… what exactly are you going to do with it?
I do see the problems and frankly I have yet to work out feasible solutions to them,but what if I dilute my proposal from displaying bias to displaying OTT fanaticism?
You may say that their fanaticism will stand out in their posting but a neo Nazi on the subject of race could sound reasonable ,if glib enough just as a committed Islamist could come across as rational on the subject of the U.S.A./U.K./Israel if they omitted the whole spectrum of their beliefs and merely presented those facets of their arguments considered acceptable to public opinion generally.
Over here in the U.K. a far right party that has for many years attracted racists,Hitler admirers and has been vehemently opposed to immigration (particulary by non whites) was putting forward the argument that we shouldnt allow Drs.,nurses and similar to settle here from overseas because by doing so we were depriving the third world of their expertise.
Which is a perfectly valid and humane point ,but ,and here Im showing my own bias ,I fail to believe that the argument was motivated by a genuine concern for the third world but was in my opinion merely a useful means to an end .
If that argument had been put forward by a charitable organisation Id have found it very convincing.
I appreciate that Ive opened a can of worms that to function correctly needs a little bit more then my naive hope of good intentions on the part of posters.
I still think that my proposal is sound ethically but flawed practicley.
Speaking as a male, mid-40’s, white, native-born British resident, currently living and working in the south of England in the IT industry, right handed, overweight, dark haired, LibDem-voting, Anglican Christian, single, and a hayfever sufferer, I’ve forgotten what I was going to say now.
Well yeah you say that but how do I know that you really are all of those things?
I’m not sure myself, any more.
I have him on stealth web cam right now.
I like kittens, whores, and hats with pointy things on them.
I’m a Gemini, GSOH, who likes jazz, red wine, long walks on the beach, and quiet conversations sitting by the fireplace with that “special someone”.
A Germini. :smack: Of course. That explains everything.
On a serious note, I feel someone should note that declaration of interest is desirable for research published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
In general, I think it is better to know something than not, when it might be relevant. We should all be trusted implicitly to be mature enough not to dismiss an argument solely based on who made it, but surely there is some merit in knowing the latter information in cases where the person has an emotional stake in the argument. It is simply more statistically likely that he is biased (however slightly).
But I am a Capricorn. Obviously I’d say that.
The problem you are all giving me here is that when you tell me which star sign you are, have you taken into account precession?
If you havent then you are all one constellations worth out of place.
But my more serious gripe is how the hell can I work out your personalities and exactly what is going to happen to you all for the rest of your lives when you leave out the most basic of information such as ,was Mars in the ascension in Capricorn when you were born?or was Mercury occluding Uranus?
I mean for gods sake its only common sense basics.Im not asking for the moon here.
Sounds like a medieval torture method, a quite painful one as well I should imagine.
When I read the OP I immediately began thinking of its merits for a different kind of thread (not those which are political or philosophical in nature).
I’m thinking about the threads where the poster pretends to be asking for advice, but in truth only wants people to agree with them, affirm their opinions, congratulate them for their actions, etc.
Just stamp “VALIDATE ME” on the thing and lets not waste time having a real discussion about it. Particularly if the OP is just going to come back and argue with anyone who dares post an unwanted response.
I kind of agree with the OP, but I don’t think there’s any foolproof way of guaranteeing accurate information without requiring background checks that would drive most people away. In the end, this is just a message board; our debates aren’t actually swaying the MidEast peace process or the search for an HIV cure, so posting with false claims of relevant credentials, while annoying, doesn’t warrant drastic prevention measures.
The best compromise between accuracy and intrusiveness, IMO, may be pretty close to what we have right now: a long-term community, with searchable archives, in which users are allowed only one account. Each post adds to a ‘life story’, and while nobody remembers all the details about everybody, most posters remember some details about some people, usually the ones they share something in common with. If you’re BS’ing about a major aspect of your life just to gain credibility for your pet debate topic, you’ll probably be found out sooner or later by the pieces that don’t fit together. If you’re making it up on the spot, you’ll be found out pretty easily, and few people have the patience or talent to build up a long-running persona that’s knowledgeable (and non-obsessive) enough to debate well. If you do fake everyone out, then you’re either well-informed enough that the fake ID was unnecessary, or you’ve picked a topic so trivial that nobody cares.
There have been a bunch of cases of fakes here, some continuing on for quite a while, but most flaming out pretty quickly. One guy, after a long history of general obnoxiousness, attempted to get his critics to back off by claiming his parents died on one of the 9/11 planes. Posts of his (made well after 9/11) referring to his parents in the present tense were soon found, and he got smacked down even harder (I don’t remember if he was banned or if he simply left and never came back). On the other hand, wasn’t there someone who claimed for a long time to be a black teenage lesbian (using that to bolster many of ‘her’ arguments) before getting outed as a middle-age white guy?
How is point of view relevant to truth?
Thing is, it would be just as flawed (or solid) a suggestion if it was coming from an earnest charitable organization. Good intentions don’t validate an idea, and ulterior motives don’t pave the road to hell.
I agree. If a poster, for example, says they want to become President of the United they should declare their intent.
“Are you being sarcastic?” - Lisa Simpson
“I’m…not sure” - Bart Simpson
Maybe we need a sarcasm detector.
Oh, that’s useful.
Don’t you mean:
“Oh, here comes that cannonball guy. He’s cool.”
“Are you being sarcastic, dude?”
“I don’t even know anymore.”