brighid

Livius,

Thank you very much for taking the time to point me in the right direction. I appreciate it. I had not read any of those posts, as I had only read the posts directly related to what DC posted.

But Sakpo didn't provide links to those discussions, correct? I'm still unclear as to exactly what was provided to the Dean, again ... some fuzzy memory issues due to sensory overload I think.

Was Sakpo aware of those other threads? I haven't had a chance to read through all of them yet, so excuse *me* for being lazy at the moment I will go back and read them when I have a few free moments.

I realize that BM doesn't have thousands of posts, and therefore it is much easier to find and read what she has posted but I don't see where Sakpo would be responsible for all the information she posted here that might harm her in other ways IF he didn't actually provide those links. If the Dean went beyond the information he did provide to discover other information BM freely posted on this board, how is he responsible for the Dean's actions? Did the Dean actually look through those links and find information? If her atheism, dislike for her mother and desire to know what the best vibrators are on the market are irrelevant to her plagirism and breaking of the honor code (unless there is something specific in there about these things) it should not have any bearing on that case. We don't know if the Dean has any disfavorable feelings regarding these things.

Furthermore, we get back to posting personal information in a public place and the issues surrounding that. What obligation does any person have to keep publicly disclosed information, personal or otherwise, strictly private?

I'll take time to respond to your other post in a little bit. I am not entirely in disagreement with you, but I am interested in exploring things a bit further. Thanks, as always for posting such intelligent, thoughtful and respectful posts here.

Brighid

pz

It was a good decision, though. It was forwarding information, unbiased, in the words of the accused, and in full context. Speaking as someone who has had to be in the position of passing judgement on students who have done similar things, the more information I've got, the better my decisions are. The important thing here is that the stuff Sakpo passed on would help the person in charge make a fair decision.

I also suspect that if the information shared here had been of a kind that would have helped poor, abused b_m, no one would have squeaked, there would have been no issue of an ethical dilemma raised. That no one has brought up that little one-way door so far casts doubts on the real objectivity of this discussion.
That's another of those Chinese finger traps -- everyone seems to think there is only one legitimate direction for the discussion to go. What about the responsibility to out atheists? It's a disservice to us all to treat atheism as something that must be kept in the closet, like some shameful secret.

Personally, I think people ought to be greatly embarrassed to admit that they believe in that Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Shiite or Bhuddist nonsense, and all of us infidels ought to proudly slap a "I'm a goddamned atheist!" bumper sticker on our cars. Indecisive little weeblers who are afraid grandma might find out are a problem, and shouldn't be pampered.

Rusting Car Bumper

No need to apologize. You were merely responding in the context of all the other stuff in the thread as threads are not owned by any one person. I was merely stating my intentions and what I wanted to steer clear of.

I too found it difficult to generalize and thats why I started the thread.

Many things are being brought up even if they are not what was intended in the original thread. We can't turn back now...

As is generally the case, many participants might as well become "please read my previous post number # where that is already addressed" and stagnation occurs...

DC

brighid

Pz,

I don't think people should be outed against their will, especially if doing so could cause serious consequences they might not be ready to handle - loss of a job, a living situation, etc. I do agree that no one should be ashamed of being an atheist! But I don't go around telling everyone I am, but if I asked I do answer honestly. Most people already have a good clue, but there are some situations I can think of where I am not entirely comfortable discussing it with certain people (mostly because they are just crappy people.)

Also, in the beginning of my deconversion I didn't know enough to support myself in a proper debate without getting hit with all sorts of questions I had no educated answers for. ii has done a world of good for my education

People should come out in their own time, but I do think we (as atheists) should do all we can to make that decision easier through support and through positive example. It also helps to know a few bold and unashamed atheists such as yourself

Brighid

(edited because I can't seem to proof read or spell well today.)

brighid

DC,

Thank you! I just wanted to make sure things weren't getting too off track.

Brighid

Celsus

Hi pz,

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I feel it should be addressed.
I'm glad that you're proud of your atheism, but you are not being fair, especially to younger financially dependent people. They have to weigh for themselves what the likely consequences are, and not outting oneself is not being a "little weebler". Would you out an atheist of Muslim parents? If you know the usual consequences you'd probably not. For those in the west, you can't say for sure what the consequences for the individual will be, no matter what facts they give you. Of course, the decision must rest on the individual in question, not on someone who decides to muck around in a closeted atheist's private life. I would urge people to come clean about their beliefs, but I sure as hell would leave the decision to them, and certainly wouldn't assume they are "little weeblers".

/digression

Joel

pz

Don't worry. I don't have a bunch of letters on hand that I'm planning to send to everyone's grandmas.

As long as everyone is at least paying lip service to discussing abstract ethical issues, though, it's worth factoring in our responsibility to out our fellow atheists. After all,

• the weeblers are living a lie, which may be fine in the short run, but only hurts in the long;
• they are relying on the more aggressive atheists to clear a path for them, which is unfair;
• their silence is taken as assent by the theistic majority;
• and they weaken the cause by making us seem even a tinier minority than we actually are.

Despite not having any plans of my own to hunt down and reveal the identities of closet atheists, I also admit to having 0 sympathy for the argument here that someone might have had their true, honest beliefs exposed.

I also don't think that shopping for a vibrator is anything shameful. Let's reserve our unholy wrath for the prudish pissants who do.

Ion

I don't think that Sapko's decision was good.

I think that this is a much better decision:

brighid

I agree. The sole responsibility of punishment is only in the hands of the administrator.

Did Sakpo actually have any obligation to state his actions in this forum prior to taking them, or to inform BM? I don't think it was dishonest of him to not share that information with us before or after he did it. His actions were independent of ii, even if the information was provided through this forum.

I also don't feel entirely confident that he hasn't accepted personal responsibility once it was made known here that someone forwarded links in which BM admitted to wrong doing. Did Sakpo not freely admit to doing so?

I don't think her actions were the sole determinant of Sakpos actions. At least from what he has posted he did his best to take things into serious consideration. He even went a step further and discussed the ethical quandry he found himself in with a Professor of Ethics and Philosophy and later concluded this was the best action at the time.

Why does he, or anyone have the responsibility to protect the anonymity of any person at ii that provides very specific information about themselves, AND does not request it remain privileged. ANYONE can find out this information about BM. She willingly provided it and did not do it with anonymity. Now, if she had done all that she could reasonably do, within her abilities to remain anonymous, and Sakpo or anyone else, to extraordinary measures to learn AND reveal her identity in order to pass on information about her then I think that person would have broken some serious ethical guidelines.

But all he did was provide information she gave not just the posters at ii, but effectively the world. Now, I do feel that we should do all that we can to keep things amongst the private, but it is not always warranted.

I do think motivations, etc. are important to consider when making ethical decisions. I also agree with Pz that people might not be so up in arms had the information she posted about herself been favorable. If someone here had forwarded a heartfelt admission, with genuine remorse, etc. to the Dean would we be having this discussion? Would you, or others then think it was wrong?

So, the question isn't if one should provide relevant information, but whether one should provide potentially damaging and relevant information (even if it is true or accurate?)

Anything we know about BM has been freely disclosed to us. No one has invaded her privacy, nor does ii (outside of specific venues) guarantee a right to privacy. In that context what should the obligations of members be when faced with illegal or immoral actions admitted by other members? I would again say that this depends on the situation and circumstances surrounding it.

Brighid

livius drusus

No problem, brighid, of course. I happened to remember them from my own participation and a quick search did the rest.

He provided links to Blue_Metal's two plagiarism threads, and not to any others. However, by sending those two links, he provided the key information of her username on the Secular Web which then opens up the full exposure can of warms.

I recommend the vibrator one. It's chockfull of valuable info and very much worth the read.

I don't know if Sakpo was aware of these threads, but I do believe he had an ethical obligation to inform himself of the costs his revelation of her participation on these boards might incur.

He is not responsible for the information she posted nor for the actions of the dean, of course. His responsibility is to the IIDB, its attempts to foster a community of atheists, and in SL&S, to provide a safe haven for people at various stages of disbelief.

I don't think the ethical consideration needs to reach that far. I believe the potential ramifications are sufficient to require an effort to protect Blue_Metal's user information.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond already. Thank you for the compliments on my posts. I admit I lap them up like a strawberry and pistacchio ice cream cone.