If SF enforced passport pictures as avatar- Would you be in favour?

[chem1st 10]

Some people don't have passports.

[Cyclone 10]

The law cannot protect you from attack Cyclone. It can be used to prosecute someone after they've attacked you for ridiculing them, but it cannot protect you from attack, which is presumably the reason why online bullying under the cloak of anonymity is on the increase.

 

The law cannot protect you from ridicule either, which is what you seemed to be suggesting it should do.

 

Of course that's why I said that if you can't manage to argue without resorting to violence that you should be locked up, thus protecting people from that point forwards from your violence. And that is how the law currently operates. Your repartee that the person who might use ridicule be locked up for their own safety is obviously not how things work and is an idea worthy of ridicule in itself!

[Mecky 10]

No I'm not. However with your diatribe above you are - from your cloak of anonymity - bullying harassing and taunting others. What gives you the right?

 

I think the term is pot kettle and black.

[Cyclone 10]

I didn't realize asking you a perfectly reasonable questions constituted bullying, harassing and taunting, but never mind.

 

That is of course the irony of the situation, you accuse others of doing the same thing when you don't like their point of view and they express it strongly, but you refuse to recognise it when it's you doing it....

[namtaB 10]

Pictures of some posters should NEVER be seen by the public as it would shatter peoples ideas of the poster in question.

[aliceBB 10]

Pictures of some posters should NEVER be seen by the public as it would shatter peoples ideas of the poster in question.

 

So what? We don't know what people on a forum look like in real life, so how could seeing a photo of them shatter anything?

 

And if 'people's ideas' about another poster are based on a false image of himself/herself constructed by that person (or in the mind of the reader), then it's arguably good to have that false image corrected .

 

That said, I still think it's safer to preserve anonymity on internet forums.

[JackLakeland 10]

I have to be honest. If my passport photo was shown my inbox would be overflowing with offers from you girls, pretty soon...:hihi:

[danot 10]

The law cannot protect you from ridicule either, which is what you seemed to be suggesting it should do.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I accept that everyone should expect to be ridiculed from time to time, but there's a big difference between being ridiculed occasionally and having to endure hours of prolonged ridicule or persistent group bullying, harassment and ridicule at the hands of a certain type of social network user who behave like pack animals chasing down their prey when showing the disdain they hold for people of a certain ilk, then tell them-it's your own fault for coming on a public forum so log off if you don't like it'.

 

posted by Cyclone

Of course that's why I said that if you can't manage to argue without resorting to violence that you should be locked up, thus protecting people from that point forwards from your violence.

I don't know you personally Cyclone, but if you did just so happen to be someone who can't refrain from resorting to ridicule when arguing and thinks everyone should simply walk away or grin and bare it, it's no wonder you spent years learning how to defend yourself.

 

posted by Cyclone

And that is how the law currently operates. Your repartee that the person who might use ridicule be locked up for their own safety is obviously not how things work and is an idea worthy of ridicule in itself!

I'm aware that ridiculing hasn't been criminalized as yet, or ever likely to be. I was being sarcastic Cyclone.

[Cyclone 10]

I guess the problem comes in who decides what is ridicule and what is a valid way to make a point. Some people seem to be rather too thin skinned to engage in public debate.

 

What makes you think that sarcasm is acceptable if ridicule isn't? One rule for them and another for you?

[danot 10]

That is of course the irony of the situation, you accuse others of doing the same thing when you don't like their point of view and they express it strongly, but you refuse to recognise it when it's you doing it....

I've asked a perfectly reasonable question. I didn't resorted to ridicule, I didn't harass him or taunt him, not to my knowledge anyway. But please quote where I did and I'll be more than happy to answer to it.

[danot 10]

I guess the problem comes in who decides what is ridicule and what is a valid way to make a point. Some people seem to be rather too thin skinned to engage in public debate.

 

What makes you think that sarcasm is acceptable if ridicule isn't? One rule for them and another for you?

But the sarcastic comment I made wasn't a personal dig at anyone Cyclone, that's the key difference. If my aim was to ridicule someone I'd be doing it wouldn't I?, but as my post entries can confirm .. I haven't been doing that!

[Skirmisher 10]

What about people who don't have a passport or a driving licence?

 

You need a passport or driving licence to go into a photo booth to have your pic took?