I see you have failed to ask permission to use my comments from yesterday's conversation in your blog.
You are correct. If you want the right to restrict viewing of your statements, make statements in private, not in public.
Where I say it is not the issue; what you do with my words is. Putting my comments on a facebook page does not mean that I want them used in your blog.
OK. You put them in public, however, and that's the nature of things. Are you unhappy with your words being spread around? Are you unwilling to stand behind them? I'd say you'd have a valid complaint if I'd cut up your comments or edited them, but I pasted it all exactly as it appeared originally.
If I want my words spread around, it should be done at my discretion as I am the owner of those words. I am perfectly willing to stand behind my words, just not so willing to have someone use them without my permission. I would not do that to you or anyone else.
I understand. I disagree that it "should" or "must" be done at your discretion. I do not believe you or anyone else have the right to obligate anyone to ask for your permission before they quote your public words.
Do you make a full disclosure that when you enter into a conversation with someone that you may be using that conversation in another forum? It seems that you do not. Rather, it seems that you enter into conversations with those of dissenting opinions just so that you can use those conversations to promote your own cause. At best, this type of behavior is discourteous, and at worst, it is unethical. When you do this, you not only make yourself look bad, but you make that which you stand for look bad as well.
it seems that you enter into conversations with those of dissenting opinions just so that you can use those conversations to promote your own causeThat's probably a fair statement. I do so by demonstrating the falsehood of the competing position.It would *not* be fair to say I do so to promote my*self*, though.Why is it discourteous? How is it unethical?
I did not suggest you were doing so to promote yourself. I believe my exact words were "your own cause." If you have misunderstood my words, allow me to clarify. By "your own cause" I meant your position on the issue. I did not mean that you intended to make yourself look good.You ask how what your actions are discourteous. Let's say that you are seeking someone else's view on an issue for an essay or article that you intend to publish. If you begin asking questions of a person without letting that person know of your intentions, you are not giving that person the courtesy of knowing that what he or she says will be used for another purpose. When I entered into conversation with you yesterday, I did so because I saw it as an opportunity to make my position clear to someone of an opposing view. I also saw it as an opportunity to strengthen my own argument skills. I was not told that my words would be used in another forum. If I had been, I might have chosen to debate with you privately because I would not have approved of my words being used in your blog.As to how your actions are unethical, let's say that you are a student and your instructor has asked you to write an essay on an opposing view. If you enter into conversation with someone without disclosing your intentions and then use what he or she has said in an assignment, you have not done your research fairly or responsibly. This may not seem to be so bad because it's just a school assignment. (Yet, as an instructor, if I were to find out that the research had been conducted in this way, I would not accept the source as valid.) Now, let's say that you are a journalist. It is your job to get a story, but you cannot publish someone's words in a column or put that person on camera without first getting his or her permission. Doing so would cost you your own credibility and threaten that of your employer. It could also be grounds for a lawsuit. I enjoyed debating with you. It is not often that I find someone who argues the opposing view so articulately. It is also not often that I find myself in a debate where I feel challenged but not threatened. As I have already stated, I did appreciate this opportunity because it allowed me to hone my own argument skills. Unfortunately, though, I will not be debating with you further on this or any other issue because you have not treated our conversation in a way that I consider to be fair.
Correction: You ask how your actions are discourteous.(Despite proofreading my comment several times, I missed an error.)
So you might have chosen not to put your words out in public if you thought they might be visible to the public? I'm afraid I don't follow. You may not be clear on what "public" means.Neither of us are in a student-instructor relationship with the other. This is a public blog, and the ORCRC FB page is public as well.Neither was it research. It was a public dialogue.Neither is it journalism.I might indeed accept your attempts at analogies as correct for their own sake. Yes, a journalist should protect his sources unless he gets permission to reveal their identity. Etc. But the analogies don't hold b/c they're not this situation.I do appreciate the compliment, and I would also like to extend the same to you. It's a pleasure at least to talk to someone who is able to express herself in proper English.I'm sad to hear you don't consider my treatment of you as fair, but I don't believe you have any grounds to complain. Like I said, if I'd misquoted you or edited your comments to try to weaken your expressions, that would be something other than what it is.
No, you did not misquote me. And I do understand what "public" means. However, I did not seek to make my words public within this forum. I posted elsewhere, and that does not automatically make those words yours to do with as you wish. I did not consent to be published here. If I had been invited to share my view on your blog, I might have. Yet, this invitation was not extended to me. Instead, you decided to use my words for your own purpose. I maintain that this is discourteous and unethical regardless of what our relationship might be. And on those grounds, I do have a very valid complaint. Public elsewhere does not equal permission here.
Public elsewhere does not equal permission here. You can say so, but your mere ipse dixit does not make it so.Cheers.
"This is a public blog, and the ORCRC FB page is public as well."I see your ipse dixit and raise you a non sequitur.
:-)Blogs and public Facebook pages are not very dissimilar.
Accusations of "unethical behavior" presuppose a normative standard of ethics that applies to all parties involved. Stacey's objection is rather vapid, as far as I am concerned, unless she can state succinctly what this standard of ethics is, and why it applies to Rho. And this involves more than merely presenting a false analogy.It's been my experience that when pro-choicers are unable to answer these kinds of arguments (like Rho presented on the FB thread), it is not uncommon for them to divert attention from the murder of preborn children to the supposedly "improper" way that we have presented our arguments and conducted ourselves.
I do find it a bit strange that she said she didn't want to talk about abortion anymore and gave the impression that she didn't have any more time, but she has spilled quite a bit of ink here, arguing that public FB pages aren't the same as blogs.
I am not comparing the two. I am again asserting that my choice to post comments elsewhere does not give you permission to use them here. It does not follow that posting on a Facebook page means you have the right to use my words in your blog.Now, if you will excuse me, I have my own blog to attend to, one that does not resort to such tactics.
I am again asserting that my choice to post comments elsewhere does not give you permission to use them here.You keep accusing me without substantiation. I'm afraid I must ask you directly. Prove it.
Quite à propos.
Matthew, I suppose then, that neither you nor Rho would object to me using your comments without seeking permission to do so? Also, I am more than capable of answering Rho's arguments, but I choose not to engage in a discussion that will get neither of us anywhere.Rho, I would debate with you further on the issue, but I no longer trust you to do so fairly.
I suppose then, that neither you nor Rho would object to me using your comments without seeking permission to do so?Correct. That's why I have a public blog. I no longer trust you to do so fairly.An empty complaint w/o supporting argumentation as to why I'm untrustworthy. It is merely emoting at this point.
You want proof for an accusation, but as I have made no accusation, I see no need to submit proof. Also, I did not say you were untrustworthy. I said that I don't trust you to treat my words fairly. I do not know you personally, so I cannot make a judgment as to your trustworthiness. Finally, though your blog is public, I do not believe this gives me permission to use anything you say for my own purposes, so I will not do so. On that note, I will be signing off from this conversation, and I will not be communicating with you further here or elsewhere.
That was an entertaining dialog of posting etiquette. Alas, I was hoping that Stacy was returning to actually defend her view on what life actually is.
And there's our answer! thanks for playing, coward.
"BooBoo McBride" slanders Rhology and calls him a coward, all the while remaining hidden behind a curtain of anonymity. What a cowardly and infantile troll.
BooBoo has apparently confused where we are. We think this is a blog; he thinks this is a playground in 4th grade.
Post a Comment