Thanks for confirming that abuse on the internet is a widespread problem, a claim which you just previously alleged I had made up through false stats.

Well, no – I questioned the idea that 50% of the internet was abuse, made-up stats, and so forth.

As to obstreperousness, I put it forth as an idea for consideration, that’s all. Take it as you will.

Why are you bringing up homosexuality? The column was about counseling and turned into a discussion of repressed memory.

Alessandra says, “After this, I guess the only option left for you is to spend two pages calling me all kinds of names. What do your personal attacks add to FT? Nothing”

Please identify a single name I’ve called you.

Since you have claimed that you believe in civil exchange, I think I’ve contributed by documenting that, while you are capable of civil exchange at some points, you quickly lash out at liberals, Catholics, or social conservatives who don’t share your views.

I observe that in your response you don’t acknowledge my attempt to objectively assess your participation, giving credit where credit is due.

Self-knowledge is a value, and I hope I’ve given you some.

Is it a wonder if I remark that cognition is powerless in the face of rigid minds?

After this, I guess the only option left for you is to spend two pages calling me all kinds of names.

What do your personal attacks add to FT? Nothing.

-40 points for complete inability to post even a single knowledge-based comment on repressed memories.

-80 points for cluttering this thread with more of your personal bile.

Anyone who is interested, can read the thread for themselves:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/06/20/the-rising-popularity-of-faith-based-counseling/

It is clear that several commenters who post on the issue of homosexuality and marriage are completely against the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality and marriage.

What do they add to the discussion? Nothing. They just repeat over and over what we can find on Daily Kos, Perez Hilton or coming out of Lady Gaga. It’s their daily rant to normalize homosexuality.

What they aren’t able to do, however, is to contribute in a way that celebrates the beauty and wonder of heterosexuality, something which is not found in homosexuality, nor the true beauty of a loving committed marriage–which can only be between a man and a woman. Only people who can understand these basic truths can develop a more interesting and refreshing commentary concerning these issues.

Liberal commenters are also incapable of exploring any of the emotional, social, and traumatic causes of homosexuality.

What can they add in terms of knowledge? Nothing. It’s an ad naseum repetition of the same old liberal ignorant dogmatic claims that homosexuality is caused by an inexistent gene, therefore every demand homosexuals must make must be granted.

Today, society is going through such an ugly phase, everything that degrades sexuality and marriage must be legitimized, normalized, and shoved down everyone’s throats (e.g., homosexuality, promiscuity/hook-ups, pornography, prostitution, alcohol abuse, etc.). Homosexuality is only one of these dysfunctional pieces of a greater disordered concept for society.

I have a suggestion for FT organizers. Make some articles only open for commenters who hold a particular view, for example, that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am curious what this experiment would yield.

There were others – “Mrs. Jackson” was always witty, incisive, and insightful.

The first things blog was on my “wake-up” schedule each morning and I have benefited from time to time either by the instruction I received or the opportunity to engage in discussion.

My “names” by the way were carefully chosen. “Ars artium” was used by Pope Leo XIII in his discussion of the “care of souls”. That matters to me. “Bangwell Putt” reflected my sense that my comments have something of a museum quality to them.

And that brings me to my reaction to this post. I consider it egregiously bad form to criticize and attempt to psychoanalyze those who have participated in an activity in good faith. Respectful argumentation about any and all subjects is one thing; announcements of one’s lack of respect coupled with unwarranted analysis of others’ motives is another.

As for me, I have resumed my subscription to the print edition. It seems the prudent thing to do.

One final comment: In my extensive posting through the years, there are certainly mistakes and examples of overhasty judgements and lack of courtesy which I regret. I am certain that many others find themselves in the same position. So I am not claiming to be a moral exemplar when I say to Joe Carter that humility is, as he knows, a virtue acknowledged by all people of good will. He might want to discuss his combative tone with people whose opinions he does respect.

I’m glad to hear that Alessandra cares about “exchanges being fairly civil” and that she cares about commenters who “write content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues.” It’s odd that she assumes that liberals “have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism.”

But let’s take a look at the evidence. In a First Thoughts column on faith-based counseling, she starts off well. Responding to Dblade and pointing out—quite civilly—how she both agrees and disagrees with David Nickol. Dblade is Catholic, I believe, and even though Nickol is a liberal, he posts at a religious legal site so I assume he holds some things in common with the teachings of Catholicism.

Score: 2 points for civility but subtract a point for stereotyping a liberal who appears to have something in common with Catholicism. Total: 1 point.

Trouble comes in her second post. Mike Melendez, a Catholic, offers the example of repressed memory having been disproven by science. This makes Alessandra cranky. Her first line is “What nonsense.”

Score: Minus one for incivility. Total: 0 points.

Alessandra and Mike go back and forth a couple of times, giving reasons and definitions that explain why they disagree, but neither point to any concrete evidence or studies. Meanwhile, Pentamom agrees with Mike against Alessandra. Only Alessandra stoops to blunt dismissals like, “You’re wrong.”

Score: The incivility needle is moving but not enough to remove points.

Alessandra provides links to articles, and Boonton (a liberal who’s offered no statement of faith) and Nickol join in the back-and-forth about whether memory can be repressed, etc. All parties ask each other questions, and all parties answer each other with civility and without sneering.

Score: 2 points for asking civil questions and responding with civil answers. Subtract a point for the presence of a liberal who is not Catholic but still contributes ideas and do so civilly. Total: 1 point.

Nickol offers a different kind of evidence, and Boonton explains that, even though he usually disagrees with her, she makes some interesting points. I take Boonton’s comment to be generous acknowledgement of how he is not reflexively against Alessandra, but she doesn’t take it that way. She complains that he’s ignored her evidence and that “cognition is powerless against rigid minds.” It’s odd that she calls him rigid at the very point that he admitted she had a good point.

Score: Loss of 2 points for lashing out at a generous comment. Total: -1 point.

She then ends this post by making what she calls a “related” comment, noting “there seems to be so many active participants on this blog who seem neither Catholic, nor socially conservative, and who, consequently, hate or disagree with most of what Catholicism teaches.” Her comment doesn’t seem to be at all related to her response to Boonton except as an expression of frustration that Boonton didn’t immediately accept all of her argument, only part of it. It’s not clear whether she’s also thinking of the Catholics like Mike or the social conservatives like Pentamom who have also disagreed with her. Perhaps she doesn’t know their religious positions and merely assumes that anyone who disagrees with her is liberal.

But she also makes the odd comment that she repeats in this column that you must be both Catholic and socially conservative to not hate or disagree with most of what Catholicism teaches. It’s not clear why she doesn’t value the contributions of Nickol and Boonton when they’ve fulfilled both things she’s asked for: content that adds to an issue and a civil exchange.

Score: Loss of two points for non sequitur and for not valuing what she says she does. Total: -3 points.

The column ends with only one more exchange between Boonton and Alessandra. Boonton asks some good questions along the lines that were civilly established earlier, but Alessandra blows him off, simply referring him to the cited studies.

Score: Loss of one point for being cantankerous. Total: -4 points.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t get offended — I wonder why anyone would take such an irrational position. That is, I find it irrational in situations where people assume an identity (pentamom) that may not be precisely the same as what their driver’s license indicate, but is still identifiable as a particular person.

The reason why most of the people here, I believe, are arguing with you is not that we want you to justify our choice to use alternate names, it’s that we find your choice to precisely equate an alternate name with untrustworthiness bewilderingly unjustified. You’re free to make it, we just think it’s rather ill-conceived.

Perhaps because you project your own profound worry about names to everyone else? You could oblige everyone to use a nickname here (including yourself) and I would criticize the posts exactly the same way.

Except for the original authors of the articles on FT, there is no material identity of anyone else.

A name is not an identity. “Mike Melendez,” for example, and all the other real names here have no real identity to me, therefore they are no different than the nicknames. All these names are completely meaningless and devoid of references. “Mike Melendez” has as much of an identity to me as “John Doe.”

The only interesting thing that FT has to offer to me is when someone writes content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues and that the exchanges are fairly civil. Nevertheless, it is a pity that there aren’t more people with Catholic views commenting and less liberals who have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism. If I wanted to read liberal nonsense, there’s Daily Kos, Huff Post, etc etc.

At least in the threads I have been following, many of the best comments are from people with nicknames. If anything, I would suggest that would be the move to make on FT: make everyone adopt a nickname. Maybe you’d be surprised that overall no one would change their commenting behavior?