[Jon_Lowtek]

public shaming, and more so mobbing, is not an adequate method of civilised dialogue. The argument in favor is highly consequentialistic: if the total result is a net positive, the method is deemed morally right. However i consider this method wrong on principle as it uses emotional/psychological violence at the hand of vigilantes. More so the use of such violence is eristic: the method itself doesn't lead to a deeper truth or understanding, it just aims at winning a dispute, claiming that the victims must best be forced to see the truth. Because of this it can easily be abused to lead away from truth as well. It does not matter how obviously stupid or wrong you consider your opponents opinion to be: the restriction that the use of such methods is ok, when it is used by the right side of an argument, doesn't lend itself to an enlightened discourse. Now one may argue that humans are naturally violent, that their behavior is highly linked to how it influences their social status and that shaming and mobbing are natural phenomenons in how group dynamics work, that humans are not, at large, enlightened, but from the perspective of civilized morality it is a barbaric method. It is unsurprising that it happens, but one should sneer at it and clearly show those who use it that they are not morally sublime ;-)