Besides JP's not-so-subtle obsession with drugs and sex, he has recently aimed his guns at the anonymity afforded by the internet.
I think that his arguments in this post , and in the subsequent comments, represent JP's dying breaths. In medical parlance we call it agonal breathing. As the circular reasoning, logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments that he uses have grown old and tired even to JP himself, he has resorted to one last desperate attempt to discredit his detractors-- that anonymous bloggers (mainly the atheist/skeptics kind) are all lying criminals.
The main asserion in JP's post is clearly false because it is based on the logical fallacy of generalization. Nonethess, I think the idea of anonymity and its attractiveness on the internet does warrant some thought.
First, I think that there are different levels of anonymity. There are the truly anonymous "feedbackers", the kind who comment on news articles and blogs for whom there is no possibility of identification. Some bloggers may fall into this category as well. Lets call this level 1. Then there are bloggers like myself, who express opinions and reveal information about themselves, without revealing their full identifying information. Anybody with enough determination would be able to find out who we are. In addition, when somebody legitimately wishes to initiate contact with me, he or she can by requesting my email. I'll refer to this as level 2.
Mentally healthy people do not always say what they think. This is human nature. We evolved the ability to not blurt out everything that we are thinking. This function is localized in the frontal lobes of our brains. This is a social skill, sometimes it helps us, and other times it doesn't. Sometimes what we think may offend certain people, so we choose not to say it. We don't tell people that they are ugly, or that we think they are idiots. We won't tell a coworker that he has body odor. Or we don't tell them that their religion is a lie, even if we think this. Sometimes we may tell something to some people and not others. There "others" might be people who our opinions won't offend, or those people that we don't particularly care about. JP argues that this type of opinion is not worthy of expression. I would argue that the internet and blogging gives us the "other"-- the targets of expression are those who won't be offended by our opinions, or , if they are offended, can choose not to read it. That is the whole point of the internet. This is truly egalitarian freedom of expression, even for non-professional writers.
Level 1 anonymous writers are at greater risk for writing blatantly offensive, racist and bigoted opinions. Nonetheless, most newspapers have continued to allow anonymous feedback, sometimes with filtering. We level 2 anonymous are generally more cautious, and I don't think that we write blatantly offensive or racist things that advocate persecution or violence against people. Ironically, it is JP himself, an non-anonymous blogger, who openly expresses violently homophobic and religiously biggoted opinions. He also falsely and maliciously accuses skeptics of drug abuse and prostitution. If he is truly "non-anonymous", it would be interesting to ask if he would be willing to walk around with a placard espousing his views about the racial origins of blacks in the streets of Harlem. I suspect not, because he, too, "filters" his message and chooses who hears what.
So JP's claims regarding anonymity are not only false but represent the height of hypocrisy. He is more of a fraud than any of his "anonymous" antagonists. I would tend to agree with the opinion of many that JP is just an unhappy, insecure and angry man. His blog affords him the opportunity to spew his hate in all directions, and in so doing he misrepresents Judaism. The purpose of this blog is to discredit JP, and therefore I will continue to expose his fraudulent and malevolent posts.