open All Channels
seplocked Crime and Punishment
blankseplocked Immoral behavior and EVE.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

Foxgguy2001
Gallente
Second Hand Lions
Redneck Rage
Posted - 2011.03.03 08:04:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Daphne Q
One could even say that the EULA delineates the bounds of ethical behavior within the artificial environment of the EVE universe.



Only if one thinks following rules (law irl) and ethical behavior is the same thing. Which they aren't, of course.

The EULA merely lists some rules CCP wants you to follow. I think Malcanis said it quite well in post #86.

Originally by: Malcanis

The point being that it's up to YOU to decide whether it's right or wrong. Dont come looking for "EVE" to tell you. As far as CCP are concerned, if it's within the EULA, it's OK with them. Within those bounds, the morals and ethics that apply are your problem, not theirs.

Now many people (eg: most of the people replying to your question) will find the idea of being able to decide for themselves whether their actions are or are not moral so strange that they are unable to tell the difference between personal morality and no morality. Therefore they will tell you that in EVE you are "supposed to" scam/gank/steal etc. But what you actually have to do is much more shocking: you have to decide for yourself. No-one can make that choice for you, and you can't impose that choice on anyone else.

CCP never told anyone to be scammers, gankers, etc etc. It was something those people decided themselves. But we're so used to living in a society where the big moral decisions are pre-made for us that many people find it difficult to conceive of being personally responsible for making them for themselves. So they assume or pretend that "EVE says it's right to do scamming/ganking/stealing". Think about that for a moment. How nonsensical is that excuse? To blame a game for making a moral choice for you? That's like blaming a gun for "making you" murder someone.

What's your choice?




End Thread Here.
Case closed...the non-delusional capsuleers have it.


Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2011.03.03 09:37:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Cannibal Kane
The guys sitting high on their moral ladders probably needs more help then I do if they attach some form of emotional value to a game.

So get over yourself and have fun.




It's not so much about attaching emotional value to a game, I believe these are called fanboys, or bittervets on the other end of the spectrum.

No, it's about the emotional values in human interaction through the medium of a game.


I'm not at all sure about why attaching emotional values to a game would make you a 'fanboy or 'bittervet' but then I didn't much sympathise with your intial premise anyway so this isn't a surprise

My view of what's gone in the past 9 pages would probably go along with Malcanis' view in that, much as in life, people are free to make decisions regarding their personal conduct in this game. The banquet or famine of consequences that result is something that the playerbase decides; CCP only stepping in if it infringes on their EULA.

For me, the mistake you are making is in presenting your rather inflexible view of what constitutes right and proper conduct as wholly binding on the rest of us and in insisting that whatever we do in-game is some kind of skeleton key to our deepest darkest behaviours.

Most reasonably well-adjusted, moderately sociable adults are prefectly capable of discerning the difference between the consequence of their behaviour in an entirely fictitious, wholly pixelated game universe as opposed to their behaviour in their front yard and that's precisely why they choose to do what they do in-game.

They realise that its a game and in much the same way as the American Humane society assures us that 'no animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture', I'm willing to pitch a similar caveat at EvE.

'No reasonably well-adjusted, moderately sociable, fully consenting adults were harmed when having their **** blown-up, suicided, ganked, mislaid, scammed or otherwise heinously misappropriated.'

Lets not confuse disappointment, frustration and rage as anything more than they are and that's the very worst this game and its playerbase will ever throw at you.


Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.03 11:57:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Souvera Corvus
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Cannibal Kane
The guys sitting high on their moral ladders probably needs more help then I do if they attach some form of emotional value to a game.

So get over yourself and have fun.




It's not so much about attaching emotional value to a game, I believe these are called fanboys, or bittervets on the other end of the spectrum.

No, it's about the emotional values in human interaction through the medium of a game.


I'm not at all sure about why attaching emotional values to a game would make you a 'fanboy or 'bittervet' but then I didn't much sympathise with your intial premise anyway so this isn't a surprise


I'm drawing a distinction between emotions regarding the game itself, such as a bittervet or fanboy would have, and ones regarding the people in it that you interact with (as in the players behind the characters). Something I felt was missing from Mr., erm, Mr. Cannibal Kanes argument.

Quote:
For me, the mistake you are making is in presenting your rather inflexible view of what constitutes right and proper conduct as wholly binding on the rest of us and in insisting that whatever we do in-game is some kind of skeleton key to our deepest darkest behaviours.

Most reasonably well-adjusted, moderately sociable adults are prefectly capable of discerning the difference between the consequence of their behaviour in an entirely fictitious, wholly pixelated game universe as opposed to their behaviour in their front yard and that's precisely why they choose to do what they do in-game.


Perhaps you have me mixed up and/or bunched up with someone else?

What I always say in these threads, is that it's the desire to inflict negative emotions in others, "extract tears" in game-speak, that is the "key" of which you speak. My RL parallels are usually not of murderers, but of everyday ****s who love to do the little things to make other peoples lives slightly more difficult, and most of them would never consider themselves ****s. It is this desire that cannot exist only in a game, though it is possible, however unlikely, that one only feels free to act on it in a virtual setting.

The above is something you can be reasonably assured of. The below is where jumps and leaps are made.

Now, if we want to go all Godwin, which is always a hoot, to a society where some pricks were free to *really* be pricks, think 1938 Kristallnacht as the culmination of the gradual escalation of persecution, or "prickdom", in the preceding years, rather then any wartime horrors and full on insanity, then when we see that a stunningly large part of their society, which means ANY society, including yours and mine, are full of people who only need a liiiittle bit of prodding to become what I would term despicable monsters, then it does not seem like such a huge jump to attribute this evil to that same desire, which under normal circumstances is only an ember barely glowing, but grows to full on starbright flames under extreme circumstances. Holy run on sentence, but I assure you I am not high.

Cayman Ghias
Posted - 2011.03.03 13:10:00 - [304]
 

Simple rule of Eve, don't trust anyone you don't know and are friends with IRL...even then don't trust them in game :)

Daphne Q
Our Own Pirate Society
Posted - 2011.03.03 14:04:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
Edited by: Qui Shon on 03/03/2011 05:31:32
Originally by: Daphne Q
One could even say that the EULA delineates the bounds of ethical behavior within the artificial environment of the EVE universe.



Only if one thinks following rules (law irl) and ethical behavior is the same thing. Which they aren't, of course.

The EULA merely lists some rules CCP wants you to follow. I think Malcanis said it quite well in post #86.

Originally by: Malcanis

The point being that it's up to YOU to decide whether it's right or wrong. Dont come looking for "EVE" to tell you. As far as CCP are concerned, if it's within the EULA, it's OK with them. Within those bounds, the morals and ethics that apply are your problem, not theirs.

Now many people (eg: most of the people replying to your question) will find the idea of being able to decide for themselves whether their actions are or are not moral so strange that they are unable to tell the difference between personal morality and no morality. Therefore they will tell you that in EVE you are "supposed to" scam/gank/steal etc. But what you actually have to do is much more shocking: you have to decide for yourself. No-one can make that choice for you, and you can't impose that choice on anyone else.

CCP never told anyone to be scammers, gankers, etc etc. It was something those people decided themselves. But we're so used to living in a society where the big moral decisions are pre-made for us that many people find it difficult to conceive of being personally responsible for making them for themselves. So they assume or pretend that "EVE says it's right to do scamming/ganking/stealing". Think about that for a moment. How nonsensical is that excuse? To blame a game for making a moral choice for you? That's like blaming a gun for "making you" murder someone.

What's your choice?



So, what's your point? What I said is in agreement with Malcanis. Observe:

Originally by: Daphne Q
One could even say that the EULA delineates the bounds of ethical behavior within the artificial environment of the EVE universe.


Originally by: Malcanis
Within those bounds, the morals and ethics that apply are your problem, not theirs.


So, if you think Malcanis said it quite well, you must be in agreement with me as well. It's good to know we can agree on something, however small.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.03 17:04:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Riedle on 03/03/2011 17:04:37
If you have such a emotional attachment to your imaginary, internet spaceship that it causes you to rage at the person who blew it up within an imaginary game about blowing up imaginary, internet spaceships then it is YOU that has the emotional issues, not the person who blew up your imaginary, internet spaceship.

If you then have a huge ego and can't let go of the fact that another person blew up your imaginary, internet spaceship so you therefore come to the games forums and flip through the first chapter of the Philosophy 101 text book and ascribe all sorts of horrific Real Life mental/social diseases/conditions to them... then you may indeed have a problem.

Stop playing the game. You do not have the emotional IQ to deal with imaginary, internet spaceships being blown up.

When you grow up and join the ranks of the sane, living in the real world - feel free to come back.

Riedle

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.03 17:11:00 - [307]
 

Quote:
Now, if we want to go all Godwin, which is always a hoot, to a society where some pricks were free to *really* be pricks, think 1938 Kristallnacht as the culmination of the gradual escalation of persecution, or "prickdom", in the preceding years, rather then any wartime horrors and full on insanity, then when we see that a stunningly large part of their society, which means ANY society, including yours and mine, are full of people who only need a liiiittle bit of prodding to become what I would term despicable monsters, then it does not seem like such a huge jump to attribute this evil to that same desire, which under normal circumstances is only an ember barely glowing, but grows to full on starbright flames under extreme circumstances. Holy run on sentence, but I assure you I am not high.


100% incorrect.

The most evil committed in real life is the result of 'group think' and almost never happens in a society where individualism is respected.

Communism, ****sm, religious inotlerance, ethnic cleansing are ALL the result of group think where groups of people commit atrocities against other people that they would never dream of doing on their own.

So not only are you completely off the wall with ascribing real life intentions from a game about imaginary, internet spaceships - you can't even describe correctly what compels people to do evil monstronsities in real life.

But it is no surprise to me that you fail on that aspect as well when you have difficulties separating reality from fantasy.

Daphne Q
Our Own Pirate Society
Posted - 2011.03.03 19:38:00 - [308]
 

Edited by: Daphne Q on 03/03/2011 19:38:49
For those who are unsure, let me be clear. This is not real life, this is EVE. Unlike real life, participation in EVE is voluntary. Nobody is forced to participate against their will.

Within the game there are very few rules. For the rules that do exist, refer to the EULA. Within the bounds of those rules, participants can, and should, expect anything.

Participants who think that they have a right to expect more from fellow players, or worse yet, a right to impose their ideas of right and wrong on other players, perhaps should consider participation in another game.

And to those who feel it is their place to judge or analyze the motives of players who are participating freely in the EVE environment, STFU! Nobody really cares!

And btw, Riedle? Right on!


Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:40:00 - [309]
 

Oh I really do LOVE this thread. Good times.

This thread has derailed a little bit from what seemed to be solved a month ago. Forever ago the argument had been quelled about ganking pirating and scamming being immoral. In general the arguments calling it immoral cannot hold their ground against common sense or the use of formal logic (Helicity, that was good!).

However, I am still not sure one of the original concerns in the post was ever answered, which was corp infiltration and scamming "friends." In the last 5 pages of this I think the only thing I read about was 'if you spend a few months or a year in a corp to **** them, your an a**.'

It is curious, and people do get livid ****ed when you steal corp assets. Lol, I have had people make threats against my life because of corp thefts. And tha'ts not, "I'm gonna pod you SO HARD", that's, "I am going to find where you live and beat the life out of you."

To this regard I would like to point to my post (5 or 6 pages back now) about giving people that you only know in game trust in your real life stuff. None of you toting the 'if you are evil in eve you are an a** in real life' have said anything about this. So...

WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR EVE FRIENDS WITH YOUR RL STUFF (address, job info, cell phone, credit card numbers, baby sitting, etc.). Really, would you? How far are you willing to take your argument about the apparent morals of someone in game to the real world.

Belfelmalak
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:54:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Wen Zhou
Was a good thread till it got hijacked by people who love their own opinions too much.

It's great to be bad in the game, piracy and griefing and ganking - it's all fair game. Game is the operative word, and if your ship gets blown up do not become angry just get even!

However...

You make friends with a person in game,to the point where you are talking about real life stuff - life and love, family and jobs. You build a relationship with that person, not just as a character in a computer game but as two real people.

Then after weeks or months you rip that person off.

You are an Goon.

I do not care what the EULA says.

You are a Goon.

If you can check your morality at the door to that extent then I guess you are not a very nice person in real life, and probably not that happy either.

Yes its a game, but a game played by real people.



Fixed it for you

Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:10:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2011 05:10:55
Originally by: Daphne Q
So, what's your point? What I said is in agreement with Malcanis. Observe:

Originally by: Daphne Q
One could even say that the EULA delineates the bounds of ethical behavior within the artificial environment of the EVE universe.




That the EULA has little or nothing to do with ethics, that the latter is entirely separate.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:16:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2011 05:22:22
Originally by: Riedle

100% incorrect.

The most evil committed in real life is the result of 'group think' and almost never happens in a society where individualism is respected.

Communism, ****sm, religious inotlerance, ethnic cleansing are ALL the result of group think where groups of people commit atrocities against other people that they would never dream of doing on their own.

So not only are you completely off the wall with ascribing real life intentions from a game about imaginary, internet spaceships - you can't even describe correctly what compels people to do evil monstronsities in real life.

But it is no surprise to me that you fail on that aspect as well when you have difficulties separating reality from fantasy.


Your worldview seems incredibly simplistic, are you American by any chance?

"The most evil" has a chance to grow, to flourish and become a mass movement, not because of mass hypnosis, but because of the evil within every individual. Not from outside influences, not because of a charismatic demagogue, or any other external source. And it is this malice, that takes different forms in different circumstances. That people would never dream of committing atrocities in individualistic societies (assuming there are any) is patently false.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:19:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: Daphne Q
And to those who feel it is their place to judge or analyze the motives of players who are participating freely in the EVE environment, STFU! Nobody really cares!



This thread, and every other like it, is clear evidence that people do care, that you care Razz

ScooterPuff Sr
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:48:00 - [314]
 

aww. no ones having fun no more because there's risk involved in playing.
send in that suggestion for disney to make a game where all ya do is hug and shoot eachother with waterguns and candy corns.

Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
Posted - 2011.03.04 13:34:00 - [315]
 

Disney has an MMO, pirates of the Caribbean online. PvP centered as well. Still waiting to hear from those of you claiming that morals in eve = moral in irl in regards to my 2 previous posts.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.04 14:39:00 - [316]
 


Quote:
Your worldview seems incredibly simplistic, are you American by any chance?


lol. I bet you are unable to see the delicious irony on that statement.

lol

Quote:
"The most evil" has a chance to grow, to flourish and become a mass movement, not because of mass hypnosis, but because of the evil within every individual.


No one mentioned mass hypnosis. I said group think. There have been many studies on it.
Otherwise well adjusted, moral people are much more capable of doing awful things if the "crowd" is doing it. Things that they would not normally do on their own. Same thing if a compelling leader advocates for them to do evil things. All people have the propensity to do bad things but it takes a crowd or a charismatic leader for them to do things that their individual moral code would never allow them to do on their own. This is why it is so important for people to act as individuals.

Quote:
Not from outside influences, not because of a charismatic demagogue, or any other external source. And it is this malice, that takes different forms in different circumstances. That people would never dream of committing atrocities in individualistic societies (assuming there are any) is patently false.


LOL
This assertion is false. It helps if you actually know what you are talking about. So take heed next time you wax on about something that you have no idea about that there are others reading your drivel - that do.


Daphne Q
Our Own Pirate Society
Posted - 2011.03.04 14:58:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Daphne Q
And to those who feel it is their place to judge or analyze the motives of players who are participating freely in the EVE environment, STFU! Nobody really cares!



This thread, and every other like it, is clear evidence that people do care, that you care Razz

And you know this, how exactly?

For instance, do you have clear proof that I do not simply enjoy picking fights on forums, that I don't just enjoy a good scrap now and then?

Do you have clear proof that I don't post in threads like this to show those who post so passionately that they are passionately wrong?

It was asserted in this thread that I am a self styled bastard. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Again, you should not assert things about which you could not possibly know. It makes you look...well, I'm sure that those who are still reading this thread will be able to fill in that blank.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.04 15:28:00 - [318]
 

Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2011 15:34:39
Originally by: Riedle

Quote:
Your worldview seems incredibly simplistic, are you American by any chance?


lol. I bet you are unable to see the delicious irony on that statement.


Sure I am, and your answer was expected. But you didn't answer the question though. See, it's not the old "murricans ar dumb" angle, but that they have a long history of externalizing evil, like you are doing.

Originally by: Riedle
No one mentioned mass hypnosis. I said group think. There have been many studies on it.
Otherwise well adjusted, moral people are much more capable of doing awful things if the "crowd" is doing it. Things that they would not normally do on their own. Same thing if a compelling leader advocates for them to do evil things. All people have the propensity to do bad things but it takes a crowd or a charismatic leader for them to do things that their individual moral code would never allow them to do on their own. This is why it is so important for people to act as individuals.

Quote:
Not from outside influences, not because of a charismatic demagogue, or any other external source. And it is this malice, that takes different forms in different circumstances. That people would never dream of committing atrocities in individualistic societies (assuming there are any) is patently false.


LOL
This assertion is false. It helps if you actually know what you are talking about. So take heed next time you wax on about something that you have no idea about that there are others reading your drivel - that do.




You're not actually refuting me in any way you know, you're merely a step, a layer behind. To make it even better for this thread, "groupthink" is only another label for what people have been talking about throughout this thread. That it is because of environment, that in-game meanies aren't meanies out of game, not because of their inner ethical compass which reverses poles in a virtual world, where they are free from consequences and free from face to face interaction.


Qui Shon
Posted - 2011.03.04 15:31:00 - [319]
 

Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2011 15:32:08
Originally by: Daphne Q
For instance, do you have clear proof that I do not simply enjoy picking fights on forums, that I don't just enjoy a good scrap now and then?


Yes I do, good enough for forum debates, right here:

Quote:
Do you have clear proof that I don't post in threads like this to show those who post so passionately that they are passionately wrong?


See, you do *care* about them and their views, you *care* about their passion.

In addition, the popularity of these threads is also proof enough.

Quote:
It was asserted in this thread that I am a self styled bastard. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
???
No I don't, it was I who asserted it, which I probably wouldn't have done if I had evidence to the contrary

Daphne Q
Our Own Pirate Society
Posted - 2011.03.04 15:45:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2011 15:32:08
Originally by: Daphne Q
For instance, do you have clear proof that I do not simply enjoy picking fights on forums, that I don't just enjoy a good scrap now and then?


Yes I do, good enough for forum debates, right here:

Quote:
Do you have clear proof that I don't post in threads like this to show those who post so passionately that they are passionately wrong?


See, you do *care* about them and their views, you *care* about their passion.

In addition, the popularity of these threads is also proof enough.

Quote:
It was asserted in this thread that I am a self styled bastard. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
???
No I don't, it was I who asserted it, which I probably wouldn't have done if I had evidence to the contrary

BZZZT! Wrong answers!

It is obvious that you did not even understand the questions, so your answers are expected.

Thanks for playing though, better luck next time.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.04 15:59:00 - [321]
 


Quote:
Sure I am, and your answer was expected. But you didn't answer the question though. See, it's not the old "murricans ar dumb" angle, but that they have a long history of externalizing evil, like you are doing.


I'm not American if that helps you. Sorry if that shatters your worldview but there you have it. fyi - I don't care where you are from. I am arguing against your point of view, not you as a person. I guess you are having difficulty doing the same n'est ce pas?

I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm telling you facts. Groupthink is one of the most dangerous things to the human species.

Quote:
You're not actually refuting me in any way you know, you're merely a step, a layer behind. To make it even better for this thread, "groupthink" is only another label for what people have been talking about throughout this thread. That it is because of environment, that in-game meanies aren't meanies out of game, not because of their inner ethical compass which reverses poles in a virtual world, where they are free from consequences and free from face to face interaction.



Nah, you are two steps back. Now you are reverting to your original problem which is your inability to separate reality from fantasy. If you can overcome that handicap we can have a serious discussion.

I was merely pointing out that your solution in the fantasy world (enforcing good standards to how you see them) is exactly what get's us in trouble in the real world with group think.

Your inability to overcome your ego at losing your imaginary, internet spaceship is forcing your fragile mind to want to impose a system in EVE that ruins the genesis for it's being int he first place.

And to top it off you compare losing your imaginary, internet spaceship and the resultant hurt feelings it causes you to real-life genuine offences.

You do not have the right to not get your precious feelings hurt in real life, never mind in the fantasy world. The faster you accept that the better person you will be in EVE and in the real world.

Bernard Madripoff
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:19:00 - [322]
 

Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 18:41:33
IMO it's not about losing spaceships. or blowing people up. violencing people really has no meaning in a game of infinite respawn. which reminds me of the hilarity in the person justifying killing in quake because it is a marksmanship simulator or some sort, but it's not ok in eve; wait, what are those pvp mechanics and shiny lasers for?

instead, the original point was the insidious nature of theft through deception (even to false-friends and when the intent is to infiltrate from the beginning). which harks the millenia old question of the morality/ethics of lying as a means to an end. in other words, IS IT OK TO LIE? we still haven't been able to reach a societal consensus on whether deception as means to an end is justifiable (utilitarian/cosequential ethics), or injust (virtue ethics, absolutism), or whether the exact answer is case-specific and dependant on a pluralist middle-ground whereby evaluation of adherence to a wider set of rules is first examined (deontological ethics). and even should societal consensus be reached? barring the possibility of minority objection, a societal consensus is not an absolute answer, it is subjective to the whims of that society.

the debate still rages and there are no easy answers, and no answers yet that could be deemed "right". but it's interesting to see such discussion happen, even here. in one corner we have the "virtue" crowd, who believe in upholding their principles in any arena of life. on the other hand there are perhaps the deontoligists who have intricately crafted rulesets about how one's duties inside a consensually entered gaming entertainment arena differ from the burden of inescapable reality. for good measure there would also be the utlitarians that we've seen in this thread, who maintain and thus measure the value of friendships out of derived personal benefit, but even the "saintly" utilitarian is possible as one could accept pirating for the pure thrill evoked but not pirating for the intent to cause grief and misery and extract tears from the victim.

oh and who is that imbecile who keeps saying "morals subjective; ethics absolute" and "these people have morals but have no ethics". can that person please go wiki what ethics are.

EDIT: As a further addendum it is instructive to observe that in recent years the deontological viewpoint has gained much traction in the academic circle at least at the expense of the utilitarians, and virtue ethics being as old as Plato has waned even moreseo. Hence it is no surprise that the majority of people here are of the view that "how I act in game is separate from how I conduct myself morally in reality, for such and such rationalizations".

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:42:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Daphne Q
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Daphne Q
And to those who feel it is their place to judge or analyze the motives of players who are participating freely in the EVE environment, STFU! Nobody really cares!



This thread, and every other like it, is clear evidence that people do care, that you care Razz

And you know this, how exactly?

For instance, do you have clear proof that I do not simply enjoy picking fights on forums, that I don't just enjoy a good scrap now and then?

Do you have clear proof that I don't post in threads like this to show those who post so passionately that they are passionately wrong?

It was asserted in this thread that I am a self styled bastard. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Again, you should not assert things about which you could not possibly know. It makes you look...well, I'm sure that those who are still reading this thread will be able to fill in that blank.

The clear proof is right here: you do not deny it.

Instead, you go into a rant to end up saying somewhere, or not at all, that you do not care. Your argumentation is that of a car driver who takes a wrong turn, drives through a corn field, then crashes through a barn and comes out on another road, claiming that this was his destination all along. Who is ever going to believe you??

Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:49:00 - [324]
 

Edited by: Karl Planck on 04/03/2011 18:50:53
Originally by: Bernard Madripoff

stuff



So if I had to guess, I would say your on the high school debate team. Possible early undergrad in philosophy.

Don't bring this style of argumentation to the forums, your gonna get trolled to death and bring the thread down with you.

Originally by: Bernard Madripoff

instead, the original point was the insidious nature of theft through deception (even to false-friends and when the intent is to infiltrate from the beginning). which harks the millenia old question of the morality/ethics of lying as a means to an end.



If you want to dig deeper on this what your looking for is using others against their will as a means to an end (Kant).

Still waiting on an answer from above lol, I don't think I will get one.

Bernard Madripoff
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:06:00 - [325]
 

Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:09:39
I am well aware and well read on Kant, thank you. I am not seeking to derail this thread, and that post should be the extent of my contributions. It was only a brief summary to possibly bring to everyone's attention the full scope of the issue, and to suggest the reasons why this thread will not inevitably reach any convincing conclusions, because they as yet do not exist.

(your guess as to my level of education is inaccurate, btw. and my field is the farthest thing removed from philosophy. although it is wise to be learned in it as ethical issues form the crux of much professional work in my field as well as many others)

EDIT: and actually Kant borrowed heavily those specific notions on duty which he did not give credit, which I personally find distasteful. There are predating texts which are quite enlightening, and most of it not from the Western world. if you wish to discuss the topic further I think it is best we do so privately

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:09:00 - [326]
 

Quote:
instead, the original point was the insidious nature of theft through deception (even to false-friends and when the intent is to infiltrate from the beginning). which harks the millenia old question of the morality/ethics of lying as a means to an end. in other words, IS IT OK TO LIE? we still haven't been able to reach a societal consensus on whether deception as means to an end is justifiable (utilitarian/cosequential ethics), or injust (virtue ethics, absolutism), or whether the exact answer is case-specific and dependant on a pluralist middle-ground whereby evaluation of adherence to a wider set of rules is first examined (deontological ethics). and even should societal consensus be reached? barring the possibility of minority objection, a societal consensus is not an absolute answer, it is subjective to the whims of that society


K.I.S.S.

Your girlfriend/wife asks "Do these jeans make me look fat. (They do)

Clearly, both from a selfish and unselfish POV, it is better (and wiser) to lie.


Bernard Madripoff
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:17:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:17:28
Originally by: Riedle
Quote:
instead, the original point was the insidious nature of theft through deception (even to false-friends and when the intent is to infiltrate from the beginning). which harks the millenia old question of the morality/ethics of lying as a means to an end. in other words, IS IT OK TO LIE? we still haven't been able to reach a societal consensus on whether deception as means to an end is justifiable (utilitarian/cosequential ethics), or injust (virtue ethics, absolutism), or whether the exact answer is case-specific and dependant on a pluralist middle-ground whereby evaluation of adherence to a wider set of rules is first examined (deontological ethics). and even should societal consensus be reached? barring the possibility of minority objection, a societal consensus is not an absolute answer, it is subjective to the whims of that society


K.I.S.S.

Your girlfriend/wife asks "Do these jeans make me look fat. (They do)

Clearly, both from a selfish and unselfish POV, it is better (and wiser) to lie.




And what if you desire a society moulded on communication that does not undermine trust? Or forget society, what if you just wanted your relationship to be one of absolute trust? then your behaviour must be seen as a perversion and obstruction to that ideal you cherise. thing is, you keep things as simple as needed given your objectives. if you're looking at your reaction to the query as simply a means to attain the desired end of a good lay, then your approach would be the simplest yes.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:24:00 - [328]
 


Quote:
And what if you desire a society moulded on communication that does not undermine trust? Or forget society, what if you just wanted your relationship to be one of absolute trust? then your behaviour must be seen as a perversion and obstruction to that ideal you cherise. thing is, you keep things as simple as needed given your objectives. if you're looking at your reaction to the query as simply a means to attain the desired end of a good lay, then your approach would be the simplest yes.


My desire on society is irrelevent.
Trust is also based on the fact that I would never hurt my partners feelings needlessly.
My partner trusts me to look out for her best interests, which by lying in the above example, I clearly did.

You are not seeing for forest for all the trees.
It happens.

Bernard Madripoff
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:49:00 - [329]
 

Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:59:53
Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:52:48
Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:51:54
Edited by: Bernard Madripoff on 04/03/2011 19:51:02
Originally by: Riedle

Quote:
And what if you desire a society moulded on communication that does not undermine trust? Or forget society, what if you just wanted your relationship to be one of absolute trust? then your behaviour must be seen as a perversion and obstruction to that ideal you cherise. thing is, you keep things as simple as needed given your objectives. if you're looking at your reaction to the query as simply a means to attain the desired end of a good lay, then your approach would be the simplest yes.


My desire on society is irrelevent.
Trust is also based on the fact that I would never hurt my partners feelings needlessly.
My partner trusts me to look out for her best interests, which by lying in the above example, I clearly did.

You are not seeing for forest for all the trees.
It happens.


You have a twisted way of thinking about "best interests". Not to mention that a member of society thinking his input on it irrelevent.

I can argue that neither of your interests are being met. You are not trusting your partner with the information that you think she's fat. That is, you don't trust her to know your true feelings. How is it not in her best interests to know what you truly think about her? You think she will react with irrational negativity, unable to rationalize the fact that you adore her for her other qualities. Also, your needs are not met either. Clearly you think she could lose some weight (or at least, that you personally don't prefer the way the current attire makes her look). You think her feelings come before your secret desires (desire is perhaps too strong, moreso belief) that she do something about her weight or simply change her clothing, but you don't let her evaluate for herself whether she would wish to lose weight or redress for you.

Best interest for your partner could in fact be telling her how you really feel, but with the caveat of stating that you think her other qualities more than compensate for this one physical shortcoming, or that on a scale of importance, this issue is really really far down on your list of concerns. but in a relationship founded on concealing information for the other party's "interest", how could she really gauge how important her weight is to you unless you have established an environment of absolute trust?

i just find it peculiar that anyone would think their own best interests include a situation where they are being withheld information, or being deceived. Maybe something to do with the "ignorance is bliss" mentality which certainly is prevalent but it's not my cup of tea nor would it be for a thinking person.

EDIT: I think you inted to convey that it is just the jeans which are an issue. in which case the argument to lie holds even less sense when she really does seek your truthful input. because what is being asked is your appraisal. if she is not dressing solely for you, and if you give the honest impression that you think it does make her look fat but you really think it trivial, she is using you as a proxy to gauge how others might think in public. lying in this situation indeed is more like a lazy approach to be used by you to avoid drama/confrontation since the matter is trivial to you. but only your needs are served. she obviously wants to look as impressive as possible and you are not helping her cause when she is seeking real critique. you are giving false approval which unravels if indeed she could have dressed more impressively and scored more praise at whatever ocassion she did attend.

Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:07:00 - [330]
 

OMG what happened to this thread. Its been hijacked by the bad philosophy terrorists!

And, lol btw. You must not be in a relationship if you haven't been hit with that one. Its a trick question (the answer is always you look beautiful dear because they are really only asking to get your attention).

Complete trust is not complete honesty and they are mutually inclusive.

In any case I feel this thread is nearing the end of its existence Crying or Very sad


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (17)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only