Teacher: 1000BlankWhiteCards (`1000)
<`1000> Hiya Helious. Thank you for joining us.
<Helious> hello everyone
<`1000> So, is everyone in here familiar with the concepts of meta-ethics and normative ethics?
<`1000> Hi Mav. :)
<Jonn> 1000: no, I dont know anything about ethics if you want the truth.
<Tekken> I’m not fimilar with those specific terms, but I understand ethics in general.
<`1000> Okay then.
<Tekken> Lol. Now I understand. If I read prefixes correctly, it makes it easier to understand >.<
<Jonn> I know something about ethics, but like Tekken Im not familiar with those terms =P
<Maverick> philosophy = the study of ideas
<`1000> Most cultures and societies have slightly different takes on ethics. As of that, psions from those cultures (in my experience) have different takes on psionic ethics, and what is right and wrong to do with psi abilities.
<Jonn> example: TPS, right?
<Maverick> For example the North Koreans virtualy have none(the government)
<`1000> Thank you Mav.
<`> Also, the Taliban had very corrupted ethics.
<Maverick> I think?
<`1000> Yes. You’re right.
<Maverick> Saddam Hussein has virtually no ethics
<Jonn> no ethics at all =P
<Helious> lol, what is this discussion about?
<`1000> So, I’m going to begin by posing a classical meta-ethical question.
<`1000> What does it mean to call something good?
<Tekken> Subjective and objective terms! AHHAHAHA!
<`1000> meta-ethics is ENTIRELY subjective.
<Maverick> being more creative thana destructive?
<`1000> that’s a good answer.
<`1000> One of the best I’ve seen.
<`1000> Hiya Jakers.
<Cryomaniac> heya Devie
<Jonn> Hey Jacob
<`1000> So, again, I’ll repeat my beginning question, for Jakers to see.
<`1000> What does it mean to call something good?
<Tekken> Are we all to answer?
<Cryomaniac> it’s acceptable to society
<`1000> Especially you Tekken.
<Cryomaniac> or also
<Cryomaniac> to oneself
<`1000> That’s also a good answer.
<`1000> Mav, can you repeat your answer for Jacob to see?
<Maverick> [10:01:04:PM] <Maverick> erm
<Maverick> [10:01:15:PM] <Maverick> being more creative thana destructive?
<Maverick> [10:01:04:PM] <Maverick> erm
<Maverick> [10:01:15:PM] <Maverick> being more creative thana destructive?
<Jonn> lol ok
<Tekken> I think to call something good means to justify something good either from a cetain perspective from oneself or another’s perspective.
<Cryomaniac> I agree more with Tekken than Maverick
<Cryomaniac> it’s a perspective thing
<`1000> Right. Many people think that we have a definition of good built into us.
<`1000> It’s considered to be part of ethical intuitionalism.
<Cryomaniac> good is simply something that you can prove with your ideas and opinions not backed by solid evidence
<Tekken> lol, I can make other answers dependant on other variables, so I find ethics really odd.
<Maverick> depends on what use of good too
<`1000> Ethics rarely has solid evidence for it.
<Maverick> good taste, good idea, good morals, etc.
<Cryomaniac> good as in right or wrong
<`1000> Yes, we all know that murder is wrong.
<Maverick> each has a different meaning
<Cryomaniac> I disagree
<`1000> Wrong is much easier to define than right.
<Jonn> for me it also depends on the culture, society, etc etc
<Tekken> But can it be justified is what makes it possibly correct.
<Cryomaniac> murder is good if it’s to prevent something worse
<`1000> Jakers, that depends on your point of view.
<Cryomaniac> is it evil to murder someone who has the ability and desire to commit genocide?
<`1000> I know that in Judaism, that’s considered unacceptable, as it is in Native traditions.
<Cryomaniac> I think not
<`1000> But, society doesn’t think so, hence —- the death penalty. I don’t think so either.
<Tekken> Would this be a good example: Old world Japan, ritualistic hara-kiri was acceptable if server failure happened, but now in present day Japan, its seen as taboo, but has been done.
<`1000> However, it’s only okay to do so if one has verifiable proof that they have that intent.
<Cryomaniac> what about stoning, `1000?
<`1000> Jakers: that’s a form of the death penalty, lol.
<`1000> But there are no biblical examples of it happening.
<`1000> Even when someone does something which is supposed to be punishable by stoning.
<Cryomaniac> that may or may not be right, I don’t have the care to look it up
<`1000> I have bible study as a school class. :)
<Cryomaniac> I have a bible study class at church and I’ve read and researched on my own not because I follow it; it simply has good ideas
<`1000> Right and wrong most people have in ethical intuitionalism, to get back on track.
<Cryomaniac> but they’re taken to the extreme
<`1000> Another question for everyone to think about (and answer if you want to): What are the source of our values? Where do we get them?
<Cryomaniac> whoever signs the paycheck? (kidding)
<Helious> our values are impressed upon us in our early youth by whoever is around or raised us
<Jonn> 1000: culture, society?
<Jonn> at our beginning that is
<`1000> Hiya PH.
<Jonn> then we can decide what is wrong and what is right
<Tekken> But then who actually started those cultural triats?
<`1000> I’m holding a guided ethics discussion.
<PaleHorse> hey there
<Cryomaniac> define values – there’s too many definitions of the word for me to answer
<PaleHorse> joy ethics
<Helious> the way you think things should be done in life
<PaleHorse> ethics and values are a generally agreed upon set of moral codes defining things that are good or evil in a black and white fashion
<Cryomaniac> that’s whatever society impresses upon you
<`1000> Values: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics&x=0&y=0
<Cryomaniac> and whether or not you conform to society
<`1000> PH: the first question I asked was what does it mean to call something good?
<PaleHorse> good cannot be difined
<PaleHorse> only compared to evil
<`1000> Exactly. It’s objective.
<Cryomaniac> what is ethical now could’ve been killable for in the past
<Maverick> I dont think society should be a good indicator of what values we hold. If society’s values go down, should we be sheep and let ours go down, or hold on to what we believe in and be better than that?
<PaleHorse> in fact cryo thats exactly true
<PaleHorse> healing people during the inquisition using science was punishable by death
<Maverick> society and conformity only create a flock mentality, and if the society’s ethics are good it bodes well, but once that society starts slipping it turns into disaster
<PaleHorse> now we consider it “good”
<Cryomaniac> Maverick: that’s why I stated conforming or not conforming
<`1000> Yes. Take the idea of having sex before marriage. Women were killed for that in some cultures.
<PaleHorse> some women still are killed for that
<Maverick> cryo: consider that my voicing my agreement then
<Cryomaniac> it’s common
<PaleHorse> in fact
<`1000> But it’s a lot more common to let it go by, and less common for killings to be done in non-semetic cultures.
<PaleHorse> “the church” still considers it a greivous sin
<Cryomaniac> hell, there’s some unmarried girls that have sex in middleschool
<PaleHorse> some girls get pregnant in middleschool
<Cryomaniac> not just when they’re that age
<`1000> Cryomaniac: one of my classmates was a mother in eighth grade.
<Helious> in my area it is hard to find a girl that is a virgin
<Cryomaniac> but in school literally
<Maverick> there are certain things I am willing to beat the shit out of someone for
<Cryomaniac> like the janitor’s closet or such
<Maverick> like rape for example
<Maverick> I’ll gladly beat the hell out of the guy
<Cryomaniac> ONLY beat the shit out of someone for rape?
<Maverick> and then take them to the police
<Maverick> I won’t kill them
<PaleHorse> i would
<Cryomaniac> anyone like that would be LUCKY to go to the police if I got a hold on `em
<Cryomaniac> especially if they raped someone I care about
<`1000> So, back on-track, not that I dislike the way this is going.
<PaleHorse> to be completely honest i think rapist should have their testicles nail to a sheet of plywood and be allowed to be raped by the other inmates ALL DAY LONG
<`1000> But we have the concepts of right and wrong, and good and evil, and then we should apply them psionics.
<`1000> lol PH.
<Helious> lol ph
<PaleHorse> im serious in class once we had to come up with a fitting punishment for rape
<PaleHorse> that was mine
<Maverick> cryo: when I say beat the shit out of, we”re talking in the hospital with broken bones, concussions, in traction for a year kind of a beating
<Helious> i will remember that..
<Maverick> just completely brutal
<Cryomaniac> they’d still be lucky to have you
<Cryomaniac> over me
<PaleHorse> okay now
<Maverick> PH: stick fishooks in their testicles and then hang them upside down and let them be used for a pinata, then let them get gangraped all day
<Cryomaniac> I wouldn’t kill `em
<Cryomaniac> not quickly
<PaleHorse> can anyone tell me if what we just said is ethical???
<Cryomaniac> eventually, yes
<Cryomaniac> not @ ph
<Helious> this is open discussion correct?
<`1000> PH: in some ways, I can see how it could be called ethical. But I personally wouldn’t call it ethical.
<`1000> Guided ethics discussion.
<Maverick> ph: I like my punishment better
<Maverick> cryo: they would never use their arms or legs or testicles again by the time I got done
<Maverick> especially if it was my girlfriend
<Cryomaniac> just as long as you do it all bare-handed
<`1000> Hiya Fx.
<Maverick> cryo: of course
<PaleHorse> okay mrs. grand think maybe it should be guided toward a more psi related discussion?
<PaleHorse> like psychic ethics….?
<Cryomaniac> it is psi-related it’s about what to do with psionics or rather what’s moral in psionics now, at least
<`1000> One of the things with psi that many have temptation to wrong with is TPS.
<Tekken> Personal space and privacy.
<PaleHorse> telepatic suggestion
<`1000> Telepathic suggestion, tekken.
<Cryomaniac> oh that’s wrong?
<`1000> Or dreamwalking.
<`1000> Not exactly.
<PaleHorse> which is handy for getting laid i might add
<`1000> Both of those can be used ethically.
<Cryomaniac> PH: yuppers
<Cryomaniac> Ayule: does that mean we SHOULD use them ethically?
<`1000> But, using TPS to influence a girl to sleep with you is not ethical.
<`1000> Jakers, yes.
<PaleHorse> is there an ethical way to control someone’s mind?
<`1000> PH: no.
<PaleHorse> any takers?
<PaleHorse> i disagree
<Helious> your a woman, it definatly be against a womens ethics…
<Cryomaniac> I agree with PH
<`1000> hrm …
<PaleHorse> how do you think you could use tps ethically?
<Cryomaniac> there’s situations where ethics have to change
<Cryomaniac> *YOUR ethics
<Cryomaniac> say a person is thinking about doing something crazy
<Cryomaniac> is TPS against it bad then?
<PaleHorse> your taking a person freewill away from them
<`1000> In some cases to the extreme.
<Cryomaniac> no one has fully free will
<`1000> True. We’re influenced by what society thinks of us.
<Helious> i personaly think that influenceing other people thoughts or free will should definatly be against the ethics. no matter what
<Cryomaniac> to have free will, you’d have to not be brought up with society
<PaleHorse> when i have EVER done any form of TPS i always made sure i gave the person a simple “out”
<`1000> I once helped a friend via TPS.
<Cryomaniac> it’s also not a bad idea to use TPS to get someone to stop attacking you
<Cryomaniac> without hurting them
<Cryomaniac> in more than one meaning of attack
<PaleHorse> so that if they were truly against it they could still say…”no”
<Helious> no.. i still dont think anyone should do it. Ever
<`1000> She was having a lot of trouble with the fact that she couldn’t be in the same room without physically attacking someone, or at the least wanting to.
<PaleHorse> ill be right back guys
<Helious> maybe just to play around with freinds
<`1000> She asked me to help her with it.
<Helious> but TPS should be thought of as a nuclear bomb in my opinion
<`1000> And I used a mild form of TPS to suggest that she should get along better with this person. This person had never done anything to her.
<Helious> what you find helpful, might not be helpful to other people
<Cryomaniac> a nuke to be used only when nothing else will work, but not completely bad
<Helious> nothing is good about a nuke
<`1000> Helious, true. But both TPS and dreamwalking can be used ethically.
<Cryomaniac> it stops things such as war and simply possessing a nuke
<Cryomaniac> without using it
<Cryomaniac> is a good way to get people to do as you wish
<Helious> TPS alters what the other person is thinking. I shouldnever be used to alter someone elses decision
<Cryomaniac> for good or bad
<Cryomaniac> Helious – don’t use absolutes like that; there’s always a situation where it’s for the best
<`1000> The example with my friend, let’s call her Jane, ended up for the best.
<Helious> in extreme cases i can see how it could be used as a punishment, or rehabilitation for druggies or something
<Cryomaniac> no dissing druggies please
<Helious> but that is not how all cases can end..
<Helious> did i say i was dissing druggies?
<Cryomaniac> you implied
<Cryomaniac> I’m just stopping you before you do
<Helious> i have nothing against druggies, im saying TPS could be used for rehabilitation
<`1000> Next meta-ethical question
<Cryomaniac> this is metaphysics now?
<`1000> but, next question.
<`1000> i have a list of them I want to get through.
<`1000> Are the values that govern the use of psionics objective or absolute?
<Cryomaniac> as we just covered with TPS
<Helious> objective i would say
<Cryomaniac> there’s situations where ethics may have to change
<`1000> However, there’re also ethics in things like combat.
<`1000> It should never be considered right to attack someone for no reason.
<Cryomaniac> all’s fair in love and war
<Helious> i think there should be a type of chivalry for psionics personaly
<`1000> There should be. But oftentimes there isn’t.
<Cryomaniac> Ayule: for no reason, that’d always be wrong
<FxChip> Not really.
<Maverick> Helious: those with no ethics would love that because those who aren’t strong will get picked off
<Cryomaniac> but if there’s no reasons
<FxChip> No, chivalry in psionics is not such a good idea.
<Maverick> because they won’t understand the lines and take it to the point they won’t defend themselves because they think it dishonorable
<Cryomaniac> some peoople would create a reason
<`1000> Well, I mean an acceptable code of interaction.
<Maverick> and those with no ethics would have a field day
<Cryomaniac> which may justify the situation
<`1000> Chivalry isn’t the right word.
<Cryomaniac> “sorry, accident”
<`1000> I don’t have my dictionary though.
<Helious> i mean like guidelines. sort of a list of do’s and donts
<Helious> that allpsions should know and respect
<FxChip> Even then. All psions SHOULD, but DON’T
<FxChip> And WON’T
<`1000> And won’t no matter what.
<`1000> I know.
<FxChip> If someone tries to dominate my mind, nothing is going to stop me from effing them up something fierce.
<Helious> thats why a definative one should be created and well known and discussed amung the communities
<FxChip> Except my own ability
<`1000> hiya Behemoth.
<Cryomaniac> helious, what you’re implying is that (1. every psion cares (2. every psion has the ability to do so and (3. that every psion even knows about OEC’s or anything like that
<Helious> yes, it dosent mean youcant defend yourself
<Maverick> Helious it will never happen. That’s like asking for world peace.
<FxChip> No, no
<Cryomaniac> war helps fuel the economy
<Maverick> There is too much difference in culture between the communities and the energy styles for that to ever happen
<FxChip> It’s not just a matter of defending oneself
<FxChip> It’s ensuring that the person won’t do it again
<FxChip> By “effing them up” I do not mean that they will not get ME again, I mean they will lose their ability if I can possibly do it.
<Maverick> ask Fx
<Helious> what is funny is that most nations wont accept world peace. we are at a point where most communities arent at war with one an other and things are still being discovered
<Maverick> he’s seen me take people out for shit :P
<Helious> now would be a time to do it if it was going to be done
<`1000> Mav, so have I.
<Maverick> you’ve seen me take someone out 1000?
`1000 thinks of tachi …
<Maverick> rofl yeah
<FxChip> I know that’s how Id would react, and I know that I follow his example
<Maverick> but he asked for it
<`1000> though that was mild.
<`1000> Welcome back Behemoth.
<Behemoth> thank you
<`1000> Yes, he did ask for it.
<Maverick> 1000: I’m talking about I’ve made people not be able to use energy again
<`1000> Maverick1: I don’t doubt it.
<PaleHorse> ok im back
<Maverick> 1000: that person put a nasty construct on my girlfriend who is a non..
<Maverick> so yeah…
<`1000> Welcome back PH.
<Maverick> but yeah
<Cryomaniac> Maverick: are they still alive?
<Maverick> there is no such thing as chivalry in psi
Cryomaniac doubts it
<Maverick> cryo I’m not sure
<FxChip> Yes, they are
<FxChip> More than likely, I think they are
<FxChip> Just in pain
<FxChip> For example
<PaleHorse> is it honestly ethical to EVER take a life?
<FxChip> PaleHorse, self defense, yes
<Maverick> PH: if the yare trying to kill me or my loved ones yes
<`1000> fx, however only self-defense when you don’t have the greater force.
<Maverick> they’l ltake my loved ones over my dead body
<Cryomaniac> pretty much
<`1000> I happen to be of the personal viewpoint that human life is sacred.
<FxChip> `1000, if their intent is to kill, so will mine be.
<Cryomaniac> most people won’t take your loved ones
<Behemoth> obviously your ethics are all based on your own opinion. but an opinion i think most people would agree on is that it is ok to take anothers life if it is for defense of yourself (you or them situation)
<`1000> Fx, understood.
<Cryomaniac> Behemoth: ethics are little more than opinion
<PaleHorse> agreed but if you can disable them is it still ethical to kill them?
<`1000> Another thing to think of in this is coonsequentialism.
<Cryomaniac> half a century ago, saying I don’t believe in god would be unethical
<FxChip> If they’re THAT INTENT on killing you that disabling won’t stop them, yes.
<Maverick> if they killed someone PH
<Maverick> I’m gonna take them out
<PaleHorse> is it really your place to decide who lives and who dies?
<Maverick> century = 100 years Millenium = 1000 years cryo
<`1000> is anyone in here NOT familiar with consequentialism?
<Cryomaniac> I know
<Cryomaniac> I meant 500
<Cryomaniac> I said 50
<FxChip> Nope, but it’s not theirs, either.
<FxChip> Fair’s fair.
<Maverick> PH if they are attacking my loved ones do I really give a flying fuck?
<Behemoth> my ethics, do what you want, and take full responsibility for your choices.
<Cryomaniac> who would I let live
<Cryomaniac> my girlfriend
<FxChip> Behemoth, you sound like my mentor.
<PaleHorse> no youre putting emotions in with ethics mav they dont mix
<Cryomaniac> who I care about
<Cryomaniac> or one guy I don’t know
<FxChip> PaleHorse, I’m not.
<Cryomaniac> who’s endangering her life
<FxChip> It’s not THEIR place to decide either.
<FxChip> But they’re doing so.
<Cryomaniac> that’s difficult to decide
<FxChip> So the equivalent response is for me to do the same.
<`1000> is anyone in here NOT familiar with consequentialism?
<Maverick> PH: no you are trying to force your ethics on me, is that your place? no it’s not
<PaleHorse> i dont have ethics
<Cryomaniac> define consequentalism?
<Maverick> if someone is trying to kill my loved ones I’m going to take them out
<Cryomaniac> I’ve not heard the term before
<`1000> Consequentialism states that the moral relativity of someone’s actions is defined by the outcome.
<Cryomaniac> I know
<Behemoth> i would do the same thing maverick.
<FxChip> Ends justify the means?
<Maverick> ie Machevellianism
<Cryomaniac> I took apart the word
<PaleHorse> let the ends justify the means
<Behemoth> i value my loved ones extremely highly. and i would kill anyone who tries to destroy them.
<`1000> Hiya vaccime.
<`1000> Glad you joined us.
<Cryomaniac> hey Tet
<Maverick> hey Tetra
<`1000> We were just going to begin talking about how consequentialism can relate to psi.
<`1000> for example, just because it didn’t end up in harm to dreamwalk, does that make it right to do so?
<Behemoth> maybe you can start by giving us a definition just for the sake of me not wanting to search for the definition
<Cryomaniac> a good 60-75% of my ethics are like that, Ayule
<FxChip> Behemoth, it was just defined
<`1000> Consequentialism states that the moral relativity of someone’s actions is defined by the outcome.
<PaleHorse> well going back to TPS for a moment if someone is about to jump off a building and you force them back onto the roof and off the ledge is that unethical?
<Cryomaniac> what I do to thers is defined by what they do to me
<Vaccime> Palehorse: Yes.
<Cryomaniac> PH: depends on why
<Cryomaniac> if you stop them to say,t alatk to them, and then let them choose
<PaleHorse> by consequentialism youve just saved their life so your means are justified correct??
<FxChip> Cryomaniac, damn you for stealing my answer.
<Cryomaniac> it’s not at all bad
<`1000> By consequentialism that would be right.
<Vaccime> I don’t like removing free will, for any reason.
<Vaccime> S’why I don’t work on TPS.
<PaleHorse> but by basic morality youve just taken away their free will which is in itself unethicalisnt that right
<Vaccime> I have ethics, but no morals, so understand that everything I say will be biased as such.
<PaleHorse> so ethics are not only situationally based but also based in the cosmic realm of right and wrong
<FxChip> I have got to look up the difference one day.
<PaleHorse> so no matter what you do youre going to piss someone off along the way even if what you are doing is “right”
<Cryomaniac> is it moral to stop theme
<Cryomaniac> so that you can talk to them?
<`1000> Moral, perhaps. ethical, I’d say not.
<`1000> Then again, I teach ethics, not morality.
<Behemoth> the real question here is, do any of us give a damn about everyone elses morals and ethics in here?
<PaleHorse> so its unethical to save thier life by taking their freewill
<Behemoth> personally, i dont.
<Cryomaniac> it depends on what you do AFTER you TPS that will determine whether you remove their free will there
<Cryomaniac> if you make them leave
<PaleHorse> but its ethical to lie to them and tell them it will get better when you know damn well as an attempted suicide their going to the looney bin
<Cryomaniac> you take the free will
<`1000> Behemoth: I don’t really either, however ethics is one of my fields of study.
<FxChip> Well, which is worse, a TEMPORARY loss of free will, or a PERMANENT loss of life?
<Cryomaniac> if you stop them to talk to them, and then let them decide, they have will. Fx: that’d be debatable
<PaleHorse> but that loss of life is THEIR choice
<Behemoth> really, hm. what is interesting about ethics to you?
<PaleHorse> however do we as individuals really have the right to decide if we ourselves live or die?
<PaleHorse> again we are choosing who lives and who dies
<FxChip> If it’s our life, we can choose what we do with it.
<`1000> It’s interesting for me to see how things relate to society and societal values.
<FxChip> If it’s someone else’s, not so much.
<PaleHorse> even if it is ourselves
<Behemoth> oh ok
<Behemoth> yeah i would imagine it varies greatly depending on which culture you are in.
<`1000> Okay Fx.
<Cryomaniac> PH: if we don’t decide, then who does?
<PaleHorse> and natural progression
<Cryomaniac> that’s not a person
<PaleHorse> exactly cryo
<FxChip> The natural progression of getting stabbed?
<Cryomaniac> and nature tends to decide that animals eat other animals
<Cryomaniac> they usually kill the animal first
<PaleHorse> technically human death by human hands is the same as one lion killing another
<FxChip> So you’re saying WE can’t choose whether we live or die, but Random Unethical Fucktard can?
<Cryomaniac> humans are technically animals
<Cryomaniac> though advanced
<PaleHorse> the difference between us and the lion is that we “feel” our action is wrong
<Cryomaniac> a male lion would kill the lion that’s challenging his leadership of the pride
<Cryomaniac> `else he’d be killed
<`1000> Hiya Nightshade.
<Behemoth> you guys are getting way to deep on this and making it not worth talking about.
<Cryomaniac> PH: only morals and ethics decide if we feel it wrong
<FxChip> Well, don’t use TPS :P
<Behemoth> so are we trying to set a standard code of ethics here
<FxChip> I need to calm the hell down.
<Cryomaniac> we’re debating what ethics IS
<Folquee> It is a class on what ethics are correct?
<Behemoth> ethics, man, look in the dictionary.
<Cryomaniac> I stole HIS idea
<`1000> Well, it’s a discussion/class on what ethics are.
<Cryomaniac> you miss the point
<`1000> Hiya ANKA.
<`1000> Glad you joined us.
<Behemoth> oh im sure i do.
<Nightshade> hey ANKA
<Tekken> Well, if I got the correct things from skimming, I think that some ethical things can go against moralitly and vice-versa.
Cryomaniac popucnes on gramps
<`1000> Right, oftentimes ethics and morals clash.
<`1000> Which is why I have ethics. Not morals.
<PaleHorse> and emotions clash with both of them
<FxChip> they seem to work out okay for me.
<Nightshade> ethics, in my opinion, depends on people’s certain beliefs…so i dunno if there can be a certain “set”, or “code” that would appeal to everyone…
<ANKA> I see Cryo has been spending too much time with Ren
<Cryomaniac> Ih ave morals, not ethics
<FxChip> So maybe I just look at things flawed. But they still work out okay
<Cryomaniac> ANKA: yeah
<PaleHorse> i have neither i just flow to suit my fancy
<`1000> Hiya rena
<Cryomaniac> hey Ren
<`1000> Guided discussion on ethics.
<Tekken> *smacks keyboard with face*
Ren wonders exactly what kind of meeting this is.
<Cryomaniac> guided ethics discussion
<PaleHorse> yall have massively digressed
<`1000> Let’s get back on topic.
<`1000> Well, the next thing on the list was Occam’s Razor.
<`1000> That’s me, behemoth.
<PaleHorse> i know that one
<FxChip> oh lord.
<PaleHorse> Occam’s Razor: the explanation that is simplest tends to be the correct one
<FxChip> Vaccime will have fun with that one.
<`1000> That, or deontology.
<ANKA> <PaleHorse> Occam’s Razor: the explanation that is simplest tends to be the correct one…. ONLY if the evidencre to support both options are equal
Vaccime rubs his hands together.
<`1000> Okay, who here is NOT familiar with Occam’s Razor?
<PaleHorse> i knew there was more to it than “contact” was letting on :P
<ANKA> Vac, Occam’s Ravor does state that
<Vaccime> entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
<Vaccime> entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
<Ren> Is this a rip off of #philosophy tonight?
<ANKA> Ren, ttonight?
<`1000> Rena, basically. Guided ethics discussion.
<Behemoth> 1000, what is your goal of this discussion, what do you hope for us/you to understand?
<`1000> Behemoth: the point of this discussion has been LONG lost.
<`1000> The original point was a discussion of meta-ethics with Tekken and Jonn.
<`1000> so, I’m going to do the same as I did in the beginning, and ask how we define good or right.
<FxChip> Well, it needs to be, or you start being “technically” not violating.
<`1000> Hiya Inty.
<Vaccime> Ren: They need to roll a new sheet, then.
<`1000> Thanks for joining us.
<`1000> so, I’m going to do the same as I did in the beginning, and ask how we define good or right.
<Behemoth> go for it, rule with an iron fist 1000
<`1000> I don’t feel like lecturing on ethics and meta-ethics. You all would get bored fast by me.
<`1000> Hiya PH.
<Behemoth> 1000, can you share with me what your ethics are
<Behemoth> meta ethics
<PaleHorse> we’d be here forever
<`1000> meta-ethics aren’t MY ethics.
<PaleHorse> my ethics: do what you want just dont kill anyone you dont ave to kill
<`1000> i tend to operate on the principles that everyone is human and should be treated as such.
<Intrepid> Vaccime pls note the difference
<PaleHorse> ethics are personal morals are society related
<Ren> What if they’re not human?
<FxChip> My whatever: do what you want, be prepared for the consequences. Act equally as has been acted against you.
<ANKA> Vac, spilyting hairs on defantions is ussally unporductive in this typo of conversation
<`1000> Rena, sha.
<Ren> Do you still treat them with the same respect as you would a real human?
<`1000> Yes, unless I have reason not to.
<Ren> Just checking.
`1000 tells Jakers not to open his mouth.
<Cryomaniac> my ethics: do unto them what they want to do onto you, but do it badly/goodly enough that they won’t/will do it to you
<Ren> I hold no bias on anyone… except bugs. And ganstas.
<Behemoth> sure ren.
<Intrepid> If it isnt something you want to tell your future children/mate that you did, maybe you shouldnt do it
<Behemoth> i wonder if the people who have not spoken have some better ideas than you all. maybe they will reconsider, and speak up since i am definitely interested.
<PaleHorse> way to go Inty
<`1000> Applied ethics time …
<Ren> Good plan, Inty
<PaleHorse> there you go a nice clean cut rule
<PaleHorse> applied for everyone and useful in a day to day situation
<Cryomaniac> what about people who aren’t ethical, but rather moral?
<`1000> Unless you all want to discuss Occam’s Razor.
<`1000> ANKA and Vaccime may find that more interesting.
<Cryomaniac> can you give me a simple definition of what Occam’s Razor is?
<Cryomaniac> as in
<PaleHorse> you shouldnt give choices ayule that just leads to dissention among the ranks :-P
<Cryomaniac> not complex?
<Cryomaniac> Pale: they already have choices
<Cryomaniac> such as one involving /part or whatever it is for them
<PaleHorse> because they have freewill
<Cryomaniac> I DIDN’T TPS HIM!
<PaleHorse> cryo shut up and listen ffs you might learn something
<`1000> okay, pm questions to the other ops. i’m going to turn this moderated for a while.
<`1000> I need to get this back on track.
<`1000> often in psionics, applied ethics in which you decide what is ethical on a case-by-case basis works best.
<`1000> however, this often breaches the line between meta-ethics, which is mainly questions, and applied ethics.
<`1000> also, when handling situations like this, one needs a baseline as to what is ethical.
<`1000> so, when I -m the room, we’re going back to trying to figure out a baseline of what is and isn’t ethical.
<Behemoth> national laws.
<`1000> Aren’t always ethical.
<Behemoth> they are a good enough baseline by the fact that they tell you not to murder or steal
<Behemoth> and you have to follow them anyway.
<PaleHorse> but not every nation shares the same national laws
<Intrepid> A good starting point
<Cryomaniac> but there are some international laws
<Cryomaniac> not global
<Cryomaniac> but international
<Behemoth> regardless of your religious beliefs, you are required to obey state and national law. anything additional you can add, but that should always be the baseline.
<Cryomaniac> what if you believe that ethics are too variable to have a baseline?
<Intrepid> Basic guideline: if something will injure, discrimate against, or have detrimental affects of some type, it requires scrutiny
<PaleHorse> i concur Inty
<Behemoth> but then again, discrimination is good sometimes
<PaleHorse> like when?
<Cryomaniac> the only baseline I’d have for ethics is that it depends on how I feel, who it is, and what they’ve done in the past week
<Cryomaniac> along with other things
<Behemoth> like is it ethical to train a dumbshit in lethal fighting techniques? no, you discriminate against them.
<`1000> So how does this apply to psionics? Anyone have any ideas?
<Intrepid> case by case is often required
<Intrepid> hard, fast rules rarely function well
<Cryomaniac> Intrepid: I’d say case-by-case EVERY time
<Behemoth> it is like being a judge, your baseline for choosing one’s fate is the law. on top of that they use their personal judgement.
<Intrepid> There a general “guidelines” you can use to get started, then scrutinize and refine on the case by case basis
<Intrepid> Example: someone’s safety is more important than their feelings
<Behemoth> but ok, to psionics
<ANKA> Inty, thier feeelings are ussally tied to thier freewill. Are you ingoring that?
<Behemoth> that is why we dont stop people from smoking, free will. we cannot break that rule
<PaleHorse> even though smoking has been termed “slow-suicide”
<ANKA> As compared to achool, which cuases more absolutly proven deaths.
<ANKA> To poeople that do not drink achool even
<Ren > Smoking sucks. Don’t do it.
<Cryomaniac> in fact, in things like drunk driving accidents
<Cryomaniac> people that don’t drink tend to be in LESS danger
<`1000> Back. *reads up*
<Intrepid> To advocate for free will is a great thing. I agree with that. However, its not always the best option
<Behemoth> see, they let you drink because that is your free will. but when you put someone else in danger, that is when you have crossed the line. our basis is the 1st amendment of life liberty and pursuit of happiness
<Cryomaniac> if you give some one completely free will
<PaleHorse> i dont think thats the first amendment
<Intrepid> exactly Behemoth
<Cryomaniac> you’d also let them, say, shoot you?
<ANKA> Beh, how many cities hgave anti-smoking laws? As compared to how many have anti-drinking laws?
<Behemoth> no, because that violates you right to life. (assuming you die from being shot)
<ANKA> Cryo, no, becuse then they interfear with your free will
<Ren> Canada’s getting some for no smokjinbg in public places
<Cryomaniac> what if they just want to shoot your foot?
<Cryomaniac> @ Behemoth
<Cryomaniac> ANKA: it’s interfering with your free will to not interefere with theres, isn’t it?
<Behemoth> pursuit of happiness, assuming you dont arent happy with a fucking gunshot wound in your foot. damn, quit with the bs please.
<`1000> Los Angeles you can’t smoke within 50 feet of the entrance to any building that is not a private residence.
<ANKA> Cryo, does not have to be.
<PaleHorse> florida you cannot smoke in a building that makes more than 10% of its profit from food
<Cryomaniac> if I want to help someone int hat way
<Intrepid> how about a scenario you can debate?
<Cryomaniac> it us
<`1000> Inty, do you have one in mind?
<Intrepid> yes, one that actually occured
<`1000> Cool, go for it.
<Cryomaniac> having something clear-cut would be difficult but go ahead
<Intrepid> I volunteered for an experiment I knew to be dangerous.
<Intrepid> In line with normally accepted safety protocols, I searched out two competent monitors
<Intrepid> Their instructions: if either party in the experiment becomes irrational or violent at any time, cage both and end the experiment
<Intrepid> The experiment was run twice, ending up in a caging once.
<Intrepid> Now, during the incident, I stated I was fine, monitor disagreed
<Intrepid> Was my free will in rejecting coercion more important than the danger I posed to others?
<PaleHorse> i would say that the potential danger to the many would ethically have to outweigh your own descision
<Behemoth> because as monitors, it is their decision and their responsibility. therefore what they say, goes.
<ANKA> Inty, does not matter, you agreed to the terms beforehand
<Behemoth> exactly, and if you screw up, it is their responsibility.
<PaleHorse> the monitors decision would have to be law at that point inty
<Intrepid> does everyone agree with that?
<PaleHorse> especially if you pose a threat to others
<Cryomaniac> but Behemoth
<Cryomaniac> that would of course take away from your free will
<Intrepid> If I determine Cryo to be a immediate danger to others, is it ethical to shut him down without his permission?
<Behemoth> yes, but who gives a damn if it is a controlled experiment.
<Cryomaniac> Intrepid: no
<PaleHorse> only if he has given you “just” cause to do so
<PaleHorse> for example an open attack without cause
<Cryomaniac> it would be ethical to talk to me about it first, then make a decision based off of gained information
<Intrepid> Is it acceptable to knowingly allow you attack someone if I can prevent it?
<Behemoth> who knows, but damn sure you wont get someones permission to shut them down.
<Cryomaniac> as an example, if I refused to do anything about it, it would be best to shut me down
<Behemoth> “hi, will you let me shut you down?”
<Behemoth> hell no.
<PaleHorse> Inty have you seen the movie “Minority Report”?
<Intrepid> Is a warning appropriate?
<`1000> (Yes, I’ve seen the movie)
<Ren> The one with Tom Cruise?
<Cryomaniac> in Minority Report, they didn’t even know he killed the people
<PaleHorse> well to put it simply in the movie (yeah ren) the governemnt employs precogs
<Cryomaniac> he didn’t kill the guy
<PaleHorse> to predict crime
<PaleHorse> then a team goes in and arrests the criminal before the crime is commited
<ANKA> <Intrepid> If I determine Cryo to be a immediate danger to others, is it ethical to shut him down without his permission? <— Not unless your going with the basis of might makes right
<Cryomaniac> what if I’m an immediate danger to those who would become a danger to more people?
<PaleHorse> now is it alright to determine that the precog sees the ONE train of thought that leads to the crime and knows for fact that it WILL be commited
<Cryomaniac> would that change things?
<PaleHorse> and if so the person commiting it has no chance to change their mind
<PaleHorse> so yes you would honestly have to know he has already made that attack
<ANKA> Cryo, no it would not, becuase if you use force, you are reverting to might makes right
<PaleHorse> because you cannot know for certain that he wont change his mind
<Behemoth> it is a movie for christs sake.
<PaleHorse> shutting him down before the attack would have to put you in the ethical wrong
<PaleHorse> you would not be giving him the chance to come to terms with the situation himself
<Cryomaniac> ANKA: I’m going off the assumption that it’d be right for her to shut me down in that case?
<PaleHorse> and thusly HIS freewill would be lost because you _believe_ he was going to attack
<ANKA> Cryo, right doe snot matter. She would still have to revert to useing force.
<Cryomaniac> ANKA, I’m not going along that line of debate
<PaleHorse> behemoth it may be a movie but it brings to mind the same ethical delema
<ANKA> Cryo, do you think that right makes right?
<Cryomaniac> I’m asking her to assume she would be in the right, then determine if I would be in that situation
<Cryomaniac> ANKA, no
<Cryomaniac> I already said I disagree with the situation
<ANKA> Then, those that revert to it are not c0orrect?
<Cryomaniac> I’m saying that if it was a correct one would it be altered by that element. I’m trying to point outt
<Cryomaniac> that lack of knowledge about HOW and WHY an event will happen can change the perceived nature of the even
<PaleHorse> inty, would you care to refute that line of thinking?
<ANKA> Cryo, how is anyone going to stop you with out reverting to in some way to beating yiou up becuase they are bigger and menaer then you
<Cryomaniac> ANKA, I’ve already explained what I’m doing. if you don’t care to read that bit then that’s not my problem
<Intrepid> to act in a coercive manner, based on precognition or estimation….no I wouldnt support that
<ANKA> Cryo, but your ingoring my asspect as well. Tit for tat, butter for fat.
<PaleHorse> so then you wouldnt shut cryo down until he actually made an established attack?
<Intrepid> I would require behaviorial evidence or an actual threat
<Cryomaniac> I’ve pretty much pointed out my view on your aspect
<PaleHorse> cryo you’re just an example
<Intrepid> Everyone has the *potential* to behave in unsocial manner
<PaleHorse> but it is our freewill tat decides if we do or not
<Intrepid> That does not give anyone the right to preemptive action
<PaleHorse> that or a chemiccal imbalance
Cryomaniac hugs Intrepid
<Cryomaniac> that’s exactly what I meant
<Intrepid> there is a fine line that needs to be examined
<Ren> Pre-emptive action has added to the percentage of the release of the evil.
<Intrepid> If I believe Cryo is “on the edge”, is empathic influence justified?
<Intrepid> On the other side of that, am I obligated to do so?
<PaleHorse> empathic influence being calming him down via empathy and talking him into a better solution?
<Cryomaniac> your beliefs don’t justify any action. not in those situations when someone could be affected in a large way
<ANKA> Simple spolution really
<Cryomaniac> it’s more worth it to investigate the situation
<Ren> Defensive action is justified. Proactive influencing is justified. Aggressive offense is not acceptable until the first shot is fired.
<PaleHorse> action is only justified in the event he takes negative action or asks for assistance
<ANKA> At what point do you feel that someone would cross the line if they did it to YOU
<ANKA> All of this is an outside hypothetical conversation
<ANKA> Never bringing it to personal point where you be less rational and more reactive
Ren points at her previous statement
<Ren> Follow that and you’ll never get bitched at for pre-emptive attacks. Ha.
<Cryomaniac> I feel that if someone acted off of what they think best in any major situation towards me, without any communication towards me or something similar, in anything short of defense
<Cryomaniac> that’d be crossing the line
<PaleHorse> i concur to a degree
<Cryomaniac> I don’t mean personal defense, btw
<PaleHorse> now i concur
Intrepid will concur with Ren
<Cryomaniac> I mean DEFENSE (needed immediatly) towards freinds, family, property or such similar things
<Cryomaniac> as in if I attack, you should attack back, and if you think I will attack,y ou should get ready for it so you can stop me quickly, not attack first
<Intrepid> I will make a further qualification
<PaleHorse> another point to make Intrepid
<PaleHorse> is if you know cryo is going to attack someone you should sheild them before he does so
<PaleHorse> not shut him off
<Intrepid> If the party would consider the influence an attack, and I’m aware of that, than I wont do it
<`1000> Hiya UnseenX.
<Cryomaniac> PH: I made that point already
PaleHorse missed it
<`1000> Guided ethics discussion.
<Intrepid> Increasing shielding of people is an acceptable approach
<PaleHorse> defense should come WAY WAY ______WAY_________ before offense
<Intrepid> Use of mirror shielding, when an attack is suspected, however is not
<Cryomaniac> if I attack, you should attack back, and if you think I will attack,y ou should get ready for it so you can stop me quickly, not attack first
<PaleHorse> that is a ratioal and reasonable statement
<Cryomaniac> meaning you should concern yourself with shielding people, and possibly get ready to attack me back, and perhaps talk to me about your concerns. the last part assuming you know me somewhat but really should be done regardless
<Nightshade> true, but you can’t always expect the “offender” to comply…
<Intrepid> Cryo, I wont necessarily agree with your statement
<Intrepid> re: if I attack, you should attack back,
<Intrepid> If a hit is minor, and can be ignored, or you can evade another hit, I would not advocate for returning fire
<Cryomaniac> I don’t mean attack with the intention of harming. I mean attack with the intention of stopping
<Cryomaniac> not just all-out attack. Besides, usually, by attack, I mean something at least somewhat dangeerous
<Intrepid> How many consider force shielding an attack?
<`1000> Most. I consider it an attack if done with no reason.
<Cryomaniac> really if you tried to shut down my systems or cage me or something and I didn’t see a reason
<Intrepid> lets keep it simple
<PaleHorse> putting a sheild on me without my permission will be taken as attack
<Cryomaniac> I’d consider it an attack
<PaleHorse> albeit not a violent attack
<Intrepid> a emotionally distraught newb enters channel, broadcasting
<PaleHorse> its still a breach of my personal space
<Intrepid> do you shield or not?
<Cryomaniac> I shield me
<PaleHorse> i wouldnt bother
<`1000> I shield me first, and then PM them with an offer of shielding.
<Cryomaniac> if it comes to be enough of a problem where many people in the channel are complaining I’d offer to shield them but otherwise they may take it as an insult
<Intrepid> thought we’d been down htis road before..
<Intrepid> how about increase your own shielding, mention the problem to an op, let the op approach the visitor
<Intrepid> You have ops to handle that type of thing
<Intrepid> Use them
<PaleHorse> i think cryo is making a symbolic reference to the similarity to a previous topic without it being the SAME topic
<Cryomaniac> PH understood
<PaleHorse> i however concur with Inty. ops are there for a reason
<Cryomaniac> I’m of the opinion that
`1000 nods and agrees with Inty.
<Cryomaniac> if I always depend on others
Archaic nods along
<Cryomaniac> what will I do when I need to depend on me
<PaleHorse> however in a real world situation
<PaleHorse> what if your in a classroom be it highschool college etc and a classmate walks in broadcasting
<PaleHorse> immediately what would you do?
<Intrepid> If an op is not avail, inform the person politely they are causing a disturbance. Most people will cease broadcastign if made aware of it
<`1000> Shield them.
<PaleHorse> against their will ayule?
<`1000> I do so almost subconsciously.
<Intrepid> direct them to the instructions on making a shield themselves
<Cryomaniac> what if you’re at highschool
<Intrepid> drop a light shield on them with a thirty min timer
<Cryomaniac> most people wouldn’t have a clue
<`1000> PaleHorse: if the person is a psi, then I shield them in such a way that they only are inhibited from broadcasting.
<Archaic> inhibit them from broadcasting in general, or just to you?
<PaleHorse> okay ayule but is that ethical?
<`1000> PaleHorse: not necessarily.
<`1000> I study ethics, it’s not ethical.
<Cryomaniac> Ayule: ethics can change
<PaleHorse> if they are affecting the greater population in a negative manner
<Maverick> and quite quickly
<PaleHorse> is it ethical now?
<Cryomaniac> ethics of the entire world have evolved in the past few hundred years
<Cryomaniac> much more recently most likely
<`1000> Though I might also just throw a dampening field on the classroom which dampens EVERYONE from broadcasting.
<Intrepid> If you suspect empathic overload, or suicidal intent, you’ll have to make a decision. fast. Get an op. If you cant find one, shield yourself.
<Cryomaniac> shield yourself FIRST
<Intrepid> true :)
<Cryomaniac> then concern yourself with op-hunts
<Archaic> Or you could just lesson that one persons signil for the time being and call it a day.
<PaleHorse> Inty we are talking a real world classroom
<Intrepid> Overloaders are usually combative…run
<PaleHorse> a school classroom
<PaleHorse> okay ayule but now youve taken away an ability from everyone
<Intrepid> Shield the best you can. If you absolutely must, shield them. They prob wouldnt even notice
<PaleHorse> where does that fall into ethics?
<`1000> I’m much more likely just to throw a damper over the entire room (or my entire school for that matter) than I am to shield them.
<Intrepid> Eh, survival of your sanity?
<PaleHorse> okay ayule but just to tell you
<Cryomaniac> shield yourself
<`1000> PH, very likely unethical.
<Intrepid> I’d place that as a high priority
<Cryomaniac> if it’s only one person
<PaleHorse> if you would have done that at my highschool alot of people would have kicked your butt
<Cryomaniac> you can prolly shield effectivly against theme
<Intrepid> If you cant think, the class is pretty much a waste of time
<`1000> PH: large amount of psis at your hs?
<PaleHorse> enough that a dampering field would be noticed and taken as a bad thing
<PaleHorse> hell i pinged someone too hard once and almost started a fight
<Intrepid> learn a lighter touch PH
<PaleHorse> granted he did end up with quite a headache :P
<PaleHorse> i did inty i did
<PaleHorse> archaic lessening their signal against their will even for a short time is unethical
<PaleHorse> youd be better off just verbally asking them to think quieter
<Intrepid> that’s gonna go over well
<Cryomaniac> I would think a quiteloud rude reply to that
<Archaic> are we talking about an active practionier or a _regular_ joe?
<Intrepid> I’d like to see that in the workplace :)
<Cryomaniac> might not say it
<Cryomaniac> but I’d think it
<PaleHorse> why not ive asked people to think quieter before
<PaleHorse> sure you get a weird look
<PaleHorse> but generally they just ignore you
<Cryomaniac> only when I’m around other psis
<`1000> Yeah. I’ve done so, but half the time it doesn’t help.
<Cryomaniac> of course
<Cryomaniac> when I talkl to other psions face to face
<`1000> Also, the psis at my particular school all know each other.
<Cryomaniac> I get LOTS of weird looks
<PaleHorse> that ayule is when you put on your nice psi earmuffs and go back to work
<Cryomaniac> I don’t personally know but a couple of the psions at my school
<`1000> PH: true enough.
<Intrepid> Another point
<Cryomaniac> only those two because I taught them
<Archaic> All that’ll do is make them start thinking about “wtf is he talking about? Thinking loud, wth? fuckin crack head, etc.”
<`1000> Jakers, my school is about 340 people.
<Cryomaniac> mine is about 3,000
<Intrepid> If the area is too loud or uncomfortable, is it their responsibility to be quieter, or yours to shield?
<`1000> Given that there are 34 psis at the school, thats an abnormally large density, i’d think.
<`1000> and there could be a few others.
<Anazrieth> Hell… I had 1400 in my Graduating class
<Anazrieth> and all the lower classes were larger
<Intrepid> I disagree that 10 percent is unreasonably high
<Archaic> Intrepid: Yes, truthfully, if I am personally feeling their broadcasting then I know I have some work to do. >_>
<PaleHorse> well inty judging that most people dont know what their mental volume is to others
<PaleHorse> it would become your responsibilty to sheild yourself
<Intrepid> I’d agree
<PaleHorse> sheilding them or the entire workplace is not a decision for you to make
<Intrepid> I’ll disagree
<PaleHorse> at least not without proper notice and agreement
<`1000> be back in a bit.
<Cryomaniac> I mean
<Intrepid> I shield two people at work on a regular basis
<PaleHorse> are they aware of this?
<Cryomaniac> if I asked if you’d shield me if I get too loud that’d be one thing
<Cryomaniac> if I DIDN’T ask it’d be another. I’d take it as an attack
<Intrepid> While they broadcast immensely, and are drama queens, they have no idea what empathy/psi is
<Cryomaniac> say the person notices you shield them?
<PaleHorse> so now must come the ethical question
<Cryomaniac> and actually KNOW what psi is?
<Intrepid> and since one is intent on saving from me hell, I have no intention of discussing it with her
<PaleHorse> is it okay to use psi in that manner just because they are not aware of it?
<Cryomaniac> shield yourself only
<PaleHorse> moreover is it ethical?
<Cryomaniac> unless asked to do otherwise
<Intrepid> When it becomes that the environment affects everyone who enters the office, and the situation has becoem violent more thatn once
<Intrepid> I’ll do what I can to prevent a reoccurance
<PaleHorse> perhaps it would be better off with a small fight and then they get fired?
<Intrepid> If that means shielding without their knowledge, so be it
<PaleHorse> then the situation is gone entirely
<Intrepid> Lord, I wish
<PaleHorse> then again maybe relying on psi is unnecessary. why not discuss it with your boss
<Intrepid> Boht employees have been on probation, mandatory counseling, and we’ve had diversity training
<PaleHorse> that way you avoid the ethical delema entirely
<Cryomaniac> or even, ya know, talk to them about it too
<PaleHorse> holy shit inty
<Intrepid> When it comes to the point that the workplace is a war zone, their freewill has been negated by their own hostility
<PaleHorse> that goes towards the greater good scenario
<Cryomaniac> if I’m currently wanting to kill someone
<Cryomaniac> but I’m sitting their listening to them does that negate my free will because of my desire to cause them bodily harm?
<PaleHorse> in a very big way yes
<Cryomaniac> even if it’s a desire I won’t act on?
<Cryomaniac> there’s many people I want to kill
<PaleHorse> but you dont
<PaleHorse> you exercise freewill not to
<PaleHorse> you could exercise freewill to kill them
<PaleHorse> but then you have to face consequences
<Cryomaniac> but I make the choice not to
<Cryomaniac> though I desire to for moral and consequental reasons
<PaleHorse> ultimately it has to boil down to whether or not you are willing to accept the potential consequences of your actions
<Vaccime> 99.99999% of people *always* have a choices. They don’t understand the meaning of “I have no choice.”
<Vaccime> They are just unwilling to accept the consequences.
<PaleHorse> precisely. for example i could go live a multitude of other places. but i choose not to because of drama. i say i have no choice. but that statement is derived from an unwillingness to accept the consequences
<Behemoth> it is fair to say, not matter what you think is right, someone else will think its wrong. so everything you do is unethical.
<Cryomaniac> I usually derive lack of choice from lack of acceptable options
<Cryomaniac> Behemoth: that is precsiely my point. my EXACT view on morals
<Cryomaniac> ethics, morals, they amount to much the same to me
<Cryomaniac> not synonyms of one another but close enough
<Intrepid> Someone is always going to disagree with you. The important thing is to understand that, determine what you feel to be the right course of action, before a situation arises. And be willing to accept the consequences for your actions.
<Intrepid> You cant please everyone, dont try . You can argue semantics of free will, what is an attack, etc for weeks.
<PaleHorse> “i can only please one person a day today isnt your day, tomorrow doesnt look good either…”
<Intrepid> What it comes down to, is take care of yourself, do what you can to assist others if you feel its right.
<Intrepid> And dont do anything you will feel guilty for later
<Cryomaniac> do what is moral and right in your eyes and you will be fine. there’s always people who’ll see you as wrong
<PaleHorse> be sure to have no regrets and youll be fine
<Cryomaniac> some people who’d think you shouldn’t help the weak for example. rather
<Cryomaniac> people who need help at something than weak
<Cryomaniac> because they think thatif someone doesn’t solve the problem themselves
<Intrepid> And try not to hold others to your standards. You can persuade, but be very careful of judging other people’s action.
<Intrepid> Their is more grey than black and white in this world
<Cryomaniac> it could hurt their potential to grow from the situation
<Cryomaniac> Intrepid. I could argue that to some point
<Intrepid> Mistakes are a part of the learning process
<Cryomaniac> I would say that there is only grey
<Intrepid> their are no perfect people
<Cryomaniac> and not be entirerly incorrect nor be very much incorrect
<Cryomaniac> because as long as you see what you’re doing as right, or SOMEONE does, it’s not completely evil, is it? only to most perspectives
<PaleHorse> evil is a matter of comparison to good
<Cryomaniac> I would make a comparison to some people’s view of good and evil to healthy and non-healthy food
<Cryomaniac> “If it tastes good, spit it out.”~The Only True Diet
<Cryomaniac> I’m making a metaphor to it
<PaleHorse> technically that is on topic
<PaleHorse> you could compare good and evil to ethical and unethical
<Intrepid> *nod* to easy to go off the evil/good tangent though
<Cryomaniac> good and evil are hard concepts for me to explain in their natural form
<Cryomaniac> and I am briefly mentioning them
<`1000> Be right back, again.
<Cryomaniac> to go through morals
<Intrepid> Another thought before I wash the dishes
<Intrepid> I was reading a thread yesterday that had my laughing myself into stitches
<Intrepid> Those who seem to be the most conservative, the most hardline about ethics, are frequently the first to step over the line
<PaleHorse> agreed with pushing force
<Intrepid> Because someone says they believe something to be unethical, dont think they wont do it
<`1000> Let’s get back on topic?
<`1000> Inty, agreed.
<PaleHorse> i concur
<Intrepid> Note the actual difference between stated beliefs, and actions
<Cryomaniac> I’ve been trying to use the beliefs I would act upon
<Cryomaniac> for example if you shield me to stop me from broadcasting you’d better be a strong shielder
<`1000> That’s true.
<Cryomaniac> because on about 10% of all days I would be in JUST the right mood to hurt ya
<PaleHorse> 36 days a year
<Intrepid> Cryo, why would any of shield someone who can do it for himself?
<Cryomaniac> Intrepid: huh? that made no sense to me
<`1000> You can shield yourself. Why would anyone shield you?
<Intrepid> you are a known psi. Therefor it would be mentioned you are broadcasting. You would be expected to correct the situation yourself
<PaleHorse> in the event the person isnt a ‘known’ psi
<Cryomaniac> but if they shielded me without my consent period they would quite possibly be looking at a bad headache
<PaleHorse> wouldnt it be more ethical to use a sheild with programming that follows the directive that they can take it down with just the thought of get this sheild off of me
<Cryomaniac> or possible a brief period out cold depending on whether I also hurt them physically
<`1000> Yes, that would be more ethical.
<PaleHorse> now cryo what if they put a sheild up that did what i just said
<Cryomaniac> I would prolly be less hostile
<PaleHorse> and used it more so to get your attention to what youre doing than to shut you off
<Cryomaniac> but I’d bitch them out about it
<`1000> Actually, that’s something that I think I’ll keep in mind when I’m shielding others, even though the only people I do so for are those who have requested it.
<Cryomaniac> because that’d mean they didn’t ask besides
<PaleHorse> so then we all agree that ethically when using psi on others they should always have an ‘out’
<Cryomaniac> if they want my attention
<Cryomaniac> they could use a construct that had the programming to get my attention
<PaleHorse> unless the situation is hostile
<Cryomaniac> I think of shielding as more personal
<PaleHorse> so then we all agree that ethically when using psi on others they should always have an ‘out’ unless the situation is hostile?
<`1000> Well, thank you all for being here tonight. :)
<PaleHorse> so we then explain discussed and found a general ethical code in psi