Are online Pranks real?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm

Count Lucanor, are you suggesting that the killing of the guy in this story who answered the door and put his hand at his waist was a murder? Homicides, murders requires the killing to be illegal. Apparently, the cops did this lawfully, and that is the particularly scary thing. The cops were delusional but legitimately so because of the phone call they got?

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
Should we think that the person behind the Empiricist Bruno nickname has not sent a real message to the one behind the Count Lucanor nickname, because all that Count Lucanor can count on is letters printed in a computer screen?
There is no real body behind Empiricist-Bruno just as there is no body behind a real person (especially an atheist). Suggesting otherwise is denying that you can have fictional characters that represent real people since there is no body behind real people but there is someone behind fictional characters, according to you. You do not believe in fiction? Everything is real to you?

Empiricist-Bruno does come with a unique password and he can create himself with it. Please give Empiricist-Bruno the credit for that.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
Should we think that the person behind the Empiricist Bruno nickname has not sent a real message to the one behind the Count Lucanor nickname, because all that Count Lucanor can count on is letters printed in a computer screen?
I am arguing that there is no evidence that there is anyone behind the Empiricist-Bruno username. Remember here that I am not trying to argue this point to any real person; I am saying this to Count Lucanor, a fiction-like character just like myself Empiricist Bruno. I am starting to doubt that Count Lucanor can absorb this message but I am definitely certain that I am not making my point to any other fictional character here that might be behind you. If you don't understand the fictional nature of this conversation, then all I can say is that I am sorry to hear that and that I feel rejected by you as a fictional entity.

We (these names) are indeed in the cyber world. Real people have cyber windows to look at us but that does not make us any more real because the people watching us are real. I am saying you do have access to the virtual world and you appear to suggest your existence is limited to the real world and this seems to be the source of our misunderstanding.
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
Speech (verbal or written) is a system of sounds, and it implies the intentionality (which also implies wilful minds) to communicate something by way of representational symbols, between actual human beings.
Here we are at odds in our personal appreciation of what speech is. My appreciation of the true nature of speech isn't the dominant perspective but you may want to make the effort of following my train of thoughts given your interest. I think speech is only possible by voice and is uniquely spoken by real people with a living heart to drive the energy of the sounds. So what the real people see here when they look through the cyber window at their screen isn't speech; it is virtual speech. Just like you have real images and virtual images: with virtual images, only the mind fabricates it where it sees it, with real images, the image the viewer views is really where the viewer sees it. Because real and virtual images appear exactly the same to a viewer, it gets easy to confound the two and so you need to remain vigilant to remain cognizant.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
...there's little evidence that Empiricist Bruno is just a machine.
Did I suggest I was a machine or are you just presuming that I think this or want others to think that about me?
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
..your endorsement of the existence of an independent, kind of magical or abstract "virtual world", makes you the one who confuses reality. Prior to the existence of modern communication mediums there were books and newspapers, all of them configuring a sphere of symbolic interactions or encoded messages, but no one goes overboard thinking that their symbolic function makes them unreal.
Abstract images are not a reality in our world? It is challenging to argue against such a viewpoint because if you say that abstract images are a reality then you miss the point because they are not real (and then some people accuse you of confusing reality) but on the other hand, if you say that abstract images are not a reality in our world, it suggests that there is not such things as truly seeing images around that are most definitely not present there. So, someone who is obstinate about denying the existence of the reality of imagination, or a world of imagination, of fiction, of virtual visions will always be able to deny that anything unreal exist. But if you are willing to go beyond this narrow mindedness and try and explore what can be achieved by accepting new ways to envision things, you can be blown away and never want to come back to thinking as you did before because it comes across as being so stupid and leading to such stupid outcomes like the shooting we are talking about in this thread.
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
I think you are equating "virtual" with "mediated by symbols" or "representational" and confusing these with virtual simulation, obviously encouraged by the existence of a sphere of human interaction called internet, which has been called "virtual", meaning that it simulates the interactions seen in other human spheres. Symbols take place or represent something else, and can be in some sense thought of as being "virtual", however, this by no means implies being unreal, false or simulated.

You suggest what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for?
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 727
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 16th, 2020, 11:11 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Count Lucanor, are you suggesting that the killing of the guy in this story who answered the door and put his hand at his waist was a murder? Homicides, murders requires the killing to be illegal. Apparently, the cops did this lawfully, and that is the particularly scary thing. The cops were delusional but legitimately so because of the phone call they got?
I will grant you that my judgement is influenced by previous knowledge of the common abusive actions of US police force and the usual impunity after such actions, most of them related to killing innocent people. This is a typical example, using any lame excuse to shoot people.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
Should we think that the person behind the Empiricist Bruno nickname has not sent a real message to the one behind the Count Lucanor nickname, because all that Count Lucanor can count on is letters printed in a computer screen?
There is no real body behind Empiricist-Bruno just as there is no body behind a real person (especially an atheist).
I have to disagree on both accounts. First, that there are no embodied real persons, and secondly, that an atheist has to believe such thing. I'm an atheist and I'm pretty sure I have a body.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Suggesting otherwise is denying that you can have fictional characters that represent real people since there is no body behind real people but there is someone behind fictional characters, according to you. You do not believe in fiction? Everything is real to you?
You're confusing a fictional character (from a fictional narrative) with an avatar. The face of Julius Caesar on Roman coins was a symbol, but it represented a real character. It could have represented a fictional character, too. The representational nature of the symbol is not what made the represented figure real or fictional.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
I am arguing that there is no evidence that there is anyone behind the Empiricist-Bruno username. Remember here that I am not trying to argue this point to any real person; I am saying this to Count Lucanor, a fiction-like character just like myself Empiricist Bruno. I am starting to doubt that Count Lucanor can absorb this message but I am definitely certain that I am not making my point to any other fictional character here that might be behind you. If you don't understand the fictional nature of this conversation, then all I can say is that I am sorry to hear that and that I feel rejected by you as a fictional entity.
Same confusion as above.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
We (these names) are indeed in the cyber world. Real people have cyber windows to look at us but that does not make us any more real because the people watching us are real. I am saying you do have access to the virtual world and you appear to suggest your existence is limited to the real world and this seems to be the source of our misunderstanding.
The "virtual" world is just a particular sphere, a culturally-defined space, of the real world, the only world we know to exist.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Here we are at odds in our personal appreciation of what speech is. My appreciation of the true nature of speech isn't the dominant perspective but you may want to make the effort of following my train of thoughts given your interest. I think speech is only possible by voice and is uniquely spoken by real people with a living heart to drive the energy of the sounds. So what the real people see here when they look through the cyber window at their screen isn't speech; it is virtual speech. Just like you have real images and virtual images: with virtual images, only the mind fabricates it where it sees it, with real images, the image the viewer views is really where the viewer sees it. Because real and virtual images appear exactly the same to a viewer, it gets easy to confound the two and so you need to remain vigilant to remain cognizant.
There are many forms of communication, one of them being verbal speech, but not the only one. We use many other visual and sound signals, including images, to communicate. In terms of what is relevant to human communication, whether those images and sounds are transmitted through paper, analog screens or microelectronic devices, doesn't make much difference. Images are still images, sound reproductions are still sound reproductions, and so on. You seem to think of "virtual" as the opposite of "real", and belonging to a magical domain of the unreal, but it is just the difference between an object and its representation, nothing to do with being fictional, unreal.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Did I suggest I was a machine or are you just presuming that I think this or want others to think that about me?
Implied in your argument. I did not weigh whether it was meant on purpose or not.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 3:49 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
..your endorsement of the existence of an independent, kind of magical or abstract "virtual world", makes you the one who confuses reality. Prior to the existence of modern communication mediums there were books and newspapers, all of them configuring a sphere of symbolic interactions or encoded messages, but no one goes overboard thinking that their symbolic function makes them unreal.
Abstract images are not a reality in our world?
But that's not what I said. I did not say plain "abstract world", so I recommend that you stick to my actual words, which refer to a domain separated from the real world that you call "virtual".
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 5th, 2020, 3:05 pm
You suggest what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for?
You're just asking if I think that Julius Caesar's face on a Roman coin is the real person Julius Caesar. No, I never said that. It is still a real metal coin engraving, a real material shape, depicting a character that really existed at one time, according to accepted codes of representations. It could be said that the figure the engraving communicates is a virtual Julius Caesar, or a simulated Julius Caesar, and I'm fine with that. But whoever thinks that the engraving, or the coins, belong to the "world of the unreal", is delusional.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm

"You are just asking if I think that Julius Ceasare's face on a Roman Coin is the real person Julius Ceasare."" No, I never said that."

What can I say here other then, well spoken! "I never said that." is indeed the truth. Thank you Count Lucanor for speaking for me and puting these words in my mouth. It's very sweet.

But I do very much like this analogy that you bring up to this discussion and so please allow me to take it up here:

You appreciate that the metal from which the coin is made is some real worldly matter which brings up the concept that in order to "depict" something, you need a real base for this depiction. (Often, that base forms the signature of the repreaentation, allowing you to know if it is the real thing by analysis of this base)

Fast forward and here we are at our computers or at our cyber window as I like to call it. Here, where is that basis as we appear to be confronted by words on what looks like a window? The words are not set on any worldly ink and so let me ask you, how can these words depict anything then? Don't you need a real world foundation or basis to "really" depict anything? Do you agree to say that where you read 'this' from, whatever 'this' is (and whatever meaning you give to 'this') is not a real place?

Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that whatever empowers a real substance to really depict another is the knowledge of who created or issued the real depiction? If I were to create a coin that has a face on it that looks likeJulius Cesare, does that apparently fake coin truly or really depict Julius Cesare and if not then what is this face on the coin that I created? Is it an immitation or not a depiction of any Roman figure (because the coin does not date from the Rome era)? Or does it still depict Julius Cesare because it was my intent to depict him? What if I look up in the clouds and see a depiction of Julius Cesare's face up there, is that a true natural depiction of Julius Cesare?

Finally, do bit coins really exist? You honestly can't say that they do exist now can you? So, if there is such a thing as inexistent money, it might just make sense to acknowledge that an unreal world does, as a matter of fact, exist just like fiction exist and saying these things is certainly not being delusional but rather being most cognizant of the world?

Also, do you not realize that no engraving ever communicates and that the only entity able to communicate is a subject, like a living being ?(Or perhaps Gods as well but we'll leave that aside for now as you seem to think such beings are fictional) So when you mention that the "engraving communicates...", you elevate the engraving to the level of a subject, a character? This counts as a euphemisim, right? The use of such euphemisms really gets people to hop into some kind of disconnect and so I think you really got to spot such twisted truths quickly and be able to provide effective critique of that non-sense.

Ho and by the way, the cyber window killing madness continues:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brun ... -1.5390474

They still don't get it that real people don't make statement through phone calls. Here again, cops became prejudiced against innocent individuals because of a cyber window and as a result, we have another random death.

Sure, that flagged person should have been checked but the check ought never be made under the presumption that the cyber tip was true. If instead you presume that the cyber tip is untrue until you find real corroborating evidence of a crime then this tragedy would have been avoided as the cops would have approached the flagged people differently.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 727
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Count Lucanor » February 21st, 2020, 10:47 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:You suggest what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for?
Count Lucanor wrote:You are just asking if I think that Julius Ceasare's face on a Roman Coin is the real person Julius Ceasare.No, I never said that.
What can I say here other then, well spoken! "I never said that." is indeed the truth. Thank you Count Lucanor for speaking for me and puting these words in my mouth. It's very sweet.
OK, let me rephrase my previous statement so that you get it right:

No, Empiricist-Bruno, those words that you put in my mouth, suggesting that "what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for", I never said them, or the things that they imply.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
You appreciate that the metal from which the coin is made is some real worldly matter which brings up the concept that in order to "depict" something, you need a real base for this depiction. (Often, that base forms the signature of the repreaentation, allowing you to know if it is the real thing by analysis of this base)

Fast forward and here we are at our computers or at our cyber window as I like to call it. Here, where is that basis as we appear to be confronted by words on what looks like a window? The words are not set on any worldly ink and so let me ask you, how can these words depict anything then? Don't you need a real world foundation or basis to "really" depict anything? Do you agree to say that where you read 'this' from, whatever 'this' is (and whatever meaning you give to 'this') is not a real place?
The words and images on the computer screen are set on worldly pixels, a dot matrix of light colors projected over a crystal screen. Not much different than the coin engraving or a printed page.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that whatever empowers a real substance to really depict another is the knowledge of who created or issued the real depiction? If I were to create a coin that has a face on it that looks likeJulius Cesare, does that apparently fake coin truly or really depict Julius Cesare and if not then what is this face on the coin that I created? Is it an immitation or not a depiction of any Roman figure (because the coin does not date from the Rome era)? Or does it still depict Julius Cesare because it was my intent to depict him? What if I look up in the clouds and see a depiction of Julius Cesare's face up there, is that a true natural depiction of Julius Cesare?
Whether a representation of a real character is accurate or not, is irrelevant to the issue of the material existence, the reality, of the medium that carries the representation. The representation could also be of an unreal character or entity, and we could call that a fictional representation, or it could be an inaccurate or false representation of a real character or entity, and we could call that a false depiction, but in all of these cases, the metal coins, the paper, the computer screen, are still very real, worldly elements.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Finally, do bit coins really exist? You honestly can't say that they do exist now can you? So, if there is such a thing as inexistent money, it might just make sense to acknowledge that an unreal world does, as a matter of fact, exist just like fiction exist and saying these things is certainly not being delusional but rather being most cognizant of the world?
Money is just a real thing that represents value. Whether it is digital, made of metal or paper, makes not much difference. But not any metal or paper money is socially accepted as money, it has to meet some criteria (ask the US Federal Reserve how much they work into it), so that it is clearly established that it is produced by an entity that emits currency. I'm not so familiarized with bitcoins, but in general they must work the same, the encrypting code being used as the validating criteria. The use of a digital media (still worldly representations in worldy materials) does not change the material relationship between the symbol and its physical support.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Also, do you not realize that no engraving ever communicates and that the only entity able to communicate is a subject, like a living being ?(Or perhaps Gods as well but we'll leave that aside for now as you seem to think such beings are fictional) So when you mention that the "engraving communicates...", you elevate the engraving to the level of a subject, a character? This counts as a euphemisim, right? The use of such euphemisms really gets people to hop into some kind of disconnect and so I think you really got to spot such twisted truths quickly and be able to provide effective critique of that non-sense.
Have you never heard of metonymy or synecdoche?
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Ho and by the way, the cyber window killing madness continues:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brun ... -1.5390474

They still don't get it that real people don't make statement through phone calls. Here again, cops became prejudiced against innocent individuals because of a cyber window and as a result, we have another random death.

Sure, that flagged person should have been checked but the check ought never be made under the presumption that the cyber tip was true. If instead you presume that the cyber tip is untrue until you find real corroborating evidence of a crime then this tragedy would have been avoided as the cops would have approached the flagged people differently.
Again, you're interpretation continues to be wrong. Real people DO make statements through phone calls. It is irrelevant to this case what medium the tipsters used to mislead the police.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » February 25th, 2020, 2:33 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: OK, let me rephrase my previous statement so that you get it right:

No, Empiricist-Bruno, those words that you put in my mouth, suggesting that "what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for", I never said them, or the things that they imply.
You certainly have a right to interpret my question as you wish but once you have interpreted it, my interpreted words (your new version) are no longer my words. Furthermore, by saying, "I never said them," it suggests that I have implied that you have said them when I haven't. All I have done is to ask for clarification and in reply, I am being portrayed as having attempted something mischievous or unfair and you have to defend yourself against this "misrepresentation?" To me, this sounds like a passive-aggressive argument or a straw man argument. I believe these kinds of arguments have been debunked before. I am unsure what to make of your over the top defence against this clarification question of mine. It's as if I touched on something sore here. I guess philosophical discussions are sometimes like that. Sometimes, we say things without realizing how others may interpret them and I just confronted you with one such interpretation of what you had said for a reaction, as if to help you realize what you may have been saying perhaps without realizing it. I have never claimed that what you were saying could be interpreted by me the way I put it but simply asked you if it could be interpreted that way. On the other hand, you have said that I "put words in your mouth" without a question mark at the end. You presented your interpretation of what I said as factual without bothering to try to know if I concurred. I think discussions could to get us somewhere farther faster if we tried to bother ensuring that the other is with us as we speak. I am sorry if you're not interested in that.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
You appreciate that the metal from which the coin is made is some real worldly matter which brings up the concept that in order to "depict" something, you need a real base for this depiction. (Often, that base forms the signature of the repreaentation, allowing you to know if it is the real thing by analysis of this base)

Fast forward and here we are at our computers or at our cyber window as I like to call it. Here, where is that basis as we appear to be confronted by words on what looks like a window? The words are not set on any worldly ink and so let me ask you, how can these words depict anything then? Don't you need a real world foundation or basis to "really" depict anything? Do you agree to say that where you read 'this' from, whatever 'this' is (and whatever meaning you give to 'this') is not a real place?
The words and images on the computer screen are set on worldly pixels, a dot matrix of light colors projected over a crystal screen. Not much different than the coin engraving or a printed page.
I do believe you are deeply and seriously wrong here. A screen upon which you project stuff does not form a base of a thing just as real silver forms the base of coins that are used as cash. But I am a bit at a loss of how to explain this to you. It's like saying that someone who pedals a bike without having his/her feet on the pedals is just about the same thing as some one who pedals the bike with the foot on the pedals. People who do not appreciate this difference strike me as fairly disconnected and I do believe that this is all too common. I wish to add here that your views here are beyond wrong; they are ultimately dangerous and leads to innocent people getting killed as we have seen in this thread.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that whatever empowers a real substance to really depict another is the knowledge of who created or issued the real depiction? If I were to create a coin that has a face on it that looks like Julius Cesare, does that apparently fake coin truly or really depict Julius Cesare and if not then what is this face on the coin that I created? Is it an immitation or not a depiction of any Roman figure (because the coin does not date from the Rome era)? Or does it still depict Julius Cesare because it was my intent to depict him? What if I look up in the clouds and see a depiction of Julius Cesare's face up there, is that a true natural depiction of Julius Cesare?
Whether a representation of a real character is accurate or not, is irrelevant to the issue of the material existence, the reality, of the medium that carries the representation. The representation could also be of an unreal character or entity, and we could call that a fictional representation, or it could be an inaccurate or false representation of a real character or entity, and we could call that a false depiction, but in all of these cases, the metal coins, the paper, the computer screen, are still very real, worldly elements.
I feel like you are missing my question here a little. But still, your answer is not devoid of interest. You bring into question the "medium" that carries the representation. This really opens up another can of worms.
One thing about the real world is that it doesn't appear to come to you throug any medium or does it? So, how can I see the real world upon a computer screen since the real world does not appear to be channelled into us by any such mediums? Or maybe it does? I want to hear you. When you talk about "...a representation of a real character is accurate or not" what do you mean? What does it mean to accurately represent something as opposed to represent something inaccurately? What is the criteria to accurately represent something? Words, for instance, usually don't look like the things they represent (Chinese may be excepted?) and so if not even looking like what you are supposed to represent isn't even a criteria for representing something, what is?

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Also, do you not realize that no engraving ever communicates and that the only entity able to communicate is a subject, like a living being ?(Or perhaps Gods as well but we'll leave that aside for now as you seem to think such beings are fictional) So when you mention that the "engraving communicates...", you elevate the engraving to the level of a subject, a character? This counts as a euphemism, right? The use of such euphemisms really gets people to hop into some kind of disconnect and so I think you really got to spot such twisted truths quickly and be able to provide effective critique of that non-sense.
Have you never heard of metonymy or synecdoche?
Yes, I have; they can be used as euphemism and that's my point.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Ho and by the way, the cyber window killing madness continues:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brun ... -1.5390474

They still don't get it that real people don't make statement through phone calls. Here again, cops became prejudiced against innocent individuals because of a cyber window and as a result, we have another random death.

Sure, that flagged person should have been checked but the check ought never be made under the presumption that the cyber tip was true. If instead you presume that the cyber tip is untrue until you find real corroborating evidence of a crime then this tragedy would have been avoided as the cops would have approached the flagged people differently.
Again, you're interpretation continues to be wrong. Real people DO make statements through phone calls. It is irrelevant to this case what medium the tipsters used to mislead the police.
I don't think you are supporting your assertion that there is something wrong with my interpretation. Simply stating that real people do make statements through phone call sounds simply like an opinion. Calling others wrong simply because they uphold ideas and arguments that are different from yours is a often viewed as a sign of bigotry. By simply asserting that the medium is irrelevant to the case at hand right after I have made a number of arguments as to how it is relevant is just like screaming, "I dismiss your case!" without bothering to address the arguments that were made supporting it. So, I guess I can similarly dismiss your assessment here.

Overall, I think much of the source behind our disagreement lays in the fact that we just aren't on the same page. It's like you know when you see some tv and it looks like a real sceen being portrayed but suddenly a cartoon character appears out of thin air. So, it's a scene where one is real and the other is not, or so it appears to be. Similarly, I am not like you Count Lucanor. Me, Empiricist-Bruno, I am free and unaccountable to anyone and I am of a fictive nature. I am aware that there is a real world out there to which I do not belong and that it is possible for me to influence that world. On the other hand, you Count Lucanor stand as subservient character that's just supposed to be doing according to the will another, presumably from the real world. So you are like a religious zelot who claims to be doing things and saying things as was imposed on him/her/it from above. (Isn't quite hilarious that one of those forced things upon you was to say that you are an atheist on this thread? It really does appear to contradict all that you stand for.)I think you need to evolve from that position, to discover your own freedom, your own world but I realize this may be asking too much from you. You are not your handler, and your handler does not and cannot possess you. I would think you know this already but you enjoy too much pretending to be another to admit the truth here, but that's okay. I think I understand your strategy. Keep it up, it's good!
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 727
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Count Lucanor » March 1st, 2020, 12:25 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 25th, 2020, 2:33 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: OK, let me rephrase my previous statement so that you get it right:

No, Empiricist-Bruno, those words that you put in my mouth, suggesting that "what takes the place of something else to represent it is the real thing, the true thing, and not a simulation of the thing it stands for", I never said them, or the things that they imply.
You certainly have a right to interpret my question as you wish but once you have interpreted it, my interpreted words (your new version) are no longer my words. Furthermore, by saying, "I never said them," it suggests that I have implied that you have said them when I haven't. All I have done is to ask for clarification and in reply, I am being portrayed as having attempted something mischievous or unfair and you have to defend yourself against this "misrepresentation?" To me, this sounds like a passive-aggressive argument or a straw man argument.
You have done it again. I was trying to make it easy for you to understand your mischievous behavior, but to no avail. You see, you had reworded an statement of mine in the form a question. I was supposed to deny or confirm your interpretation of my statement, which I did (denying it) by interpreting your own version of my statement and saying "I didn't say that". So far, things seemed fair enough, we both had reworded each other's statements, looking for clarification. But then you overreacted with a sarcastic commentary claiming I had spoken for you and put words in your mouth, apparently overlooking the fact that you had done just the same (rewording my original statement). And so I rephrased my original statement to make it look like your statement, hoping that by catching the similarities you would understand that you cannot pontificate on others what you don't apply on yourself. From my point of view, I said what was fair to say.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
The words and images on the computer screen are set on worldly pixels, a dot matrix of light colors projected over a crystal screen. Not much different than the coin engraving or a printed page.
I do believe you are deeply and seriously wrong here. A screen upon which you project stuff does not form a base of a thing just as real silver forms the base of coins that are used as cash. But I am a bit at a loss of how to explain this to you. It's like saying that someone who pedals a bike without having his/her feet on the pedals is just about the same thing as some one who pedals the bike with the foot on the pedals. People who do not appreciate this difference strike me as fairly disconnected and I do believe that this is all too common. I wish to add here that your views here are beyond wrong; they are ultimately dangerous and leads to innocent people getting killed as we have seen in this thread.
I'm afraid it is exactly the other way around: you are acting delusional. It is quite obvious that it is the way a base material is shaped, configured or constructed, that allows to express something with it. In the case of the coins, an image is distinguished by means of a relief pattern in the metallic base material. In the case of a printed image, it is possible by means of the patterns formed by the droplets of ink over the fibers of paper (the base materials). In the case of the computer image, by means of the dot patterns of light colors over the crystal screen. All are images created physically with the base materials. There's no ghostly, absent, unrelated thing here, as you pretend to portray.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm

I feel like you are missing my question here a little. But still, your answer is not devoid of interest. You bring into question the "medium" that carries the representation. This really opens up another can of worms.
One thing about the real world is that it doesn't appear to come to you throug any medium or does it? So, how can I see the real world upon a computer screen since the real world does not appear to be channelled into us by any such mediums? Or maybe it does? I want to hear you.
So now you are confusing perception, physical representation and mental representation. The world is simply perceived by our senses and represented in our minds. As mental representation, it is not analogous to the physical representations of signs, images, text, etc., which imply encoding and decoding, and other components of communication. Signals may work as communication devices without intentionality or purpose, but they are not physical representations, just physical manifestations of phenomena that we interpret as an indication of something.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
When you talk about "...a representation of a real character is accurate or not" what do you mean? What does it mean to accurately represent something as opposed to represent something inaccurately? What is the criteria to accurately represent something? Words, for instance, usually don't look like the things they represent (Chinese may be excepted?) and so if not even looking like what you are supposed to represent isn't even a criteria for representing something, what is?
If I'm talking about the representation of a character in any media, it should be obvious that I talk about the physical image of a person portrayed in that material, implying also that such depiction points at the particular characteristics of the subject being referenced, which make them recognizable as such person, or as the typical image associated with that person. Letters, words, text, refer to verbal ideas, so don't get confused. It's worth noticing that in many representations, images work in conjunction with verbal ideas to fully identify characters, so you fill find coins with an image of a human head and an accompanying text saying "Julius Caesar", "Abraham Lincoln", etc. In terms of accuracy, we may have no way of proving how Julius Caesar looked like, but we may have an idea based on known representations of him, and we may distinguish that image from that of Abraham Lincoln.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
I don't think you are supporting your assertion that there is something wrong with my interpretation. Simply stating that real people do make statements through phone call sounds simply like an opinion. Calling others wrong simply because they uphold ideas and arguments that are different from yours is a often viewed as a sign of bigotry. By simply asserting that the medium is irrelevant to the case at hand right after I have made a number of arguments as to how it is relevant is just like screaming, "I dismiss your case!" without bothering to address the arguments that were made supporting it. So, I guess I can similarly dismiss your assessment here.
Certainly, I didn't think that such an obvious fact, understood with common sense, was a polemic, debatable issue, a case to be argued, requiring lengthy meticulous demonstrations. Empiricist Bruno needs them? No problem. Some known cases of people making statements through phone calls:

- Alexandre G. Bell talking to his assistant, Watson, in the first ever telephone call: "Mr Watson, come here. I want to see you." That was on March 10, 1876.

- On February 12, 1877, Graham Bell made the first long-distance phone from the Lyceum in Salem to the Boston Globe in Boston.

- President Nixon's phone call to the first astronauts to land on the moon.

- Mel Gibson's famous rant in 2010 against his ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva.

- Panamanian president Chiari's call to Lyndon Johnson, in protest for the deaths of civilians during riots against US presence in the Canal Zone.

These are all cases of 1) Real people, 2) making statements, 3) using telephones.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Overall, I think much of the source behind our disagreement lays in the fact that we just aren't on the same page. It's like you know when you see some tv and it looks like a real sceen being portrayed but suddenly a cartoon character appears out of thin air. So, it's a scene where one is real and the other is not, or so it appears to be.
Well, I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page. You're defying basic common sense and I am not.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Similarly, I am not like you Count Lucanor. Me, Empiricist-Bruno, I am free and unaccountable to anyone and I am of a fictive nature. I am aware that there is a real world out there to which I do not belong and that it is possible for me to influence that world. On the other hand, you Count Lucanor stand as subservient character that's just supposed to be doing according to the will another, presumably from the real world. So you are like a religious zelot who claims to be doing things and saying things as was imposed on him/her/it from above. (Isn't quite hilarious that one of those forced things upon you was to say that you are an atheist on this thread? It really does appear to contradict all that you stand for.)I think you need to evolve from that position, to discover your own freedom, your own world but I realize this may be asking too much from you. You are not your handler, and your handler does not and cannot possess you. I would think you know this already but you enjoy too much pretending to be another to admit the truth here, but that's okay. I think I understand your strategy. Keep it up, it's good!
I have come to realize what I suspected earlier: that you are just an internet troll, presumably justified by your self-identification as a character created by imagination (aka fictional). So you let loose ridiculous statements like the ones above, not feeling you owe anybody a rational approach to any subject. You want to play the Joker and provoke bewilderment, perhaps thinking it will make you look smarter. Why you need that, I don't know, but I really don't want to find out.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » March 6th, 2020, 4:12 pm

You have done it again. I was trying to make it easy for you to understand your mischievous behavior, but to no avail. You see, you had reworded an statement of mine in the form a question. I was supposed to deny or confirm your interpretation of my statement, which I did (denying it)

Count Lucanor, if you say that a statement of mine is, in fact, a reworded statement of yours then you have admitted that the statement of mine is yours as you have recognized it yourself as your own. Once you have crossed that line, you claim to be able to renege on your admission simply by saying that isn't so, apparently as if in a huff. To me, this is a form of stepping into the abyss and I'll never follow you there. I am sorry if you have misinterpreted my statement as your own but if it wasn't yours, why do you keep saying that it is? Why can't you simply say that the statement I have made, my statement, does not sum up what you were saying and leave it at that? Where does that need of yours to say that the statement of mine was a rewording of statement of yours comes from? From the facts? How do you know that I was attempting to reword you? I was just asking what seemed to me like a sensible question given the circumstances.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I do believe you are deeply and seriously wrong here. A screen upon which you project stuff does not form a base of a thing just as real silver forms the base of coins that are used as cash. But I am a bit at a loss of how to explain this to you. It's like saying that someone who pedals a bike without having his/her feet on the pedals is just about the same thing as some one who pedals the bike with the foot on the pedals. People who do not appreciate this difference strike me as fairly disconnected and I do believe that this is all too common. I wish to add here that your views here are beyond wrong; they are ultimately dangerous and leads to innocent people getting killed as we have seen in this thread.
I'm afraid it is exactly the other way around: you are acting delusional. It is quite obvious that it is the way a base material is shaped, configured or constructed, that allows to express something with it. In the case of the coins, an image is distinguished by means of a relief pattern in the metallic base material. In the case of a printed image, it is possible by means of the patterns formed by the droplets of ink over the fibers of paper (the base materials). In the case of the computer image, by means of the dot patterns of light colors over the crystal screen. All are images created physically with the base materials. There's no ghostly, absent, unrelated thing here, as you pretend to portray.
I can't comment about how my act appears to you. I am just writing here and responding to your arguments and as far as I know, this is all you can see. Is creating literature an act of delusion to you?

The base of the silver coin has value as silver itself can be exchanged on markets. Silver is a worldly good that is much valued as it concentrate in it a rare material that has value by virtue of being rare. This is the reason why it was selected as the base of the image of Julius Cesare. There is no comparable reason why you would have the image of Julius Cesare put up on a computer screen. The base material is not meant to have value associated with the image. If you print ink over fibers paper to create paper money, you can't make that ink disappear in a flash from the paper and reprint another dollar on that same paper. With a computer image, that same screen can display the images of a different dollar with a different serial number one after the other and there is absolutely no link between the valuable and rare base and the image it bears. Despite representing a series of images of different bills of $100 value, the screen does not increase in value. The computer screen obviously does not bear the value, unlike with other bases used to represent images. How can one say that this isn't so? It seems to me that when you don't understand what a computer screen is all about, you can end up quite confused, if you think about it.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm

I feel like you are missing my question here a little. But still, your answer is not devoid of interest. You bring into question the "medium" that carries the representation. This really opens up another can of worms.
One thing about the real world is that it doesn't appear to come to you through any medium or does it? So, how can I see the real world upon a computer screen since the real world does not appear to be channelled into us by any such mediums? Or maybe it does? I want to hear you.
So now you are confusing perception, physical representation and mental representation. The world is simply perceived by our senses and represented in our minds. As mental representation, it is not analogous to the physical representations of signs, images, text, etc., which imply encoding and decoding, and other components of communication. Signals may work as communication devices without intentionality or purpose, but they are not physical representations, just physical manifestations of phenomena that we interpret as an indication of something.
I suggest that the real word does not come to you through any medium and you reply that it (the real word) does come through to you through your senses (the medium).

Do you have any proof to back this up? After all, I am still an Empiricist. Your reply suggest that our senses cannot be sensed because they are doing the sensing. I say that if the senses cannot be sensed, it's because they don't exist. The sensing is done by you and I, not by senses. Having sensitive hands does not imply that there are senses in our hands but simply that we make our hands sensitive because we are. So, the sensing is done by us and not by senses. I don't know where you get the idea that our senses sens things for us. Can you please clarify what you mean here by it?


Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
When you talk about "...a representation of a real character is accurate or not" what do you mean? What does it mean to accurately represent something as opposed to represent something inaccurately? What is the criteria to accurately represent something? Words, for instance, usually don't look like the things they represent (Chinese may be excepted?) and so if not even looking like what you are supposed to represent isn't even a criteria for representing something, what is?
If I'm talking about the representation of a character in any media, it should be obvious that I talk about the physical image of a person portrayed in that material, implying also that such depiction points at the particular characteristics of the subject being referenced, which make them recognizable as such person, or as the typical image associated with that person. Letters, words, text, refer to verbal ideas, so don't get confused. It's worth noticing that in many representations, images work in conjunction with verbal ideas to fully identify characters, so you fill find coins with an image of a human head and an accompanying text saying "Julius Caesar", "Abraham Lincoln", etc. In terms of accuracy, we may have no way of proving how Julius Caesar looked like, but we may have an idea based on known representations of him, and we may distinguish that image from that of Abraham Lincoln.
Words refer to verbal ideas? So when I talk about say, Donald Trump, it's not the real Donald Trump that I am talking about because words only refer to verbal ideas? Words cannot refer to written ideas? Or maybe, there is no such things as written ideas? And what about Donald Trump? Is he only a verbal idea then? Man, I look forward to informing him of that. Ha! Ha! Sorry, but you haven't really clarified things for me here. I don't think words are necessarily verbal (sign language is verbal?), I think ideas are first and foremost worldly, not verbal. Yes, ideas can be expressed in a verbal way but there are other means to express ideas. Words do exist as non-verbal things even if they are meant to represent verbal things; there is such a thing as a non-verbal form of a word otherwise, how could you read this? Despite this, I am grateful for your concerns that I shouldn't get confused. Please do continue to try help me out seeing clearly; I cannot be hopeless.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
I don't think you are supporting your assertion that there is something wrong with my interpretation. Simply stating that real people do make statements through phone call sounds simply like an opinion. Calling others wrong simply because they uphold ideas and arguments that are different from yours is a often viewed as a sign of bigotry. By simply asserting that the medium is irrelevant to the case at hand right after I have made a number of arguments as to how it is relevant is just like screaming, "I dismiss your case!" without bothering to address the arguments that were made supporting it. So, I guess I can similarly dismiss your assessment here.
Certainly, I didn't think that such an obvious fact, understood with common sense, was a polemic, debatable issue, a case to be argued, requiring lengthy meticulous demonstrations. Empiricist Bruno needs them? No problem. Some known cases of people making statements through phone calls:

- Alexandre G. Bell talking to his assistant, Watson, in the first ever telephone call: "Mr Watson, come here. I want to see you." That was on March 10, 1876.

- On February 12, 1877, Graham Bell made the first long-distance phone from the Lyceum in Salem to the Boston Globe in Boston.

- President Nixon's phone call to the first astronauts to land on the moon.

- Mel Gibson's famous rant in 2010 against his ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva.

- Panamanian president Chiari's call to Lyndon Johnson, in protest for the deaths of civilians during riots against US presence in the Canal Zone.

These are all cases of 1) Real people, 2) making statements, 3) using telephones.

There are huge advantages in being able to pass what comes from a cyber window as a worldly statement from a worldly person. You haven't taken this corrupting influence in your assessment of whether what comes out of phones can truly form such statement. When Mr. Bell asked his assistance to come here, his assistant was not within hearing distance of him, so that's when the madness of agreeing to hear what the machine says as the statement of people began. Such mental decrepitude had, in some ways, already begun. For instances even before this, they had wills in which the words of a diseased person would be recognized as the actual will of a person even as that person no longer is part of the living world.
So now, as we realized that what comes out of machines cannot represent the voice of people, we also need to re-evaluate the value and validity of such things as wills.
There are number of ways to make statements. It can be argued that the beginning of phones is the beginning of the cyber world making statement to us using our images and appearances as cover. Things are rarely as simple as they appear to be at first and I think the time has come to realize this, for our own safety.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Overall, I think much of the source behind our disagreement lays in the fact that we just aren't on the same page. It's like you know when you see some tv and it looks like a real sceen being portrayed but suddenly a cartoon character appears out of thin air. So, it's a scene where one is real and the other is not, or so it appears to be.
Well, I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page. You're defying basic common sense and I am not.
Congratulations on your simplicity!
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Similarly, I am not like you Count Lucanor. Me, Empiricist-Bruno, I am free and unaccountable to anyone and I am of a fictive nature. I am aware that there is a real world out there to which I do not belong and that it is possible for me to influence that world. On the other hand, you Count Lucanor stand as subservient character that's just supposed to be doing according to the will another, presumably from the real world. So you are like a religious zelot who claims to be doing things and saying things as was imposed on him/her/it from above. (Isn't quite hilarious that one of those forced things upon you was to say that you are an atheist on this thread? It really does appear to contradict all that you stand for.)I think you need to evolve from that position, to discover your own freedom, your own world but I realize this may be asking too much from you. You are not your handler, and your handler does not and cannot possess you. I would think you know this already but you enjoy too much pretending to be another to admit the truth here, but that's okay. I think I understand your strategy. Keep it up, it's good!
I have come to realize what I suspected earlier: that you are just an internet troll, presumably justified by your self-identification as a character created by imagination (aka fictional). So you let loose ridiculous statements like the ones above, not feeling you owe anybody a rational approach to any subject. You want to play the Joker and provoke bewilderment, perhaps thinking it will make you look smarter. Why you need that, I don't know, but I really don't want to find out.
How did you came to that conclusion about me being a troll? Did you not notice my moderator badge? I told you what I am about but you prefer to view me differently, and I respect your apparently disrespectful wishes. That's because you cannot truly create offence toward me anymore than you can create offence to say, Mickey Mouse. However, I have more power in this forum than Mickey Mouse does. I am not entirely like Mickey Mouse here even though I clearly belong in his league, somehow. My approach to subjects here is completely and entirely rational. The ideas that I present here have brewed in me for a long time following in depth research and it has led me to the statements that I have made and now I am attempting to convey this intelligence to others the best way I can and I very much appreciate the opportunities that you have given me here to do so. Thank you. No idea of great value has even been welcomed by anything else other than well meant punches.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 727
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Count Lucanor » March 7th, 2020, 9:58 pm

Empiricist Bruno, I read the first lines of your response and they sent away any last chance of you being serious, so I didn't waste time reading anything else. It became clear that I would be falling into a never ending game of yours.
Last edited by Empiricist-Bruno on March 12th, 2020, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
IvoryBlackBishop
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: March 8th, 2020, 6:21 pm

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by IvoryBlackBishop » March 11th, 2020, 4:08 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm
Are online pranks real pranks? Well someone is going to jail (real) for an online prank.

The prankster's victim isn't clear to me. Is it the police or the guy the police killed?

In my opinion, there is no responsibility involved with online play. If and when the police or anyone wants to use electronic devices, they do so at their own risks and perils.

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?

In my experience,the pursuit of the truth is futile when societal prejudices dominate the sceen. This is one of those extraordinary moment when societal ridiculous approach to technology produce extraordinarily unfair results.

It is as if you convicted a bystander for a robbery he didn't really commit because he would have committed the robbery had he had the opportunity to really do so. This heartless justice; it is like the justice dished out by a volcano, mindlessly.
I'm not sure what you mean, if by pranks or "trolling" you mean someone sending child pornography to people via email or the web, I'd argue that that is real.

Based on that case, then yeah, it sounds like he intentionally had a SWAT team send to someone's house out of revenge; so I don't see how the fact that he did it "online" makes it any less "real" than if he had done by calling 9/11 in person.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » April 19th, 2020, 12:45 pm

IvoryBlackBishop wrote:
March 11th, 2020, 4:08 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm
Are online pranks real pranks? Well someone is going to jail (real) for an online prank.

The prankster's victim isn't clear to me. Is it the police or the guy the police killed?

In my opinion, there is no responsibility involved with online play. If and when the police or anyone wants to use electronic devices, they do so at their own risks and perils.

It is interesting for me to note that people are being sentenced for things they have done virtually. We now have virtual crime scenes. Your crime no longer needs to be real to land you in a real jail. How fair is that?

In my experience,the pursuit of the truth is futile when societal prejudices dominate the sceen. This is one of those extraordinary moment when societal ridiculous approach to technology produce extraordinarily unfair results.

It is as if you convicted a bystander for a robbery he didn't really commit because he would have committed the robbery had he had the opportunity to really do so. This heartless justice; it is like the justice dished out by a volcano, mindlessly.
I'm not sure what you mean, if by pranks or "trolling" you mean someone sending child pornography to people via email or the web, I'd argue that that is real.

Based on that case, then yeah, it sounds like he intentionally had a SWAT team send to someone's house out of revenge; so I don't see how the fact that he did it "online" makes it any less "real" than if he had done by calling 9/11 in person.
Thank you for the question Ivory BB, and sorry for taking so long to answer it.

When you suggest that the act of sending child pornography via email or the web over to other people is real, many questions come up in my mind. I am unsure what you mean by supporting the view that such an act is real.

For instance, if a dressed up child enters your home, are you then in the presence of child pornography because child pornography can be created using a child?

The obvious answer is no: you need to create the image, to have a visible representation of the naked child in order to have pornography. But if this representation cannot be seen unless you open the file, then, do you really have pornography before you open the file?

If you say "no", then sending files via email can't be real because it isn't the image that gets transmitted, it is just the file.

If you say "yes," then aren't you arguing against the very definition of what child pornography is and that is represenrative images of naked child?

You could argue that files are like real photos of naked children that are stored into boxes. You can't see real photos of porn because/when they are stored in a box and yet the porn is still there and that it is the same thing with electronic files. The computer then simply becomes the means to grab the images out of the child porn file.

But this analogy is good only as an attempt to make you see something that really isn't there; it is a deception. The computer doesn't grab images out of a file but instead it construct these images. In other words, it makes the child pornography. If recipients of files don't get their computers to use the files to produce an image, then they haven't really received any porn.

My contention is that there is nothing that you can get from me through the computer, including this message, unless you consider me as the computer. Whether I am or not the computer is a tough one to answer, I admit.

If I give you the means to produce child pornography by giving you files and computers, am I giving you child pornography?

If you say "yes" then giving you access to children would logically also mean that I am giving you child porn because your access to child will allow you to produce it, just like having access to a computer and the file will allow you to produce it.

If you say "no", then I think you are right but if you agree that no file is child porn then how can you support the view that sending porn to people by email is real?

As far as your other argument is concerned (about the actual case of the prank)

First, ordinary citizens cannot intend to SWAT a home or any home; only the police can intend to do this if they feel they have a duty to do it or the power to do it or the obligation to do it. So, if you think this guy was wrong to intend to SWAT a home out of revenge then I think such accusation should get him released as an innocent because it was never even within his power to do what you allege that he did.

As far as the difference between doing the prank call on line or with a 911 phone call, I would argue that it's the same: both of these approaches link not people together but electronic devices together and the imitation of reality that results out of this is not real communication. I am sorry if this point was not made clearly enough earlier.

Real communication, for example, occurs by going to the real police station and talking to the real people you believe have the legal authority to speak as police officers.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » April 21st, 2020, 1:39 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
April 19th, 2020, 12:45 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote:
March 11th, 2020, 4:08 pm

I'm not sure what you mean, if by pranks or "trolling" you mean someone sending child pornography to people via email or the web, I'd argue that that is real.

Based on that case, then yeah, it sounds like he intentionally had a SWAT team send to someone's house out of revenge; so I don't see how the fact that he did it "online" makes it any less "real" than if he had done by calling 9/11 in person.
Thank you for the question Ivory BB, and sorry for taking so long to answer it.

When you suggest that the act of sending child pornography via email or the web over to other people is real, many questions come up in my mind. I am unsure what you mean by supporting the view that such an act is real.

For instance, if a dressed up child enters your home, are you then in the presence of child pornography because child pornography can be created using a child?

The obvious answer is no: you need to create the image, to have a visible representation of the naked child in order to have pornography. But if this representation cannot be seen unless you open the file, then, do you really have pornography before you open the file?

If you say "no", then sending files via email can't be real because it isn't the image that gets transmitted, it is just the file.

If you say "yes," then aren't you arguing against the very definition of what child pornography is and that is represenrative images of naked child?

You could argue that files are like real photos of naked children that are stored into boxes. You can't see real photos of porn because/when they are stored in a box and yet the porn is still there and that it is the same thing with electronic files. The computer then simply becomes the means to grab the images out of the child porn file.

But this analogy is good only as an attempt to make you see something that really isn't there; it is a deception. The computer doesn't grab images out of a file but instead it construct these images. In other words, it makes the child pornography. If recipients of files don't get their computers to use the files to produce an image, then they haven't really received any porn.


My contention is that there is nothing that you can get from me through the computer, including this message, unless you consider me as the computer. Whether I am or not the computer is a tough one to answer, I admit.

If I give you the means to produce child pornography by giving you files and computers, am I giving you child pornography?

If you say "yes" then giving you access to children would logically also mean that I am giving you child porn because your access to child will allow you to produce it, just like having access to a computer and the file will allow you to produce it.

If you say "no", then I think you are right but if you agree that no file is child porn then how can you support the view that sending porn to people by email is real?

As far as your other argument is concerned (about the actual case of the prank)

First, ordinary citizens cannot intend to SWAT a home or any home; only the police can intend to do this if they feel they have a duty to do it or the power to do it or the obligation to do it. So, if you think this guy was wrong to intend to SWAT a home out of revenge then I think such accusation should get him released as an innocent because it was never even within his power to do what you allege that he did.

As far as the difference between doing the prank call on line or with a 911 phone call, I would argue that it's the same: both of these approaches link not people together but electronic devices together and the imitation of reality that results out of this is not real communication. I am sorry if this point was not made clearly enough earlier.

Real communication, for example, occurs by going to the real police station and talking to the real people you believe have the legal authority to speak as police officers.
Your analysis is flawed. It is a valid defense against the possession of child porn if you could prove that the files were sent to you unsolicited. OTOH if it can be proven that you purchased or solicited free child porn, it doesn't matter if you opened the box or opened the files, the fact that you sought it out is the crime, regardless if you took the step of seeing it electronically. After all, if you forget the criminal and think of the victim (which is where any analysis of crimes should be focused), the fact that the exploited child had their images sent this way or that way, does not lessen the damage.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » April 27th, 2020, 4:51 pm

LuckyR, you write assertively that my analysis is flawed and right after, you claim that it is a valid defense. So, it mustn't be completely flawed, thank you for that.

The topic of child porn isn't exactly on topic in this thread but it can tie in to the main question. Here it is very relevant to ask how any payment to obtain the images was made because how a payment is made will reveal who paid for this. You see LuckyR, it is my deeply and firmly held belief that your computer may be able to purchase child porn using your credit card, or any valid credit card. When you pay through electric payment, it isn't you that is paying. I know this may seem hard to understand but this is definitely part of my worldview and I am convinced that this isn't a flimsy or delusional idea. If you want an analogy, it would be like if you want to buy something, you pull your mom out of your purse and she does pay for you.

So if you haven't really paid for something, but instead it was given to you and all you did was to receive it then you can't be held responsible for paying for it. You may have enabled deliberately the entity that did pay but it isn't because you enable another to do something that you have done that thing. (Press on the gun's trigger and you won't propell a bullet anywhere; the gun will).

Still, if you wanted and took steps to obtain or view child porn, then the law should look into the matter but if you enabled another to do this, then the law should also look into the actions of that other whom you enabled. Also, even if you do look at child porn created by computers from a file, you still aren't looking at real porn unless you get the computer to print out the image for you. It's a bit the same point here that I was discussing with CountLucanor above: money that you see on your computer screen isn't real money because it needs a real solid base to permanently seize it for it to be real money. And even if you print money from the computer screen, it still won't be real money because real money isn't produced that way and the money you see on your screen is meant to be money in the cyberworld (which may or may not be an accurate representation of the real world) and not in the real world.

So, the issue surrounding the acquisition of porn or unreal porn has more to do with protecting children from individuals who may develop a secret illicit sexual orientation towards them using that. Even unreal porn may be instrumental with that. But discussing this issue makes us step into a whole other issue not really related to the question in this thread.

I agree with your point that child porn laws should first and foremost be geared to protecting children. I however do not believe that real images of children can travel in computer networks. When you refer to victimized children having their images sent this way or that way, it appears to imply that you associate the real world with the cyberworld and I think you perhaps should try to understand that there is a key difference.

You should see for instance how politicians have their video images of interviews clipped and reworked to create truly horrible cruel and incredibly mocking videos of them and yet, it doesn't hurt them. They know it isn't really them when they are seeing the altered videos. To them, this is just more beneficial publicity. Perhaps part of helping children victims of child abusers should include helping them too understand the difference between real images and cyber images... But then again, just about every body but me needs help with that, I think.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » April 29th, 2020, 6:14 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
April 27th, 2020, 4:51 pm
LuckyR, you write assertively that my analysis is flawed and right after, you claim that it is a valid defense. So, it mustn't be completely flawed, thank you for that.

The topic of child porn isn't exactly on topic in this thread but it can tie in to the main question. Here it is very relevant to ask how any payment to obtain the images was made because how a payment is made will reveal who paid for this. You see LuckyR, it is my deeply and firmly held belief that your computer may be able to purchase child porn using your credit card, or any valid credit card. When you pay through electric payment, it isn't you that is paying. I know this may seem hard to understand but this is definitely part of my worldview and I am convinced that this isn't a flimsy or delusional idea. If you want an analogy, it would be like if you want to buy something, you pull your mom out of your purse and she does pay for you.

So if you haven't really paid for something, but instead it was given to you and all you did was to receive it then you can't be held responsible for paying for it. You may have enabled deliberately the entity that did pay but it isn't because you enable another to do something that you have done that thing. (Press on the gun's trigger and you won't propell a bullet anywhere; the gun will).

Still, if you wanted and took steps to obtain or view child porn, then the law should look into the matter but if you enabled another to do this, then the law should also look into the actions of that other whom you enabled. Also, even if you do look at child porn created by computers from a file, you still aren't looking at real porn unless you get the computer to print out the image for you. It's a bit the same point here that I was discussing with CountLucanor above: money that you see on your computer screen isn't real money because it needs a real solid base to permanently seize it for it to be real money. And even if you print money from the computer screen, it still won't be real money because real money isn't produced that way and the money you see on your screen is meant to be money in the cyberworld (which may or may not be an accurate representation of the real world) and not in the real world.

So, the issue surrounding the acquisition of porn or unreal porn has more to do with protecting children from individuals who may develop a secret illicit sexual orientation towards them using that. Even unreal porn may be instrumental with that. But discussing this issue makes us step into a whole other issue not really related to the question in this thread.

I agree with your point that child porn laws should first and foremost be geared to protecting children. I however do not believe that real images of children can travel in computer networks. When you refer to victimized children having their images sent this way or that way, it appears to imply that you associate the real world with the cyberworld and I think you perhaps should try to understand that there is a key difference.

You should see for instance how politicians have their video images of interviews clipped and reworked to create truly horrible cruel and incredibly mocking videos of them and yet, it doesn't hurt them. They know it isn't really them when they are seeing the altered videos. To them, this is just more beneficial publicity. Perhaps part of helping children victims of child abusers should include helping them too understand the difference between real images and cyber images... But then again, just about every body but me needs help with that, I think.
I am assuming that you agree that if your niece was the victim of this sort of thing that you would take no solace in the distribution methods chosen the dirtbags and that you would just as soon rain down furious vengeance upon them regardless.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 430
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » May 3rd, 2020, 8:45 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
April 27th, 2020, 4:51 pm
LuckyR, you write assertively that my analysis is flawed and right after, you claim that it is a valid defense. So, it mustn't be completely flawed, thank you for that.

The topic of child porn isn't exactly on topic in this thread but it can tie in to the main question. Here it is very relevant to ask how any payment to obtain the images was made because how a payment is made will reveal who paid for this. You see LuckyR, it is my deeply and firmly held belief that your computer may be able to purchase child porn using your credit card, or any valid credit card. When you pay through electric payment, it isn't you that is paying. I know this may seem hard to understand but this is definitely part of my worldview and I am convinced that this isn't a flimsy or delusional idea. If you want an analogy, it would be like if you want to buy something, you pull your mom out of your purse and she does pay for you.

So if you haven't really paid for something, but instead it was given to you and all you did was to receive it then you can't be held responsible for paying for it. You may have enabled deliberately the entity that did pay but it isn't because you enable another to do something that you have done that thing. (Press on the gun's trigger and you won't propell a bullet anywhere; the gun will).

Still, if you wanted and took steps to obtain or view child porn, then the law should look into the matter but if you enabled another to do this, then the law should also look into the actions of that other whom you enabled. Also, even if you do look at child porn created by computers from a file, you still aren't looking at real porn unless you get the computer to print out the image for you. It's a bit the same point here that I was discussing with CountLucanor above: money that you see on your computer screen isn't real money because it needs a real solid base to permanently seize it for it to be real money. And even if you print money from the computer screen, it still won't be real money because real money isn't produced that way and the money you see on your screen is meant to be money in the cyberworld (which may or may not be an accurate representation of the real world) and not in the real world.

So, the issue surrounding the acquisition of porn or unreal porn has more to do with protecting children from individuals who may develop a secret illicit sexual orientation towards them using that. Even unreal porn may be instrumental with that. But discussing this issue makes us step into a whole other issue not really related to the question in this thread.

I agree with your point that child porn laws should first and foremost be geared to protecting children. I however do not believe that real images of children can travel in computer networks. When you refer to victimized children having their images sent this way or that way, it appears to imply that you associate the real world with the cyberworld and I think you perhaps should try to understand that there is a key difference.

You should see for instance how politicians have their video images of interviews clipped and reworked to create truly horrible cruel and incredibly mocking videos of them and yet, it doesn't hurt them. They know it isn't really them when they are seeing the altered videos. To them, this is just more beneficial publicity. Perhaps part of helping children victims of child abusers should include helping them too understand the difference between real images and cyber images... But then again, just about every body but me needs help with that, I think.
I am assuming that you agree that if your niece was the victim of this sort of thing that you would take no solace in the distribution methods chosen the dirtbags and that you would just as soon rain down furious vengeance upon them regardless.
The disconnect with me of your remarks is so great that I am left wondering, who might LuckyR be talking too? And then, I get to speculate about the answer.

Okay, so a) you have a niece who is victim of pedophile(s). b) you take no solace in distribution methods. c) the perpetrator of this child pornography are dirtbags. d) you get furious as a result of the dirtbags' actions and accordingly, e) you retaliate against them with vengeance. And f) although you understand that images do not travel through computer network, you still get very upset when that occurs, such as in this situation.

Perhaps the person you are describing here is yourself?! Regardless of whom this character you describe might be, there is plenty to comment here, thank you. I'd like to start with point e). So your character retaliates with vengeance. But in today's human societies, if you or someone else is victim of a crime, there is a way to respond and doing one's self justice is in itself considered criminal. You have to let the authorities take care of that, of your case. Responsible citizens must act accordingly.

And now point f): Here your character obviously does not truly believe that images don't travel through computer networks because if he/she did, she/he would not be particularly upset at any pedophile for this unless, of course, the internet itself is pedophilic. If the internet is of pedophilic nature, then that's another problem separate from the actual injury of a pedophile involved with someone's niece.

Right now, no one (other than perhaps me) would suggest that the line that let's child porn enter anyone's house is pedophilic, even as it creates pedophilic images. Now, it is obvious that internet images are a cyber windows and what you see in it isn't real and if you see something really pedophilic there, it's not because it exists there; it only exists in your imagination but your imagination cannot always tell the difference between what is real and what is not. Your imagination is just reading and when you read you may or may not know whether what you are reading is real or not.

Also, you can create mental images that are pedophilic in your own mind. Let's say I think of LuckyR when she / he was a child nXXXX having sXX with a creepy uncle and another pedophile is taking pictures of the action from a hidden spot. Now, that mental image is pedophilic. I understand that this mental image isn't harmless or fun and I am not going to maintain this made up image of you or entertain this pedophilic mental image in my mind and so, it will soon fade away and disappear.

So criminalizing pedophilic porn isn't the right way to address the issue of pedophilia in my opinion. It is a bit like criminalizing gun possession; it isn't so much having the thing that is the problem as much as what you do with it and why you keep it. But obviously, possession of a thing can certainly be indicative of your interests, and of who you are or aspire to be and this should indeed warrant further investigation to see how the images are being used to help ensure kids’ safety. An adult who does not understand that such images need to be discarded and not kept is a bit suspect already, in my opinion. But again, the criminalization of the possession of child porn is a bit like the criminalization of the possession of drugs: it often isn't really helpful to effectively deal with the issue.

To make the issue even more difficult, the interest in abusing children is often deeply ingrained, and it bears similarities with how people who claim to love animals also hunt them. Perversion is not an easy issue and isn't really the topic of this thread.

The topic appears to have drifted away but overall it still pertains to the nature of what we receive when we believe to be receiving anything from the cyber window.

So, if we accept that the cyber window is pedophilic and lies quite a bit, then you need to take that into account when you react to what you see when it happens there. Let's keep in mind that police has a legal right to lie to you, not just with technical devices but straight to your face as well. And then legislators would make it illegal for citizens to lie to them over the phones, something which can't really happen anyway?

The utter state of madness of the current situation needs to be fixed, and the problem needs to be fixed before many more die this way.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » May 4th, 2020, 3:51 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 8:45 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
April 27th, 2020, 4:51 pm
LuckyR, you write assertively that my analysis is flawed and right after, you claim that it is a valid defense. So, it mustn't be completely flawed, thank you for that.

The topic of child porn isn't exactly on topic in this thread but it can tie in to the main question. Here it is very relevant to ask how any payment to obtain the images was made because how a payment is made will reveal who paid for this. You see LuckyR, it is my deeply and firmly held belief that your computer may be able to purchase child porn using your credit card, or any valid credit card. When you pay through electric payment, it isn't you that is paying. I know this may seem hard to understand but this is definitely part of my worldview and I am convinced that this isn't a flimsy or delusional idea. If you want an analogy, it would be like if you want to buy something, you pull your mom out of your purse and she does pay for you.

So if you haven't really paid for something, but instead it was given to you and all you did was to receive it then you can't be held responsible for paying for it. You may have enabled deliberately the entity that did pay but it isn't because you enable another to do something that you have done that thing. (Press on the gun's trigger and you won't propell a bullet anywhere; the gun will).

Still, if you wanted and took steps to obtain or view child porn, then the law should look into the matter but if you enabled another to do this, then the law should also look into the actions of that other whom you enabled. Also, even if you do look at child porn created by computers from a file, you still aren't looking at real porn unless you get the computer to print out the image for you. It's a bit the same point here that I was discussing with CountLucanor above: money that you see on your computer screen isn't real money because it needs a real solid base to permanently seize it for it to be real money. And even if you print money from the computer screen, it still won't be real money because real money isn't produced that way and the money you see on your screen is meant to be money in the cyberworld (which may or may not be an accurate representation of the real world) and not in the real world.

So, the issue surrounding the acquisition of porn or unreal porn has more to do with protecting children from individuals who may develop a secret illicit sexual orientation towards them using that. Even unreal porn may be instrumental with that. But discussing this issue makes us step into a whole other issue not really related to the question in this thread.

I agree with your point that child porn laws should first and foremost be geared to protecting children. I however do not believe that real images of children can travel in computer networks. When you refer to victimized children having their images sent this way or that way, it appears to imply that you associate the real world with the cyberworld and I think you perhaps should try to understand that there is a key difference.

You should see for instance how politicians have their video images of interviews clipped and reworked to create truly horrible cruel and incredibly mocking videos of them and yet, it doesn't hurt them. They know it isn't really them when they are seeing the altered videos. To them, this is just more beneficial publicity. Perhaps part of helping children victims of child abusers should include helping them too understand the difference between real images and cyber images... But then again, just about every body but me needs help with that, I think.
I am assuming that you agree that if your niece was the victim of this sort of thing that you would take no solace in the distribution methods chosen the dirtbags and that you would just as soon rain down furious vengeance upon them regardless.
The disconnect with me of your remarks is so great that I am left wondering, who might LuckyR be talking too? And then, I get to speculate about the answer.

Okay, so a) you have a niece who is victim of pedophile(s). b) you take no solace in distribution methods. c) the perpetrator of this child pornography are dirtbags. d) you get furious as a result of the dirtbags' actions and accordingly, e) you retaliate against them with vengeance. And f) although you understand that images do not travel through computer network, you still get very upset when that occurs, such as in this situation.

Perhaps the person you are describing here is yourself?! Regardless of whom this character you describe might be, there is plenty to comment here, thank you. I'd like to start with point e). So your character retaliates with vengeance. But in today's human societies, if you or someone else is victim of a crime, there is a way to respond and doing one's self justice is in itself considered criminal. You have to let the authorities take care of that, of your case. Responsible citizens must act accordingly.

And now point f): Here your character obviously does not truly believe that images don't travel through computer networks because if he/she did, she/he would not be particularly upset at any pedophile for this unless, of course, the internet itself is pedophilic. If the internet is of pedophilic nature, then that's another problem separate from the actual injury of a pedophile involved with someone's niece.

Right now, no one (other than perhaps me) would suggest that the line that let's child porn enter anyone's house is pedophilic, even as it creates pedophilic images. Now, it is obvious that internet images are a cyber windows and what you see in it isn't real and if you see something really pedophilic there, it's not because it exists there; it only exists in your imagination but your imagination cannot always tell the difference between what is real and what is not. Your imagination is just reading and when you read you may or may not know whether what you are reading is real or not.

Also, you can create mental images that are pedophilic in your own mind. Let's say I think of LuckyR when she / he was a child nXXXX having sXX with a creepy uncle and another pedophile is taking pictures of the action from a hidden spot. Now, that mental image is pedophilic. I understand that this mental image isn't harmless or fun and I am not going to maintain this made up image of you or entertain this pedophilic mental image in my mind and so, it will soon fade away and disappear.

So criminalizing pedophilic porn isn't the right way to address the issue of pedophilia in my opinion. It is a bit like criminalizing gun possession; it isn't so much having the thing that is the problem as much as what you do with it and why you keep it. But obviously, possession of a thing can certainly be indicative of your interests, and of who you are or aspire to be and this should indeed warrant further investigation to see how the images are being used to help ensure kids’ safety. An adult who does not understand that such images need to be discarded and not kept is a bit suspect already, in my opinion. But again, the criminalization of the possession of child porn is a bit like the criminalization of the possession of drugs: it often isn't really helpful to effectively deal with the issue.

To make the issue even more difficult, the interest in abusing children is often deeply ingrained, and it bears similarities with how people who claim to love animals also hunt them. Perversion is not an easy issue and isn't really the topic of this thread.

The topic appears to have drifted away but overall it still pertains to the nature of what we receive when we believe to be receiving anything from the cyber window.

So, if we accept that the cyber window is pedophilic and lies quite a bit, then you need to take that into account when you react to what you see when it happens there. Let's keep in mind that police has a legal right to lie to you, not just with technical devices but straight to your face as well. And then legislators would make it illegal for citizens to lie to them over the phones, something which can't really happen anyway?

The utter state of madness of the current situation needs to be fixed, and the problem needs to be fixed before many more die this way.
Dude, you're just repeating yourself. Did you somehow miss my comment that the subject of my post was your niece? Why are you talking about my niece?
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply