Hanging up the phone on others is...

[Steve3007]

A similar point to the one Eduk is making:

Empiricist-Bruno, when I type a message to you on this computer in front of me, am I talking to you or am I talking to my computer? If I were standing in front of you and I talked to you, such that the air in front of my mouth vibrated and conveyed information to your ears, would I be talking to you or talking to the air?

Maybe it's just the way you explain it, but you do sometimes appear to forget that a telephone is merely a medium via which we converse with whoever or whatever is on the other end. Like a computer or air.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

@Empiricist-Bruno When you talk to someone on the phone there is a person on the other side of the phone isn't there?

By this relpy, I figure that you are ok with elevators being described as rude. Well, I am not sure where to take this discussion from here.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

A similar point to the one Eduk is making:

Empiricist-Bruno, when I type a message to you on this computer in front of me, am I talking to you or am I talking to my computer? If I were standing in front of you and I talked to you, such that the air in front of my mouth vibrated and conveyed information to your ears, would I be talking to you or talking to the air?

Maybe it's just the way you explain it, but you do sometimes appear to forget that a telephone is merely a medium via which we converse with whoever or whatever is on the other end. Like a computer or air.

Steve3007, you have your own definition, --which is consistent with what many people are thinking --of what a phone is, and I respect your unoriginal opinion. Having said this, I want to add that am certain your opinion is dull.

I do like that you present arguments in support of your views. I think I know them all and that they don't stand up to careful scrutiny.

The essence of your argument is that a medium to do something is a medium. In other words, the medium does not matter and we can hide all things that can act as a medium as being just mediums. A knife is a killing medium just like a machine gun is a killing medium. So, why recognize them as different things before the law? You see where I am going? Some mediums have serious issues that come with them.

But there is an even bigger mistake that you make in the writing of your point. You simply can't type a message to me on your computer. This expression of "typing a message" comes from the days when people used a manual typewriter to type their letters. In those days, typing really was what they were doing when they typed. It is no longer the case today with computers. When you think you type on your screen, all I see is that you are pushing on buttons and the way the computer is set up this button pushing will be used as a feed for the computer to put up images of letters on your screen. The message will be entirely based on what you wanted to put there but the fact and the matter is that it is not you who put it there; your own energy didn't "typed" it there as this is an illusion with the computer. This is why in my Opening Post, I brought the issue of copy right. What is written on the computer screen never will be your own message and so if you are willing to believe this, as I am, then society has to find new ways of dealing with the messages possessed by the machine.

To answer your question more precisely I think it would be fair to say that when you are in front of your computer, you are not saying anything to either me or the computer but instead, the computer is using your thoughts and evidence of your thoughts (your fingers on the keyboard) to write up a message. You wish that the computer says something to me and the computer is using your wishes to send me its message.

As far as your other more specific question of talking to the air or to me if I am right in front of you, I would say that I can't really see how you can make that argument because without air, there is no evidence that talking is possible. But even if you use talking in a broad way such as that it includes signing as the deaf do, you still miss the point of what makes talking talking: The source of the talking is a beating heart from a living being. If you think you hear talking from any electronic speaker, it is because you are blind to the difference between a machine and a person. Also, if you think you can speak to the air, may I ask if you can also speak to the sky and to the sun as well? Whether you are talking to me or not can normally be deducted from the message itself, so I can't be 100% certain of who you are talking to. I have to ask you, if I want to make sure of that.

I don't make abstraction of the machines and those who do do it at their own perils. As I said, we have machine fire out of control right now. It is not clear to me how to fix things yet but starting to speak the truth about what is going on sure can't be a bad starting point.i

[Eduk]

Why are you arguing with an elevator Empiricist-Bruno ?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Why are you arguing with an elevator @Empiricist-Bruno ?

You know what the mountain climbers say when you ask them why they go up the mountain? They say it is because the mountain is there. I guess that would be the same reason for me here. Why do you do it?

[LuckyR]

A couple of things: it is completely possible to be rude over the phone, but rude does not equal wrong, necessarily. However, the OP's example is not a good one to demonstrate rudeness, since the rudeness was originally perpetrated by the telemarketer, thus any response is appropriate, rude or not.

To all people who think you can be rude over the phone, can you please first specify if you also think that an elevator can be rude to you in closing its door unexpectedly on you, and if that isn't rudeness, why not?
I think rude is not something machine or automated system can be, even if they imitate those who can be rude.

If someone on the elevator pushes the "close" button to make you miss the elevator, or get squished by the doors, that is an example of rude, human behavior. Similar to rudeness perpetrated by someone on the phone.

[Steve3007]

The essence of your argument is that a medium to do something is a medium. In other words, the medium does not matter and we can hide all things that can act as a medium as being just mediums.

No, that is not the essence of my argument. I wouldn't call it an argument, as such. I'd call it a statement of the obvious. That may be why it's so dull.

Of course the medium matters. Without the medium that I am using right now I wouldn't be able to communicate from the UK with a person who lives in Toronto, Canada as quickly and easily as I am doing now. The medium clearly affects the nature of the communication. But the medium is not a person. You are a person. Therefore I try not to be rude to you. How do I know that you are a person? Well, I don't know with 100% certainty, but the evidence suggests that you are. Just as if you were standing in front of me, or writing me a letter, or talking to me on the phone or using semaphore to signal to me using large colourful flags, or using smoke signals I couldn't be 100% sure that I was conversing with a person, but the evidence would suggest that I was. As an empiricist, I presume you accept these things.

So I'm afraid I still don't really understand the underlying point you're trying to make. You originally appeared to be claiming that whenever you use the particular medium of a telephone to communicate with another human being, the fact that you are using that particular medium means that you can pretend you're talking to the telephone and not to the person on the other end of the line. Clearly this is not true, and in communicating with me via a computer from Toronto, Canada, you give every indication that you believe you are talking to me (a person) and not to your computer. And this has nothing to do with the technology of the keyboard you're using. If it was an old fashioned typewriter you could write me a letter. Yes, that would affect the nature of the communication (for example, by making it slower), but it wouldn't alter the obvious fact that you're talking to a human being.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Steve3007, first of all, do you understand the difference between being under the illusion of communicating with another and really being in communication with an other?

According to you, is it possible to be under the illusion of communicating with another? (For instance, are actors on stage communicating with each other?) You have mentioned that you cannot prove that I am a person. Isn't that a clear indication that you are under the illusion of communicating with me?

Now this quote from you:

"You originally appeared to be claiming that whenever you use the particular medium of a telephone to communicate with another human being, the fact that you are using that particular medium means that you can pretend you're talking to the telephone and not to the person on the other end of the line. Clearly this is not true,"

I didn't really mean to say that but why is this clearly not true anyway, out of curiosity? That which is clearly inaccurate in my opinion is your caricaturing of what I was saying. I do not consider the phone (or I phone) as a means for me or anyone else to communicate with any other human being.

Communication is not an illusion. Only when there is an element of possible existential danger (as you approach another for the purpose of communicating ) that calls for the presence of good maners can you have real communication. If someone can't grab you or slap you, and if someone exist in such a way that you simply can turn him or her off at will and they can disappear that way as you have total control over their existence because they come to you through a screen, then I say that this approach cannot qualify as real communication between me and another. To say that this can stand for communication between me and another is demeaning to others; it expresses an impolite, offensive concept of others in my opinion.

"...and in communicating with me via a computer from Toronto, Canada, you give every indication that you believe you are talking to me (a person) and not to your computer. "

I believe my computer is inadvertantly using my services to pretend being me where ever it wants on cyberspace. I believe that as my computer inadvertently pretends being me, you communicate with it (or hear it?) and not with me. It isn't because it bases its show to you on what I wished it did show you that its message to you is my measage. I disown the messages of machines and if I didn't do that, I think I would come across as suspicious. That's because people who think they are the machine do come across as suspicious to me.

Even as I am being as cristal clear as I possible in expressing my views, I can still see that that for those who are trying to view things my way they will see that it represents such a break from what is commonly accepted that they will promptly realize that accepting my views would require that humans changed their world understanding in such a drastic unprecedented way that I can imagine people unwilling to say they do understand what I am saying. I hope I am not scaring anyone. I think with my views come with the prospect of a much better world.

[Steve3007]

I think with my views come with the prospect of a much better world.

Sounds good. I'll look forward to it. It was nice talking to you.

[Karpel Tunnel]

When we are face to face with someone, the 'contact' is mediated. The words come as sound waves through the air.

Are sound waves human? Can one be rude to sound waves?

Light waves bounce of the other person's face, these travel the air to us, impinge on our retinaes, which in turn create a cascade of chemical transformations. Inside out brains we make up images based on those photons AND also our expectations and guesses and memories.

So, face to face contact is also mediated.

Can one be rude to light?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Despite my reductio above, I do not think it is rude to hang up on a telemarketing company, nor to cut off a conversation abruptly with someone IN PERSON who tries to stop you on the street.

On the other hand, I don't think I get to be rude to my elderly grandfather since if I call him an asshole, I am really only being rude to his hearing aids.

[mr533473]

Even as I am being as cristal clear as I possible in expressing my views, I can still see that that for those who are trying to view things my way they will see that it represents such a break from what is commonly accepted that they will promptly realize that accepting my views would require that humans changed their world understanding in such a drastic unprecedented way that I can imagine people unwilling to say they do understand what I am saying. I hope I am not scaring anyone. I think with my views come with the prospect of a much better world.

That's right, accepting your views "would require that humans changed their world understanding in such a drastic unprecedented way". The problem is that you do not offer sufficient reasoning or evidence to alter anybodys understanding. The little that you do get across is far from "cristal" clear.

C'mon...

"Even as I am being as cristal clear as I possible in expressing my views"...

This sentence might make sense to you, but for anyone else to share this view "would require that humans changed their world understanding in such a drastic unprecedented way" and completely abandon rules of spelling and grammar.

You're off bud, way off.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

@Empiricist-Bruno When you talk to someone on the phone there is a person on the other side of the phone isn't there?

From my perspective, this is a loaded question: you do not talk to someone on the phone but I will talk more about this shortly. As far as the other side of the phone is concerned, well, I just turn my phone around and all I find is the back of the phone. My hand is on the other side of the phone as I hold it. I don't know what is on the other side of your phone, but if it is like mine, you shouldn't expect to find your hand there as well, when you are handling it.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Despite my reductio above, I do not think it is rude to hang up on a telemarketing company, nor to cut off a conversation abruptly with someone IN PERSON who tries to stop you on the street.

On the other hand, I don't think I get to be rude to my elderly grandfather since if I call him an asshole, I am really only being rude to his hearing aids.

When you cut off a conversation abruptly with someone, you may not think it is rude, but is it good manners? The other could be offended and decide you are an asshole and hit you. That is why good manners, trying not to be rude is important. I mean there are other reasons but this sure is one of them. When you hang up on another, what can happen to you? He or she is going to call back? Now, that does not give me existential fears. I am not that afraid of machines yet.

In my opening statement, I talked about the phone but expended the conversation to include all kinds of other topics as well and I am happy to see that you came up with a different type of machine and used it to try and mitigate my point. You are thinking and that is exactly what I am trying to trigger. My reply here is that when a machine is used to mitigate an infirmity or a disability in a person, that machine that mitigate the infirmity is not what people would consider as a means to communicate. It is a means to overcome an infirmity. In that sense, it is there to replace or assist a falling organ. The type of machines that I want to discuss are those machines that aren't viewed in that way because when a machine has been built to assist a person that is pitiable due to its infirmity, you don't pick on that as it is bad manners.

Having said this, if your grandfather is an asshole, and he knows he is an asshole, then calling him an asshole will not be perceived as rude by him.

I don't think you can be rude to a machine. When people pick up "your" rudeness through a phone or other device, it is because they see the sounds emitted by the machines as "your" sounds and this is offensive in itself. But if you agree that the machines stands for you as it is being rude to others, then you too are being offensive in the sense that you think you are that machine or you agree to be represented by a machine. I think this is to be avoided. And this is why I am readily willing to disown what I appear to write here. I sure won't fight for a copyright here and I hope you understand why.

You see, I am writing here not as if I were here to talk to you another person somewhere else on Earth. I am just writing here as an author creating a narrative with characters that have, in my opinion, lost much of their humanity through evil interaction with machines. I am pleasantly surprised to see that my ideas appear as worth commenting here by many characters. I won't stop if I can. It really took me ages to reached the point where I feel I can do this.

Thank you all for your replies and for helping to make of this thread a hot one. It needs to continue.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

To all people who think you can be rude over the phone, can you please first specify if you also think that an elevator can be rude to you in closing its door unexpectedly on you, and if that isn't rudeness, why not?
I think rude is not something machine or automated system can be, even if they imitate those who can be rude.

If someone on the elevator pushes the "close" button to make you miss the elevator, or get squished by the doors, that is an example of rude, human behavior. Similar to rudeness perpetrated by someone on the phone.

I appreciate that your views here are consistent. What if I see a child near an automatic door and I realize that if I approach the door, it will automatically swing open and hit the child. I decide to approach and the child gets hit by the door. Is this being rude too? Does my rudeness depends upon my intent as to what I wish to see happening or does it depend on what I actually do? Since I don't control the door as the door is automatic, who is being rude? Given that I wanted to walk by the door and didn't bother to stop to prevent a foreseeable incident, that doesn't mean I meant to be rude as I simply could have been thoughtless as I approached.

And what about the guy who made the automatic doors? If he makes them so that they are extra speedy, ensuring that people get often hit by the doors, is the builder rude for that?

If you think that automatic doors express your rudeness only in some circumstances where you are responsible for their actions and then you don't blame anyone when the circumstances don't give you a culprit, then aren't you just looking for an apparent reason to blame others when in fact the machines deserve the blame?