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: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 24th, 2019, 1:07 pm

Thomyum2 wrote:
September 18th, 2019, 2:36 am
I see two concurrent lines of thought here. The first can maybe be clarified by noting the distinction between a behavior that is a crime, i.e. is against the law, and a behavior that causes harm. While there is some overlap, since the law does target behaviors that cause harm, this isn't exclusively the case. Certainly there are behaviors that are illegal even without anyone being harmed, because they are perceived as a risk (e.g. driving drunk is a crime even if no accident was caused), or because they frighten people (e.g. threatening to kill someone), or because they are morally offensive (e.g. public nudity). Since any behavior could potentially be the target of a law prohibiting it, there's really no reason to think that the fact that a behavior involved a 'virtual' medium, or employed a particular technology, would for that reason alone necessarily be exempt and outside the scope of legal regulation and more than a behavior in any other public forum or space would be.

The second line of thought is the question of whether or not the truth or accuracy of information promulgated in the virtual world should be the responsibility of the individual who put it there or the responsibility of those who used that information to act. That's a more complex and interesting question, I think, and as the virtual world is relatively new on the scene, I believe the world is still very much wrestling with this. But I think it's really an old question at the heart - that of balancing freedom with responsibility. When any freedoms aren't used in a responsible way and with care and concern for the potential harm that those acts may result in, sooner or later those freedoms may be lost as they become targets of new laws.

The virtual world is just another public space. Some people use it to try to communicate reliable information, others to play pranks. The players on both sides need to consider the impact their virtual activities have on each other, or risk losing it altogether.
I do not agree with your assertion or the angle you give to the point I am trying to make. Say you play with online Mario and that puppet gives another character a yank on the head, should we pursue you in court for assault through a proxy? Then you suggest that online forum are just as real as any other public space. I think this is a very silly thing to think and yet, this is certainly not uncommon. To me, the online forum are imaginary, not real, and I think this is a worldly fact that the world hasn't come to grasp yet.

Despite denying me my main point, you still agree with some of the core questions brought on by my viewpoint and I very much appreciate this. However, given your denial of my main point, you view the information put in the virtual world as real, whereas I view this "information" as virtual (imaginary.) As a matter of fact, I think this information shouldn't not be called information but simply propaganda because the source of this information is a dissemination machine. Whether one should accept as information what comes out of a dissemination machine is the question here. I think we can't go any further with this discussion however so long as you think what I am writing here is real. Yes, it is real as you sit in the virtual world listening to me but no, it isn't real if you are a real world person watching this on window of the virtual world.

The issue nowadays is that people can't tell the difference between the two because some exploitative people benefit quite a bit from this approach, but ultimately, I am convinced that this is a mental health issue as when some subject can't tell the difference anymore with what he/she imagines and what is real. The gaslighting needs to stop.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 26th, 2019, 7:06 pm

chewybrian wrote:
September 21st, 2019, 5:20 am
Is the internet 'real"?

Yes. There is no material difference between this and other means of communicating. People rob banks by passing notes to the teller. The results are just as real. A kidnapper could communicate by letter, or by email, and the consequences would be the same. There is mail fraud, wire fraud, and fraud committed on the internet, and they all amount to real world fraud.

The police have a duty to look at evidence coming by all means, and in today's world, some crimes will only leave a footprint on the internet. But they are still real crimes. Reports of crimes sent by computer are no less real, either.

Are the police evil?

No. They are people, some good, some bad. As long as the laws they enforce are just, then there is no reason to fear or resent the police. Thankfully, we have rights which prevent them from searching us or our homes without cause, and I don't think we should voluntarily concede those rights. But, there is no reason to be against police in general. They perform a difficult and necessary job.

Should my neighbor take the place of the police?

Of course not.
Can you even imagine the liability of asking the neighbor to go into my home to investigate a report of a prowler? Why did I not go into my neighbor's courtyard to investigate what I heard? Because I was not armed, and I did not want to bear the liability of taking the law into my own hands. I might have faced a trespassing charge, or been injured or killed if there was a burglar. I had nothing to lose by calling the police, and it seemed like the right thing in that circumstance. I would have wanted my neighbor to call the police if the roles were reversed, but I also would not want them to go into my courtyard on their own.

You seem to be a bit off the rails on all counts.
I agree. Ultimately, if someone has been defrauded in the real world, it doesn't matter how, even if the victim made it easy.

Are you suggesting that some evidence can be virtual? The internet is evidence of something that is on it in your opinion?

Worldly reports of crimes cannot be sent by computers. Computers disseminate imaginary stuff. Using imaginary stuff for something as serious as crime reports is not being done as far as I know. But I guess it all depends on the meaning you give to the word reporting.

Is the sun evil?

I wouldn't definitely answer either way.

You know who the p
olice are? Are you the police?

You need to be armed to check out noise of unknown origin at night? You should check yourself out for paranoia or perhaps you must live in a war zone. You think your neighboor would want you charged with trespassing? Is he/she an asshole? If he/she is, what do you care if he gets robbed? You didn't want to bear the liability of taking the law in your own hands? But at that point, you didn't even know what was going on...

By calling the police about something suspicious to you, you can make a situation worse too but obviously, you do not seem to realize this as you are apparently with them. Because you like the police, you presume everyone like them, fair enough but is it realistic?

Ending by suggesting that I am a bit off on all count is not a fair conclusion in my opinion.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 816
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by chewybrian » September 27th, 2019, 3:51 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 26th, 2019, 7:06 pm
Ending by suggesting that I am a bit off on all count is not a fair conclusion in my opinion.
Is it fair to say that the internet is not real? Do most folks agree with you that nothing that happens there has real world impacts?

Is it fair to say that all police are simply out to get you? Is it not more fair to say there are police of all stripes, as I did?

Is it wise to think we should empower neighbors to go into our homes instead of the police? Don't you think most people can see the liability problems with this idea?

I think you are dead wrong on all 3 counts. But, I don't think you are wrong as I would if, say, we had opposite positions on something like abortion, where there are valid reasons to be on either side. I think you are off in the woods on these issues, and would have very few people on your side on any of them. Maybe I am wrong, and I would be interested to see others who agree with you, and maybe they could support their position in a way that would make me re-think these things.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 816
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by chewybrian » September 27th, 2019, 5:31 am

^On further consideration I should say that you have a bit more standing on one of these 3 issues than the other two. This is the issue of trusting or distrusting the police. You definitely would have more folks on your 'side' on that one.

I think there are 2 sides to that one. I don't think it is wise to volunteer information carelessly to the police, or to give up your protections against search and seizure, etc. There definitely are bad people who are policemen, and they abuse their power at times. But, there are also good ones, and they perform a needed service and sometimes save lives and protect property. It is a mixed bag, and that's all I ever said. You put words in my mouth, though, when you said that I "like" the police, or think that everyone does.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 27th, 2019, 2:12 pm

LuckyR wrote:
September 22nd, 2019, 2:18 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 2:10 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oh ... e-n1054331
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 find it fascinating that nowhere in your analysis did you mention that a dude was killed. Someone died. How can you use the smokescreen of "prank" like ringing a doorbell and running away.

The victim is unclear to you? Uummm... how about the dead guy?

So if the dead person was your kid, you'd write this identical post? I'd be saying (as I am actually saying right now) that 20 years is too lenient.
LuckyR, I think you may have read my post too quickly as your claim that I do not mention that a dude was killed is false. What is fascinating is that I mention this in the very quote that you re-post.

A prank like ringing a doorbell and running away requires that you walk toward a worldly door with intent to do a prank. In this case, all we are talking about is interaction with non-lethal technology, a window on the cyber world.

If the victim is the dead guy then it would be fair to hold to account the person who shot him dead. No?

It does seem like the police department is playing the victim's card, as if someone succeeded in forcing them to do something that does not look good on them through some sort of evil manipulation. If that's the case then the dead guy died in an accident because it wasn't their fault if he died; they were duped. They are the ones you need to feel sorry for because they were the ones who were really under attack here. The dead guy then becomes just an unintended consequence of the swindle that they fell for.

If it were my kid that lay dead in this scenario, I would think the same thing for sure. I would let every one who wants to know what I think that I don't see the guy who called the cops as the problem here but then again, I may worry for my own safety: If they had killed my son, then they may be after me next. So I might keep quiet and be happy when someone else voice my point of view on this matter. The risks are surely not as high for me as I doubt any reporter will start reproducing my views on their propaganda pages.

The greater the sentence that goes to the prankster, the more innocent the police appears to be in this case. A full sentence for murder given to this online prankster really can be interpreted as a full exoneration for the actions of the police. But the blame really belongs to the procedure, the police procedure, the approach that is used to deal with this situation and this misguided approach is due to considering as real what isn't real. Cops are acting like crazy and I am suggesting that this craziness should stop, that it needs to stop. By standing with the strong sentence for the online prankster, you are ensuring that more jokes like that and bigger ones will occur in my opinion.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4344
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » September 29th, 2019, 4:00 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 27th, 2019, 2:12 pm
LuckyR wrote:
September 22nd, 2019, 2:18 am


I find it fascinating that nowhere in your analysis did you mention that a dude was killed. Someone died. How can you use the smokescreen of "prank" like ringing a doorbell and running away.

The victim is unclear to you? Uummm... how about the dead guy?

So if the dead person was your kid, you'd write this identical post? I'd be saying (as I am actually saying right now) that 20 years is too lenient.
LuckyR, I think you may have read my post too quickly as your claim that I do not mention that a dude was killed is false. What is fascinating is that I mention this in the very quote that you re-post.

A prank like ringing a doorbell and running away requires that you walk toward a worldly door with intent to do a prank. In this case, all we are talking about is interaction with non-lethal technology, a window on the cyber world.

If the victim is the dead guy then it would be fair to hold to account the person who shot him dead. No?

It does seem like the police department is playing the victim's card, as if someone succeeded in forcing them to do something that does not look good on them through some sort of evil manipulation. If that's the case then the dead guy died in an accident because it wasn't their fault if he died; they were duped. They are the ones you need to feel sorry for because they were the ones who were really under attack here. The dead guy then becomes just an unintended consequence of the swindle that they fell for.

If it were my kid that lay dead in this scenario, I would think the same thing for sure. I would let every one who wants to know what I think that I don't see the guy who called the cops as the problem here but then again, I may worry for my own safety: If they had killed my son, then they may be after me next. So I might keep quiet and be happy when someone else voice my point of view on this matter. The risks are surely not as high for me as I doubt any reporter will start reproducing my views on their propaganda pages.

The greater the sentence that goes to the prankster, the more innocent the police appears to be in this case. A full sentence for murder given to this online prankster really can be interpreted as a full exoneration for the actions of the police. But the blame really belongs to the procedure, the police procedure, the approach that is used to deal with this situation and this misguided approach is due to considering as real what isn't real. Cops are acting like crazy and I am suggesting that this craziness should stop, that it needs to stop. By standing with the strong sentence for the online prankster, you are ensuring that more jokes like that and bigger ones will occur in my opinion.
Well, I did skim over your post and obviously I did miss that you mentioned that there was a fatality, though the jist of my comment, ie that the killing was de-emphasized, stands.

Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions.

As to the relative responsibility of the cowardly prankster (cowardly because he committed murder by proxy) and the police, which of the two wanted something negative to happen to the victim when they rolled out of bed in the morning? Which had the power to make the entire fiasco never to have happened? Pretty much the prankster. After all, what makes it a prank in the first place? Making the victim have to interact with a potentially deadly force, right?

Your argument about the accidental nature of the death is plausible, and if a jury bought it might change the prankster's conviction from murder to criminally negligent homicide. Though even the simplest and least savvy prosecutor would try to make the counter argument that the prankster knew, or should have known that it might have ended just as it did, thereby invalidating the "accident" argument.

The very reasonable critique of police procedure is valid, it just doesn't bear on this case unless the police are being prosecuted, since the prankster's actions took place under the current police procedures.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm

chewybrian wrote:
September 27th, 2019, 3:51 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 26th, 2019, 7:06 pm
Ending by suggesting that I am a bit off on all count is not a fair conclusion in my opinion.
Is it fair to say that the internet is not real? Do most folks agree with you that nothing that happens there has real world impacts?

Is it fair to say that all police are simply out to get you? Is it not more fair to say there are police of all stripes, as I did?

Is it wise to think we should empower neighbors to go into our homes instead of the police? Don't you think most people can see the liability problems with this idea?

I think you are dead wrong on all 3 counts. But, I don't think you are wrong as I would if, say, we had opposite positions on something like abortion, where there are valid reasons to be on either side. I think you are off in the woods on these issues, and would have very few people on your side on any of them. Maybe I am wrong, and I would be interested to see others who agree with you, and maybe they could support their position in a way that would make me re-think these things.
I think it is not fair to say that the internet is not real: the monitors, screens and transistors that makes it up are all worldly things that exist for real. It is what is on the internet that isn't real world stuff and which is imaginary. What happens in a person's imagination can have real world impacts depending on how the person reacts to this imagination. So, the impact of what happens on the cyber world is entirely dependent on what you make of it. Your imagination cannot tell you what to do or what to think about what you imagine: it can only allow you to think and see. Imagination on its own has no impact on the real world and yes, I would agree that most reasonable folks would agree with that.

No, it isn't fair to say that all police are simply out to get you, especially if you are not on their wanted list. Police has informed me that police matters do not concern me and so I do not judge them, like I wouldn't judge a volcano with any moral credentials but I certainly would be willing to judge it with a scientific, skeptical approach. You seem to suggest there are two types of cops. There is not much evidence of that: when you go to the police station, you never see any "Good" Police station or "Bad" Police station so I don't give much weight to your concept. As a matter of fact, I think you are caving in to the bad cop good cop approach that police regularly use to get what they want from suspects, but this is digressing a bit.

I think there are ways by which we could empower neighboors to go into our homes in a way that would be acceptable to most. If, for some reason, you don't want anyone to come to your home under any circumstances, you should be allowed to post this in a conspicuous place so that when Emergency Personnel come to your house thinking you might need rescue without any worldly evidence of it, they would know not to ask your neighboors. Although they could still ask them if they heard anything suspicious like a gun shot and if they did, then they might have enough worldly evidence to go in on their own to investigate. As far as liability issues with the police being ok with a neighboor entering your home and even inciting him/her to do so, well, I think that could be handled under the good Samaritan laws that many countries have. And if you don't want any neighboor to ever come to your place under any circumstances, you could still post up your wishes on on your front door and these wishes should be respected. And so you may have to pay the price for putting up such a sigh but then you would have only yourself to blame for the rescue people not being able to reach you, right? One thing I do not think that cops should be viewed as is "good Samaritans."

I do not believe discussions can be settled by a matter of how many people are supporting the arguments on each side. When Albert Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, 100s of people came out against him. A book was written against his theory...

As far as being wrong on all 3 counts, I can't really comment because I can't even see what these counts are, sorry. But if anything requires further clarification, don't hesitate to let me know.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 29th, 2019, 4:29 pm

LuckyR wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 4:00 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 27th, 2019, 2:12 pm


LuckyR, I think you may have read my post too quickly as your claim that I do not mention that a dude was killed is false. What is fascinating is that I mention this in the very quote that you re-post.

A prank like ringing a doorbell and running away requires that you walk toward a worldly door with intent to do a prank. In this case, all we are talking about is interaction with non-lethal technology, a window on the cyber world.

If the victim is the dead guy then it would be fair to hold to account the person who shot him dead. No?

It does seem like the police department is playing the victim's card, as if someone succeeded in forcing them to do something that does not look good on them through some sort of evil manipulation. If that's the case then the dead guy died in an accident because it wasn't their fault if he died; they were duped. They are the ones you need to feel sorry for because they were the ones who were really under attack here. The dead guy then becomes just an unintended consequence of the swindle that they fell for.

If it were my kid that lay dead in this scenario, I would think the same thing for sure. I would let every one who wants to know what I think that I don't see the guy who called the cops as the problem here but then again, I may worry for my own safety: If they had killed my son, then they may be after me next. So I might keep quiet and be happy when someone else voice my point of view on this matter. The risks are surely not as high for me as I doubt any reporter will start reproducing my views on their propaganda pages.

The greater the sentence that goes to the prankster, the more innocent the police appears to be in this case. A full sentence for murder given to this online prankster really can be interpreted as a full exoneration for the actions of the police. But the blame really belongs to the procedure, the police procedure, the approach that is used to deal with this situation and this misguided approach is due to considering as real what isn't real. Cops are acting like crazy and I am suggesting that this craziness should stop, that it needs to stop. By standing with the strong sentence for the online prankster, you are ensuring that more jokes like that and bigger ones will occur in my opinion.
Well, I did skim over your post and obviously I did miss that you mentioned that there was a fatality, though the jist of my comment, ie that the killing was de-emphasized, stands.

Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions.

As to the relative responsibility of the cowardly prankster (cowardly because he committed murder by proxy and the police, which of the two wanted something negative to happen to the victim when they rolled out of bed in the morning? Which had the power to make the entire fiasco never to have happened? Pretty much the prankster. After all, what makes it a prank in the first place? Making the victim have to interact with a potentially deadly force, right?

Your argument about the accidental nature of the death is plausible, and if a jury bought it might change the prankster's conviction from murder to criminally negligent homicide. Though even the simplest and least savvy prosecutor would try to make the counter argument that the prankster knew, or should have known that it might have ended just as it did, thereby invalidating the "accident" argument.

The very reasonable critique of police procedure is valid, it just doesn't bear on this case unless the police are being prosecuted, since the prankster's actions took place under the current police procedures.
No, I do not make such distinction. I do make a distinction between worldly things and imaginary things. Which things are respectively analogue and digital in your view?

If he committed murder by proxy,
then yes the sentence for murder is about 20 years. So you are stating here that you do not agree with the verdict in this case but unlike myself who thinks the guy does deserve no time, you think he is guilty of something and got away with it without proper punishment?

Great question! If I were the police, I would most likely be some kind of a brute because police hiring practices tend to focus on hiring that character type. So, how do brutes wake up in the morning? What is going on through their often cold and angry minds? Let's speculate: "I'm going to get people to respect me today. No body is going to fool with me. I have a gun and I am going to put it to use for the public's benefit. I am going to find a mentally ill person and use it for target practice... I will see someone with some metal object in hand and will bring safety to the population quite quickly. Boom! Boom!" Well, so that's the morning thoughts occupying the brute angry and lying cop.

Now, let's move on to the prankster, maybe he has a doll of the person he wants to pull a prank on and puts a couple of needles in it. Then, he thinks, the police can do me a favor, they can make me smile by rushing this guy who didn't pay me. Ha! Ha! Cops are safe but scary when they rush you. I have been rushed by cops once and didn't like it, so its is time to get even here, Ha! Ha!

So, after due consideration, I think the negative intentions toward the victim mostly came from the police. As far as who had the power to make this fiasco never happen, I think you will disagree with me here but once again, I lay the blame on the police. Someone got killed by police bullets and if we find that the responsibility for this kind of murder does not to reside with the police, then we are handing them a license to kill people with impunity, and I don't think that's right.

In my opinion, it is somewhat disrespectful to the police to describe them as a potentially deadly force that people can interact with although I am sure some cops might really like that kind of description for themselves.

I did not argue that the killing was an accident. I only wrote that if you agree with the police narrative, then the killing can be viewed as an accident but it is pretty clear I do not agree with that police narrative: the police is not a victim here. Furthermore, as I lay the blame on the police, this would mean that they are responsible for a criminally negligent homicide and not the prankster.

I am glad you seem supportive of my critique of the current police procedures but I fail to see how you can really be supportive of it given you appear to contest the validity of the foundation for the alternative procedure that I suggest:"Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions."
So, how might police procedures improve if you do not agree that the internet offers a window on a cyber, imaginary world? If what you think you see is real there and should be taken for real, you have no basis in my opinion to change the police procedures, which you seem to agree need to be improved. What would you do?
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 816
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by chewybrian » September 29th, 2019, 4:55 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
As far as being wrong on all 3 counts, I can't really comment because I can't even see what these counts are, sorry. But if anything requires further clarification, don't hesitate to let me know.
I listed them but I will try once more.

Count 1
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think it is not fair to say that the internet is not real: the monitors, screens and transistors that makes it up are all worldly things that exist for real. It is what is on the internet that isn't real world stuff and which is imaginary. What happens in a person's imagination can have real world impacts depending on how the person reacts to this imagination. So, the impact of what happens on the cyber world is entirely dependent on what you make of it. Your imagination cannot tell you what to do or what to think about what you imagine: it can only allow you to think and see. Imagination on its own has no impact on the real world and yes, I would agree that most reasonable folks would agree with that.
Are you saying that nothing is 'real' unless it is tangible? Isn't the color green or the fourth amendment 'real'? If someone sent Matt Dillon a telegraph message that the bank was going to be robbed, wouldn't he act on that? (I do know Gunsmoke is not real, btw). Are signals representing the taps on the telegraph machine real? Telephone signals to 911 or radio signals to the patrol car seem no more or less real than this communication to you right here, so I am not sure what you are on about, there. But, I disagree with your contention that we should not act on information received in any of these ways. It seems only slightly less credible than a report in person to an officer, but still credible enough to take seriously.


Count 2
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm

No, it isn't fair to say that all police are simply out to get you, especially if you are not on their wanted list. Police has informed me that police matters do not concern me and so I do not judge them, like I wouldn't judge a volcano with any moral credentials but I certainly would be willing to judge it with a scientific, skeptical approach. You seem to suggest there are two types of cops. There is not much evidence of that: when you go to the police station, you never see any "Good" Police station or "Bad" Police station so I don't give much weight to your concept. As a matter of fact, I think you are caving in to the bad cop good cop approach that police regularly use to get what they want from suspects, but this is digressing a bit.
There are police of all stripes, as there are people of all stripes in every profession. It is a spectrum, not a choice of just good or bad. Are the good or bad people labelled as such at the checkout lane of the supermarket? Aren't there good and bad people there, and in the police station, and everywhere else? Am I wrong to assume there are good and bad people everywhere?

Count 3
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think there are ways by which we could empower neighboors to go into our homes in a way that would be acceptable to most. If, for some reason, you don't want anyone to come to your home under any circumstances, you should be allowed to post this in a conspicuous place so that when Emergency Personnel come to your house thinking you might need rescue without any worldly evidence of it, they would know not to ask your neighboors. Although they could still ask them if they heard anything suspicious like a gun shot and if they did, then they might have enough worldly evidence to go in on their own to investigate. As far as liability issues with the police being ok with a neighboor entering your home and even inciting him/her to do so, well, I think that could be handled under the good Samaritan laws that many countries have. And if you don't want any neighboor to ever come to your place under any circumstances, you could still post up your wishes on on your front door and these wishes should be respected. And so you may have to pay the price for putting up such a sigh but then you would have only yourself to blame for the rescue people not being able to reach you, right? One thing I do not think that cops should be viewed as is "good Samaritans."
Perhaps you are not here in the US. The liability issues make this a non-starter. No way would the city or county ask someone to go into another person's home under any conditions, much less when the police might have cause to go in. This amounts to wishful thinking for us. In some other countries, maybe...?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4344
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » September 29th, 2019, 9:41 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 4:29 pm
LuckyR wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 4:00 am


Well, I did skim over your post and obviously I did miss that you mentioned that there was a fatality, though the jist of my comment, ie that the killing was de-emphasized, stands.

Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions.

As to the relative responsibility of the cowardly prankster (cowardly because he committed murder by proxy and the police, which of the two wanted something negative to happen to the victim when they rolled out of bed in the morning? Which had the power to make the entire fiasco never to have happened? Pretty much the prankster. After all, what makes it a prank in the first place? Making the victim have to interact with a potentially deadly force, right?

Your argument about the accidental nature of the death is plausible, and if a jury bought it might change the prankster's conviction from murder to criminally negligent homicide. Though even the simplest and least savvy prosecutor would try to make the counter argument that the prankster knew, or should have known that it might have ended just as it did, thereby invalidating the "accident" argument.

The very reasonable critique of police procedure is valid, it just doesn't bear on this case unless the police are being prosecuted, since the prankster's actions took place under the current police procedures.
No, I do not make such distinction. I do make a distinction between worldly things and imaginary things. Which things are respectively analogue and digital in your view?

If he committed murder by proxy,
then yes the sentence for murder is about 20 years. So you are stating here that you do not agree with the verdict in this case but unlike myself who thinks the guy does deserve no time, you think he is guilty of something and got away with it without proper punishment?

Great question! If I were the police, I would most likely be some kind of a brute because police hiring practices tend to focus on hiring that character type. So, how do brutes wake up in the morning? What is going on through their often cold and angry minds? Let's speculate: "I'm going to get people to respect me today. No body is going to fool with me. I have a gun and I am going to put it to use for the public's benefit. I am going to find a mentally ill person and use it for target practice... I will see someone with some metal object in hand and will bring safety to the population quite quickly. Boom! Boom!" Well, so that's the morning thoughts occupying the brute angry and lying cop.

Now, let's move on to the prankster, maybe he has a doll of the person he wants to pull a prank on and puts a couple of needles in it. Then, he thinks, the police can do me a favor, they can make me smile by rushing this guy who didn't pay me. Ha! Ha! Cops are safe but scary when they rush you. I have been rushed by cops once and didn't like it, so its is time to get even here, Ha! Ha!

So, after due consideration, I think the negative intentions toward the victim mostly came from the police. As far as who had the power to make this fiasco never happen, I think you will disagree with me here but once again, I lay the blame on the police. Someone got killed by police bullets and if we find that the responsibility for this kind of murder does not to reside with the police, then we are handing them a license to kill people with impunity, and I don't think that's right.

In my opinion, it is somewhat disrespectful to the police to describe them as a potentially deadly force that people can interact with although I am sure some cops might really like that kind of description for themselves.

I did not argue that the killing was an accident. I only wrote that if you agree with the police narrative, then the killing can be viewed as an accident but it is pretty clear I do not agree with that police narrative: the police is not a victim here. Furthermore, as I lay the blame on the police, this would mean that they are responsible for a criminally negligent homicide and not the prankster.

I am glad you seem supportive of my critique of the current police procedures but I fail to see how you can really be supportive of it given you appear to contest the validity of the foundation for the alternative procedure that I suggest:"Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions."
So, how might police procedures improve if you do not agree that the internet offers a window on a cyber, imaginary world? If what you think you see is real there and should be taken for real, you have no basis in my opinion to change the police procedures, which you seem to agree need to be improved. What would you do?
When you put a green highlight on my post, you purposefully stopped before the words "to the victim", since it renders your wordy response moot.

As to your smokescreen about police license to kill, no one (least of all me) is proposing that the killing is blameless, it is the fault of the prankster, no need to invoke kill licenses.

Yes, one interpretation if you believe that the police are not responsible is your accident theory, but as it turns out neither you nor I believe that and thus it is more nothing.

I legitimately believe police procedure is in serious need for overhaul based on numerous egregious episodes in the popular media. This just happens not to be a very good example of it (at least partially because as bad as the police MAY have acted, there was a worse and MORE responsible party, the prankster.)
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » September 30th, 2019, 3:27 pm

chewybrian wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 4:55 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
As far as being wrong on all 3 counts, I can't really comment because I can't even see what these counts are, sorry. But if anything requires further clarification, don't hesitate to let me know.
I listed them but I will try once more.

Count 1
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think it is not fair to say that the internet is not real: the monitors, screens and transistors that makes it up are all worldly things that exist for real. It is what is on the internet that isn't real world stuff and which is imaginary. What happens in a person's imagination can have real world impacts depending on how the person reacts to this imagination. So, the impact of what happens on the cyber world is entirely dependent on what you make of it. Your imagination cannot tell you what to do or what to think about what you imagine: it can only allow you to think and see. Imagination on its own has no impact on the real world and yes, I would agree that most reasonable folks would agree with that.
Are you saying that nothing is 'real' unless it is tangible? Isn't the color green or the fourth amendment 'real'? If someone sent Matt Dillon a telegraph message that the bank was going to be robbed, wouldn't he act on that? (I do know Gunsmoke is not real, btw). Are signals representing the taps on the telegraph machine real? Telephone signals to 911 or radio signals to the patrol car seem no more or less real than this communication to you right here, so I am not sure what you are on about, there. But, I disagree with your contention that we should not act on information received in any of these ways. It seems only slightly less credible than a report in person to an officer, but still credible enough to take seriously.



Count 2
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm

No, it isn't fair to say that all police are simply out to get you, especially if you are not on their wanted list. Police has informed me that police matters do not concern me and so I do not judge them, like I wouldn't judge a volcano with any moral credentials but I certainly would be willing to judge it with a scientific, skeptical approach. You seem to suggest there are two types of cops. There is not much evidence of that: when you go to the police station, you never see any "Good" Police station or "Bad" Police station so I don't give much weight to your concept. As a matter of fact, I think you are caving in to the bad cop good cop approach that police regularly use to get what they want from suspects, but this is digressing a bit.
There are police of all stripes, as there are people of all stripes in every profession. It is a spectrum, not a choice of just good or bad. Are the good or bad people labelled as such at the checkout lane of the supermarket? Aren't there good and bad people there, and in the police station, and everywhere else? Am I wrong to assume there are good and bad people everywhere?

Count 3
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think there are ways by which we could empower neighboors to go into our homes in a way that would be acceptable to most. If, for some reason, you don't want anyone to come to your home under any circumstances, you should be allowed to post this in a conspicuous place so that when Emergency Personnel come to your house thinking you might need rescue without any worldly evidence of it, they would know not to ask your neighboors. Although they could still ask them if they heard anything suspicious like a gun shot and if they did, then they might have enough worldly evidence to go in on their own to investigate. As far as liability issues with the police being ok with a neighboor entering your home and even inciting him/her to do so, well, I think that could be handled under the good Samaritan laws that many countries have. And if you don't want any neighboor to ever come to your place under any circumstances, you could still post up your wishes on on your front door and these wishes should be respected. And so you may have to pay the price for putting up such a sigh but then you would have only yourself to blame for the rescue people not being able to reach you, right? One thing I do not think that cops should be viewed as is "good Samaritans."
Perhaps you are not here in the US. The liability issues make this a non-starter. No way would the city or county ask someone to go into another person's home under any conditions, much less when the police might have cause to go in. This amounts to wishful thinking for us. In some other countries, maybe...?
Count 1
See, you suggest I am wrong on all 3 counts but here you start by requesting a clarification on what I mean. So, you judge before you have a clear understanding of the matter at hand. I am not overly impressed by this. I do like your interest in trying to figure exactly what I mean and so I will play along with your questions: What is tangible in other imaginary world may not be tangible to us. It is a question of relativity. If you read about Santa and there he jumps into a chimney to enter a house, the chimney will be very tangible to him. Yet, none of that is real. What is real is what is of the world we live in and not of fiction, or imagination. Colors are a properties of things of the world (presumably) and so they are real. The fourth amendment of the Constitution is part of the world and not fiction so yes, it is real. The data that a telegraph machine produce are real but the reading of this data or the story that you come up from reading that data is not real. If, what you receive from that telegraph machine is a copy of the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US, then that copy is still not the real constitution of the US. It is just a copy of it. You can destroy it without destroying the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US because it is not the real thing; it is something that is being imagined by the telegraph machine and which transmit the propaganda of the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US. Propaganda is definitely imaginary even if it is contained on real paper. This communication to me here is real to the extend that I have an imaginary handle, Empiricist-Bruno, that stands for me in the cyber world. To the extent that I accept this world as real, yes, the communication appears real but to me, the guy watching a screen at a computer monitor, all of this is imagination. Is that really hard to figure? But Empirist-Bruno never goes into real people's home whereas I do. When Empiricist-Bruno slaps someone, I haven't done anything. Now, we have a legal system that has just found someone really guilty for what his phone character did and the real guy is going to jail. That should concern everyone. We are real and what we do in the real world matters. What we simply imagine with the help of imagination machines should never ever land us in jail.

As far as your disagreement that we shouldn't act on information coming from the window on the cyber world, let me just say this: I have not said that we shouldn't react, I have said that we should react differently in some circumstances which is substantially different from what you claim that I claim. You have complained earlier that I put words into your mouth but you seem to do the same thing here and I do not appreciate. When I put words into your mouth, it was to simply complete your sentence because it seemed to me that it was the way you were going. Your complaint regarding me putting words in your mouth did not clarify whether I was or not right on about this by the way.

It seems interesting to me that you compare real world evidence with pieces of imaginary evidence and say that one is only slightly less credible than the other. The fact is one is not evidence of anything worldly and the other is evidence of something of the world. You can understand that. What you receive from imagination machines is imagination and not information; if you want to treat as information the imagination of machines, you should assume the responsibility if things go wrong with your assumption and someone dies in the process. If that killer cop gets a long jail sentence, we would all end us safer as a result.

Count 2
You say that police is a profession? You obviously know much more about the police than I do. You know them. I don't know them really. I do know them just a bit, apparently, as I generally feel the need to keep my distance from where ever they are, and so I will stay mum on the subject here. Here again, I don't see that much where something I have said on the topic is wrong. Maybe it's because our views of the police differ?

Count 3
So, in your country, my suggested approach would not be possible. Ok, let me think: So, the Emergency Personel knocks on the door, and there is no answer. They imagine a FBI guy is bleeding to death in the house with a gun shot but there is no worldly evidence for it. So, how do you get this evidence, legally? You get a helicopter overhead with a radar that has infra red or heat seeking capabilities to check on the cooling body? You try to find out contacts, finding out who is the owner of the house, who could let you in legally? If no one comes in or out of the house in a certain amount of time, say 12 hours, police may go in to investigate if neighboors say that isn't normal? But the person would likely have died by that time.

I guess the situation is the same as when police kind of strongly suspect that there is criminal activity somewhere but there isn't enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant. The result is that the criminal activity continues but our rights to privacy continue to be protected. Occasionally, a person may die like that as a result of these protections. If that is what's needed to prevent cops from going around and killing people based on "information", that may still be the right way to go.

Here again, I am definitely not found as being dead wrong with this position. You just disagree with it as if there were pros and cons like with the abortion issue.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » October 1st, 2019, 12:00 pm

LuckyR wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 9:41 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 4:29 pm


No, I do not make such distinction. I do make a distinction between worldly things and imaginary things. Which things are respectively analogue and digital in your view?

If he committed murder by proxy,
then yes the sentence for murder is about 20 years. So you are stating here that you do not agree with the verdict in this case but unlike myself who thinks the guy does deserve no time, you think he is guilty of something and got away with it without proper punishment?

Great question! If I were the police, I would most likely be some kind of a brute because police hiring practices tend to focus on hiring that character type. So, how do brutes wake up in the morning? What is going on through their often cold and angry minds? Let's speculate: "I'm going to get people to respect me today. No body is going to fool with me. I have a gun and I am going to put it to use for the public's benefit. I am going to find a mentally ill person and use it for target practice... I will see someone with some metal object in hand and will bring safety to the population quite quickly. Boom! Boom!" Well, so that's the morning thoughts occupying the brute angry and lying cop.

Now, let's move on to the prankster, maybe he has a doll of the person he wants to pull a prank on and puts a couple of needles in it. Then, he thinks, the police can do me a favor, they can make me smile by rushing this guy who didn't pay me. Ha! Ha! Cops are safe but scary when they rush you. I have been rushed by cops once and didn't like it, so its is time to get even here, Ha! Ha!

So, after due consideration, I think the negative intentions toward the victim mostly came from the police. As far as who had the power to make this fiasco never happen, I think you will disagree with me here but once again, I lay the blame on the police. Someone got killed by police bullets and if we find that the responsibility for this kind of murder does not to reside with the police, then we are handing them a license to kill people with impunity, and I don't think that's right.

In my opinion, it is somewhat disrespectful to the police to describe them as a potentially deadly force that people can interact with although I am sure some cops might really like that kind of description for themselves.

I did not argue that the killing was an accident. I only wrote that if you agree with the police narrative, then the killing can be viewed as an accident but it is pretty clear I do not agree with that police narrative: the police is not a victim here. Furthermore, as I lay the blame on the police, this would mean that they are responsible for a criminally negligent homicide and not the prankster.

I am glad you seem supportive of my critique of the current police procedures but I fail to see how you can really be supportive of it given you appear to contest the validity of the foundation for the alternative procedure that I suggest:"Your red statement is the flimsiest of attempts to try to draw a non-existent distinction between analog and digital interactions."
So, how might police procedures improve if you do not agree that the internet offers a window on a cyber, imaginary world? If what you think you see is real there and should be taken for real, you have no basis in my opinion to change the police procedures, which you seem to agree need to be improved. What would you do?
When you put a green highlight on my post, you purposefully stopped before the words "to the victim", since it renders your wordy response moot.

As to your smokescreen about police license to kill, no one (least of all me) is proposing that the killing is blameless, it is the fault of the prankster, no need to invoke kill licenses.

Yes, one interpretation if you believe that the police are not responsible is your accident theory, but as it turns out neither you nor I believe that and thus it is more nothing.

I legitimately believe police procedure is in serious need for overhaul based on numerous egregious episodes in the popular media. This just happens not to be a very good example of it (at least partially because as bad as the police MAY have acted, there was a worse and MORE responsible party, the prankster.)
I stopped there because no one did target that victim specifically other than the police: The actual victim was not the person that anyone wanted dead except perhaps the police. That is, of course, if I understand the case correctly.

I really don't see how you can blame the prankster. If someone tells you to kill another and you do it, it is all the other's fault if it made sense at the time that you killed the person you killed because it didn't appear like a murder to you? Have you heard about that prank where they invited people to take part in an experiment for a small remuneration and then got them to kill (well no one died but it looked like they would have killed had this not been a prank) another person in the experiment? If someone tells you to do something, you can do it and it isn't your fault? Surely, of all people, you can't support this kind of non-sense, right? I would appreciate if you could clarify your position.

Do you realize what you are saying here, that the police is responsible for this? So, if the police is responsible, why do you blame the prankster? Because he allowed them to become responsible for this with his phone call? Is that it? You blame what you believe is an enabler?

So, under some circumstances shooting virtual jokes can be worse than firing deadly bullets at people. You have an amazing sense of humour by my standards, if I understand your joke correctly.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4344
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » October 1st, 2019, 8:31 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 1st, 2019, 12:00 pm
LuckyR wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 9:41 pm


When you put a green highlight on my post, you purposefully stopped before the words "to the victim", since it renders your wordy response moot.

As to your smokescreen about police license to kill, no one (least of all me) is proposing that the killing is blameless, it is the fault of the prankster, no need to invoke kill licenses.

Yes, one interpretation if you believe that the police are not responsible is your accident theory, but as it turns out neither you nor I believe that and thus it is more nothing.

I legitimately believe police procedure is in serious need for overhaul based on numerous egregious episodes in the popular media. This just happens not to be a very good example of it (at least partially because as bad as the police MAY have acted, there was a worse and MORE responsible party, the prankster.)
I stopped there because no one did target that victim specifically other than the police: The actual victim was not the person that anyone wanted dead except perhaps the police. That is, of course, if I understand the case correctly.

I really don't see how you can blame the prankster. If someone tells you to kill another and you do it, it is all the other's fault if it made sense at the time that you killed the person you killed because it didn't appear like a murder to you? Have you heard about that prank where they invited people to take part in an experiment for a small remuneration and then got them to kill (well no one died but it looked like they would have killed had this not been a prank) another person in the experiment? If someone tells you to do something, you can do it and it isn't your fault? Surely, of all people, you can't support this kind of non-sense, right? I would appreciate if you could clarify your position.

Do you realize what you are saying here, that the police is responsible for this? So, if the police is responsible, why do you blame the prankster? Because he allowed them to become responsible for this with his phone call? Is that it? You blame what you believe is an enabler?

So, under some circumstances shooting virtual jokes can be worse than firing deadly bullets at people. You have an amazing sense of humour by my standards, if I understand your joke correctly.
Well I suppose I can continue to nail your jello to the wall, or perhaps in the interest of actual human communication it might be better to approach this issue from a different tack.

Let's start from the original story as reported. Obviously you disagree with how "society" looked at this situation, how it ejudicated it and how it worked out for all involved.

Do you not understand the thought processes of those involved? Is there anything wrong with pranking as a concept? Are you familiar with tricking a third party to do your dirty work for you? Is that acceptable behavior? What factors (many use intent) do you feel are useful for assigning responsibility?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 431
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » October 2nd, 2019, 1:04 pm

LuckyR wrote:
October 1st, 2019, 8:31 pm
...or perhaps in the interest of actual human communication it might be better to approach this issue from a different tack.

Let's start from the original story as reported. Obviously you disagree with how "society" looked at this situation, how it ejudicated it and how it worked out for all involved.

Do you not understand the thought processes of those involved? Is there anything wrong with pranking as a concept? Are you familiar with tricking a third party to do your dirty work for you? Is that acceptable behavior? What factors (many use intent) do you feel are useful for assigning responsibility?
Right on. I'll go down that path anywhere with you with pleasure. I feel complimented that you show interest in the source of what it is that I take issue with here.

If there is something wrong with pranking, it will probably have to do with the fact that it is associated with juvenile behavior. But now a days, the grown up behavior is often worse. And sentencing someone for 20 years for a prank looks to me like definitely a bad grown up behavior.
I don't do dirty work in the sense you are suggesting but yes, I have been the subject of a criminal police investigation because someone reached out to them and tried to use them to get me out of his way. What is acceptable behavior to me is what you can tolerate. Through their investigation, the police promptly figured out what was going on and stopped letting that guy use them to harass me. I could still go to the police station today and complain about his attempt to use the police with false accusation on me but no, I don't want to go that route. I do not hate anyone if I don't have to. I am ready to go through something like that again if need be. It is life. I think that trying to get even is a sign of weakness as if you need to hit back because it hurts. But it does not hurt so there is no point in seeking "justice." Being able to laugh at my cowardly aggressor is very heart warming and if he were hurt back, it wouldn't be as fun by my standards.

Finally, your most interesting question from my perspective, about the most critical factor you need to use to assign responsibility is that you need to be held responsible for something that is of the world and not of the imagination.

You are not always responsible for your own thoughts (imagination) but you need to be responsible for what you do with them.

The second part of responsibility would be that you have to power the deeds for which you are being held responsible through energy that you get from your own heart beat that pushes your blood and oxygen to your real cells. So, if you pedal your bike and there is a dynamo on it lighting up your bike light, you are not responsible for the light: the dynamo is the source of its electric energy and is the one responsible for harnessing the electricity of the light ; it is at the heart of the creation of this electric energy. The energy of your pedaling was just used by it. In this scenario, you were just a resource when you pedal and the light appears: you bear no responsibility for it. You can turn the circuit on and off on your dynamo and this you are responsible for because the break or turn on of the connection is achieved by you with your muscles connected to your heart. If you start pedaling a bike that you know is tied to a dynamo that has the connection on, then you know that the light will come on if you pedal the bike but you are still not responsible for that light. You are only responsible for knowing what the dynamo is bound to do by the laws of physics if you start pedaling. And if you know, you are responsible for what you do with this knowledge but it isn't because you know how to create certain situations for which you are not responsible that you are not responsible for having created them. The responsibility for creating situations that you aren't responsible for is something that "society" is still very much grappling with, and this is sort of my attempt to suggest some directions as to how to deal with these awkward situations.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4344
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » October 2nd, 2019, 3:05 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 1:04 pm
LuckyR wrote:
October 1st, 2019, 8:31 pm
...or perhaps in the interest of actual human communication it might be better to approach this issue from a different tack.

Let's start from the original story as reported. Obviously you disagree with how "society" looked at this situation, how it ejudicated it and how it worked out for all involved.

Do you not understand the thought processes of those involved? Is there anything wrong with pranking as a concept? Are you familiar with tricking a third party to do your dirty work for you? Is that acceptable behavior? What factors (many use intent) do you feel are useful for assigning responsibility?
Right on. I'll go down that path anywhere with you with pleasure. I feel complimented that you show interest in the source of what it is that I take issue with here.

If there is something wrong with pranking, it will probably have to do with the fact that it is associated with juvenile behavior. But now a days, the grown up behavior is often worse. And sentencing someone for 20 years for a prank looks to me like definitely a bad grown up behavior.
I don't do dirty work in the sense you are suggesting but yes, I have been the subject of a criminal police investigation because someone reached out to them and tried to use them to get me out of his way. What is acceptable behavior to me is what you can tolerate. Through their investigation, the police promptly figured out what was going on and stopped letting that guy use them to harass me. I could still go to the police station today and complain about his attempt to use the police with false accusation on me but no, I don't want to go that route. I do not hate anyone if I don't have to. I am ready to go through something like that again if need be. It is life. I think that trying to get even is a sign of weakness as if you need to hit back because it hurts. But it does not hurt so there is no point in seeking "justice." Being able to laugh at my cowardly aggressor is very heart warming and if he were hurt back, it wouldn't be as fun by my standards.

Finally, your most interesting question from my perspective, about the most critical factor you need to use to assign responsibility is that you need to be held responsible for something that is of the world and not of the imagination.

You are not always responsible for your own thoughts (imagination) but you need to be responsible for what you do with them.

The second part of responsibility would be that you have to power the deeds for which you are being held responsible through energy that you get from your own heart beat that pushes your blood and oxygen to your real cells. So, if you pedal your bike and there is a dynamo on it lighting up your bike light, you are not responsible for the light: the dynamo is the source of its electric energy and is the one responsible for harnessing the electricity of the light ; it is at the heart of the creation of this electric energy. The energy of your pedaling was just used by it. In this scenario, you were just a resource when you pedal and the light appears: you bear no responsibility for it. You can turn the circuit on and off on your dynamo and this you are responsible for because the break or turn on of the connection is achieved by you with your muscles connected to your heart. If you start pedaling a bike that you know is tied to a dynamo that has the connection on, then you know that the light will come on if you pedal the bike but you are still not responsible for that light. You are only responsible for knowing what the dynamo is bound to do by the laws of physics if you start pedaling. And if you know, you are responsible for what you do with this knowledge but it isn't because you know how to create certain situations for which you are not responsible that you are not responsible for having created them. The responsibility for creating situations that you aren't responsible for is something that "society" is still very much grappling with, and this is sort of my attempt to suggest some directions as to how to deal with these awkward situations.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. If I understand you correctly, you limit responsibility to a single step. I point gun at victim and pull trigger, I am responsible for death. However, if there is a Black Box of "other stuff" in between me and the outcome (the dynamo between your legs and the light, in your example, or the police in the OP) then the original person (prankster) escapes responsibility, which falls on the contents of the Black Box (say, the police).

If true, in your world all any enterprising criminal needs to do to ply their trade with impunity is create such a Black Box. Hate your ex-wife? No problem, SWAT them and maybe you'll get lucky and she'll answer the door carrying her cell phone, which might look like a weapon to a cop and she'll get killed for you. Cool. Darn police should have perfect vision, damn them, how irresponsible.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply