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 » October 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

LuckyR wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 3:05 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 1:04 pm


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.
LuckyR, from reading your comments, I think we're still quite far apart as far as understanding each other on this subject of responsibility. Your concept of Black Box is imaginary and is clearly not what I was trying to convey here.

Second, you are starting to ask me interesting questions that touches on my unique understanding of machines, instruments and technology. My understanding isn't that complicated and if you bear with me a few seconds, you should get it easily.

When you say that if you point a gun at victim and pull the trigger, you are responsible for death, we are not in agreement.

I generally fake agreeing with this point because it is possible to view a gun like a knife for instance and if you were to use a knife in this scenario, I would agree that you are responsible. So, the issue is to be clear about why and how a knife and a gun differ and whether guns kill people or only people kill other people as the gun is presumed to be nothing more than another type of instrument.

Well, to make it short, the difference between a gun and a knife, when it comes to damage responsibility, is that the energy in use with the blow from the bullet of the gun is not coming from the heart of the gun person that pulls the trigger; it comes from the gun's powder case that ignites. My conclusion is that here the gun kills and not the person that pulls the trigger. The person who pulls the trigger is a gun enabler.

In the case of the use of the knife to kill another, the blow of the blade is entirely supported by the arm of the person that stabs and that arm can do what it does because the person who stabs has a heart to power the arm and so the responsibility for the stabbing is the person that stabs and not with the knife. It's not a black box concept; it is just a matter of following or tracing back the energy behind the dirty deed to its source to establish the responsibility for the deed. Don't you appreciate the logic of this? I am not pulling rabbits--or black boxes-- out of a hat here.

So, at this point, if you follow my line of thought, you will realize that I don't really hold the police responsible for the gun death in this case but had the police used a knife (or even a police club) , I would have considered them responsible. But with society's appreciation of guns and knives as being nothing more than means to an end and so comparable, I generally go in discussions with the view that everyone --as far as I know-- mistakenly presume to be correct although I categorically deny that it makes any sense to myself. (Thanks for your scrutiny here giving me a chance to elaborate.)

It is just for the purpose of being understood and making a sensible point that I make the superficial claim the police is responsible for this death. The police could have been responsible had they used a knife and my point would have been valid there had that means been used to kill the innocent person.

If you hate your wife, tell her to cross the streets where she risks being run over or give her free tickets to a baseball game where she risks being hit by a foul ball or even better give her tickets to a car racing event. In life, you will always be in a position to force or make people take risks. If you create lots of green house gases you put everyone at risk. Should you be immediately arrested by police then? If calls to police that can be completely mistaken --as happened once at my house-- and then end up in death, then calling the police should be made illegal if I am following your logic and the caller is responsible for what the police do. We are going down the lane of utter non-sense! :)
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3022
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 3rd, 2019, 10:59 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am
Well, to make it short, the difference between a gun and a knife, when it comes to damage responsibility, is that the energy in use with the blow from the bullet of the gun is not coming from the heart of the gun person that pulls the trigger; it comes from the gun's powder case that ignites. My conclusion is that here the gun kills and not the person that pulls the trigger. The person who pulls the trigger is a gun enabler.
This is without doubt the most absurd thing I have heard all week - and I listened to Boris Johnson's address to the UN, which had me in stitches.

We are going down the lane of utter non-sense! :)
Now I think you are getting it right.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4398
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » October 3rd, 2019, 5:53 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am
LuckyR wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 3:05 pm


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.
LuckyR, from reading your comments, I think we're still quite far apart as far as understanding each other on this subject of responsibility. Your concept of Black Box is imaginary and is clearly not what I was trying to convey here.

Second, you are starting to ask me interesting questions that touches on my unique understanding of machines, instruments and technology. My understanding isn't that complicated and if you bear with me a few seconds, you should get it easily.

When you say that if you point a gun at victim and pull the trigger, you are responsible for death, we are not in agreement.

I generally fake agreeing with this point because it is possible to view a gun like a knife for instance and if you were to use a knife in this scenario, I would agree that you are responsible. So, the issue is to be clear about why and how a knife and a gun differ and whether guns kill people or only people kill other people as the gun is presumed to be nothing more than another type of instrument.

Well, to make it short, the difference between a gun and a knife, when it comes to damage responsibility, is that the energy in use with the blow from the bullet of the gun is not coming from the heart of the gun person that pulls the trigger; it comes from the gun's powder case that ignites. My conclusion is that here the gun kills and not the person that pulls the trigger. The person who pulls the trigger is a gun enabler.

In the case of the use of the knife to kill another, the blow of the blade is entirely supported by the arm of the person that stabs and that arm can do what it does because the person who stabs has a heart to power the arm and so the responsibility for the stabbing is the person that stabs and not with the knife. It's not a black box concept; it is just a matter of following or tracing back the energy behind the dirty deed to its source to establish the responsibility for the deed. Don't you appreciate the logic of this? I am not pulling rabbits--or black boxes-- out of a hat here.

So, at this point, if you follow my line of thought, you will realize that I don't really hold the police responsible for the gun death in this case but had the police used a knife (or even a police club) , I would have considered them responsible. But with society's appreciation of guns and knives as being nothing more than means to an end and so comparable, I generally go in discussions with the view that everyone --as far as I know-- mistakenly presume to be correct although I categorically deny that it makes any sense to myself. (Thanks for your scrutiny here giving me a chance to elaborate.)

It is just for the purpose of being understood and making a sensible point that I make the superficial claim the police is responsible for this death. The police could have been responsible had they used a knife and my point would have been valid there had that means been used to kill the innocent person.

If you hate your wife, tell her to cross the streets where she risks being run over or give her free tickets to a baseball game where she risks being hit by a foul ball or even better give her tickets to a car racing event. In life, you will always be in a position to force or make people take risks. If you create lots of green house gases you put everyone at risk. Should you be immediately arrested by police then? If calls to police that can be completely mistaken --as happened once at my house-- and then end up in death, then calling the police should be made illegal if I am following your logic and the caller is responsible for what the police do. We are going down the lane of utter non-sense! :)
I actually used the gun argument on purpose because I remembered your commentary on another thread over a year ago. Sorry to hear you are not being true to your belief system out of expediency.

As to my Black Box label, it is just that, a label or descriptive shorthand for anything between a potential responsible person and the outcome they may or may not be responsible for. In that sense it represents very real entities and is not imaginary.

I understand your thought process between guns and knives, obviously no legal system does and almost no other citizens make that logical/functional distinction. One way to potentially bridge the gap between you and essentially everyone else would be to use another word than "responsible" to describe the difference between gun and knife use, as the easiest example.

Lastly, your closing example is very interesting. Namely, how much additional risk crosses the legal line into recklessness, legally and/or socially? If I don't vaccinate my kid (clearly legal, though not advisable) and they die of influenza, I am not likely to be brought up on child abuse charges. If I go boating with them without life vests (illegal), and they drown, I am unlikely to be charged (especially if I am part of the majority group). If I have loaded weapons lying around the apartment, and something bad happens, I am going to deal with the legal system, one way or another.
"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 11th, 2019, 11:05 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:59 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am
Well, to make it short, the difference between a gun and a knife, when it comes to damage responsibility, is that the energy in use with the blow from the bullet of the gun is not coming from the heart of the gun person that pulls the trigger; it comes from the gun's powder case that ignites. My conclusion is that here the gun kills and not the person that pulls the trigger. The person who pulls the trigger is a gun enabler.
This is without doubt the most absurd thing I have heard all week - and I listened to Boris Johnson's address to the UN, which had me in stitches.

We are going down the lane of utter non-sense! :)
Now I think you are getting it right.
There are two definitions for the word absurd: 1) "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." or 2) "arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous."

My quote up there certainly isn't absurd according to definition #1. So, I will presume that you feel definition #2 applies here.

I am very concerned that my views on this topic are being perceived by many as absurd. It shouldn't be that way. But I will admit my views are controversial; they may be dismissed for now but I am confident that the future will prove me right and long after I have past away, people will be talking about my views, just like people often search for and find the first ones that claimed that the Earth must be round, for instance. What appears absurd at first ends can end up being the norm years later.

The idea that guns kill does create a variety of reactions in different people. Some people do not think they kill because their faith belief is that people kill people and not guns. But when you tell them that volcanoes kill people and you ask them if it means that volcanoes are people or if their idea that people kill people only is absurd you hit a wall of silence from them.

I have been holding close to me the point of view that you consider absurd. Yet, I reached that conclusion through long and careful philosophical questioning of the emerging technology with which we share our world. Still, just like anyone else who is new to an idea, it didn't make seem to make sense from a number of perspective and my ability to sell this concept remained limited but with time, as I apply my understanding to ever more situation such as this one, where a technological prankster has to go to jail for a murder he didn't commit, my views condemning this stand out as being right and so I am certainly willing to take this opportunity to promote my views. What is absurd is to give a life sentence to someone for interacting with a phone and although I feel certain that you miss out on this absurdity, you are quick to point out my views as absurd without even bothering to explain why.

The fact to the matter is that the way people relate to technology is absurd and what is not absurd begins to appear absurd because it does not fit in within the accepted absurdity of our times.

Thanks for your post anyway, as the more replies there are to my views --even if these responses aren't supportive-- the happier I get because when dogs are barking at something, it draws attention and that's definitely welcome.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3022
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 11th, 2019, 3:03 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 11:05 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:59 am


This is without doubt the most absurd thing I have heard all week - and I listened to Boris Johnson's address to the UN, which had me in stitches.


Now I think you are getting it right.
There are two definitions for the word absurd: 1) "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." or 2) "arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous."
Your statement is both, especially the latter.
But obviously it's not your fault because you only typed that sh1t into the computer, you are not responsible for it, it's the computer's fault.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » October 11th, 2019, 8:47 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: The idea that guns kill does create a variety of reactions in different people. Some people do not think they kill because their faith belief is that people kill people and not guns. But when you tell them that volcanoes kill people and you ask them if it means that volcanoes are people or if their idea that people kill people only is absurd you hit a wall of silence from them.
Oh for sure, volcanoes are used to commit homicide much too often, perhaps even as often as guns. We really need to lock up more volcano toting murderers. And the crime scenes! - always such a damn mess, lava and ashes everywhere!
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

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 15th, 2019, 11:41 am

LuckyR wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 5:53 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am


LuckyR, from reading your comments, I think we're still quite far apart as far as understanding each other on this subject of responsibility. Your concept of Black Box is imaginary and is clearly not what I was trying to convey here.

Second, you are starting to ask me interesting questions that touches on my unique understanding of machines, instruments and technology. My understanding isn't that complicated and if you bear with me a few seconds, you should get it easily.

When you say that if you point a gun at victim and pull the trigger, you are responsible for death, we are not in agreement.

I generally fake agreeing with this point because it is possible to view a gun like a knife for instance and if you were to use a knife in this scenario, I would agree that you are responsible. So, the issue is to be clear about why and how a knife and a gun differ and whether guns kill people or only people kill other people as the gun is presumed to be nothing more than another type of instrument.

Well, to make it short, the difference between a gun and a knife, when it comes to damage responsibility, is that the energy in use with the blow from the bullet of the gun is not coming from the heart of the gun person that pulls the trigger; it comes from the gun's powder case that ignites. My conclusion is that here the gun kills and not the person that pulls the trigger. The person who pulls the trigger is a gun enabler.

In the case of the use of the knife to kill another, the blow of the blade is entirely supported by the arm of the person that stabs and that arm can do what it does because the person who stabs has a heart to power the arm and so the responsibility for the stabbing is the person that stabs and not with the knife. It's not a black box concept; it is just a matter of following or tracing back the energy behind the dirty deed to its source to establish the responsibility for the deed. Don't you appreciate the logic of this? I am not pulling rabbits--or black boxes-- out of a hat here.

So, at this point, if you follow my line of thought, you will realize that I don't really hold the police responsible for the gun death in this case but had the police used a knife (or even a police club) , I would have considered them responsible. But with society's appreciation of guns and knives as being nothing more than means to an end and so comparable, I generally go in discussions with the view that everyone --as far as I know-- mistakenly presume to be correct although I categorically deny that it makes any sense to myself. (Thanks for your scrutiny here giving me a chance to elaborate.)

It is just for the purpose of being understood and making a sensible point that I make the superficial claim the police is responsible for this death. The police could have been responsible had they used a knife and my point would have been valid there had that means been used to kill the innocent person.

If you hate your wife, tell her to cross the streets where she risks being run over or give her free tickets to a baseball game where she risks being hit by a foul ball or even better give her tickets to a car racing event. In life, you will always be in a position to force or make people take risks. If you create lots of green house gases you put everyone at risk. Should you be immediately arrested by police then? If calls to police that can be completely mistaken --as happened once at my house-- and then end up in death, then calling the police should be made illegal if I am following your logic and the caller is responsible for what the police do. We are going down the lane of utter non-sense! :)
I actually used the gun argument on purpose because I remembered your commentary on another thread over a year ago. Sorry to hear you are not being true to your belief system out of expediency.

As to my Black Box label, it is just that, a label or descriptive shorthand for anything between a potential responsible person and the outcome they may or may not be responsible for. In that sense it represents very real entities and is not imaginary.

I understand your thought process between guns and knives, obviously no legal system does and almost no other citizens make that logical/functional distinction. One way to potentially bridge the gap between you and essentially everyone else would be to use another word than "responsible" to describe the difference between gun and knife use, as the easiest example.

Lastly, your closing example is very interesting. Namely, how much additional risk crosses the legal line into recklessness, legally and/or socially? If I don't vaccinate my kid (clearly legal, though not advisable) and they die of influenza, I am not likely to be brought up on child abuse charges. If I go boating with them without life vests (illegal), and they drown, I am unlikely to be charged (especially if I am part of the majority group). If I have loaded weapons lying around the apartment, and something bad happens, I am going to deal with the legal system, one way or another.
Well, if you can remember my comment on another thread over a year ago, you have a good memory.

I am always true to my belief system, I just don't impose it all the time on others as I wouldn't be going anywhere that way. Say, I am Einstein and I understand gravity according to my new theory, and everyone else is with Newton, I can still talk Newton theory and pretend I agree with it when I don't fully agree and still be true to my theory. It is just there on the shelf waiting to be shown off, as if I didn't know about it. Theories are just tools to me and being true to a tool is a lame concept.

I see. I guess you are right then. If that helps you understand my views then go ahead and keep using that term but I have no plan to use this term to explain my theory right now as I don't find it particularly helpful.

Yes, you do-- a little. Do you have any suggestion for me? I found that when you try and create new words for abstract concepts, you kind of lose your audience. Recycling words or giving new particular meanings to current words is another strategy. But it's like creating a new science, and sciences have their own language but I feel I am still at the point where I need to just show outrage at the stupid results of the current thought process. My indignation is starting -- a little-- to get people's attention. I feel as if I am on the cusp of breaking through with getting my views recognized more widely. That could be explosive.

The ideas that I am putting forward are ideas that have the potential to change the world in a meaningful way and as people challenge my views, I must dangle in front of everyone the prospect of a changed world, and this is captivating. But then there are the skeptics. I think am at the stage where they feel the need to try and contradict me and that's awesome. It's like when Louis Pasteur came up with his idea that life must come from life and all kinds of people tried to prove he wasn't right.

With the years of experience working at trying to introduce the new concepts that I formulate, I now think the best approach is to say that the gun is responsible for what it does and the knife person is responsible for what it does. When you handle a gun, there are two things for which the gun person can be responsible: freeing the aim of the gun: the barrel of the gun aims at new things when it is handled, and therefore "thinks of" targetting new things. The thinking of the gun is thus the responsibility of one of it's enabler. The gun is not a thinking killer, just like Mikey Mouse isn't a thinking character but writers can make him say things. It's the same with guns. But giving a free aim to a barrel won't kill anyone, so there is no responsibility for a kill in "aiming a gun." Typically, people think that the act of pulling the trigger means you are then responsible for what the gun does but this is not logical. Pulling the trigger may help the gun do what it is willing to do but the enabler is still not the one who does the action. The gun does the action and so the gun is responsible. This is self evident and yet, the whole world has learned to view things differently, and that's creating some trouble everywhere really, and I'll be highlighting this whenever I can. Hopefully, this can lead to some much needed major changes in our world.

I like to target specific cases of insane judgment that you find in the news. I feel that this approach is more likely to get some real reactions to my views.

I very much appreciate your last point as it seems to show that I am getting somewhere in making you doubt the validity of some points that you made against my bread. Have you heard this one in the news lately?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fort-worth ... 019-10-14/

You don't even need to call 911 anymore to use the police to kill someone!! Still, shouldn't we lock up the person that called the non-emergency line here?

Or how about this one: Did a woman abused her son by taking him to the hospital?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do ... s-n1063506

Or what about a guy who fails to make a stop. Is he really responsible for all these death and deserve 8 years in jail? People fail to make stops all the time. It is human nature to miss things some times. But now you get 8 years in jail for that? This is scapegoating, a human sacrifice to appease people who want a human to be responsible for something when it isn't a human that is responsible. This is a double tragedy but it keeps alive false notions that humans do what their machines do.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoo ... -1.4969739

Finally, the question of recklessness that you bring up is also interesting. Are you responsible when you are being reckless? Are police officers reckless when --after being told by a cyber window that there is a hostage situation in a home-- they go and approach a home with their guns draws even if there is no worldly evidence of a crime? Well, if their training says it's ok, it must be okay. But what if they are being trained in recklessness? Are they innocent because they are stupid? Should recklessness be considered criminal? Yes, that is a very interesting and important topic to cover, I believe.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4398
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » October 16th, 2019, 1:45 am

I assess workplace blame professionally, this is supposed to be based on the actions done, not the outcome caused. However, outcomes are critical in the legal arena. Should they be?
"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 16th, 2019, 12:20 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:03 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 11:05 am


There are two definitions for the word absurd: 1) "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." or 2) "arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous."
Your statement is both, especially the latter.
But obviously it's not your fault because you only typed that sh1t into the computer, you are not responsible for it, it's the computer's fault.
Scultor1, your approach here in your response may be invalid because of your apparent ignorance of some key facts.

1) The first fact is that no, I haven't typed what you seem to think that I have typed into the computer. I am completely innocent of that. So regardless of whatever you believe about what you allege that I have typed in the computer, your suggested logical angle that I have typed it and then found the computer responsible --as if I were using it as a scapegoat-- is a straw man argument.

The correct approach is that whatever typing --if it occurred-- never came from me and yet you still seem unconvinced that I am not responsible for it. You seem to suggest that "only in my own head" --because of apparently absurd beliefs-- can I consider myself not responsible for it. I mean, if I agreed that I had typed anything in the computer, then you would have a point but you are loading your statement with a point of view that I actually strongly reject.

Your mind seems to be so much settled in the old ways that it appears it cannot grasp the new concept that I am introducing here. Maybe if you understood how I can believe the fact that I am not typing as I appear to type, you would stop laughing at what I am saying.

2) The action of typing is not unlike the action of driving a car. You don't drive a car (driving means to propel :to push. It is the engine that does that) but everyone calls the person behind the wheel of the car the driver. That is absurd. But you don't laugh because everyone seems to agree that is the way things are. Typing is the same. You can only type when you use a manual typewriter because it is your fingers' energy that will put the ink on the paper (this is consistent with my analogy of the use of knife versus the gun). So, if you followed what I am trying to say, you wouldn't stand here saying that I have typed anything in the computer. You would understand my thought process but that thought process appears beyond you. It is a normal reaction to laugh at and find absurd what you do not understand or are unfamiliar with. Actually, suggesting to me that I type things into the computer suggests to me that I think I am the computer since it is the computer that types things onto itself. Maybe there is some substance to this?

3) Your only remaining argument that you can make against my viewpoint is to ask, "Well, if you aren't typing in the computer, how can I be having a conversation with you? Who am I communicating with here?" If you want me to go into that, just make my day and ask. The answer to that question is both fearsome and highly interesting. And I would suspect that there must be a conspiracy to ensure that people don't try to think about these questions. To that end, you have all that propaganda talk out there suggesting that we "drive" cars, "type" in computers, etc. when all of that is clearly false.

4) I am Empiricist-Bruno, a handle in philosophy forum. I have been given special moderating privileges by another handle, Scott. We form part of the cyber world. When I am linked to an IP address I can put forth what appears to be stories to others from/ for the real world.

We are not for real or are we? Some people think we are. It's like puppets in a show: If you look at them for too long, you will believe that puppets are real. Yes, if you go to a live show, they will be real, but they are not meant to be taken as real. It is just art. But I can see that some people are taking what isn't real for reality in some troubling situation and that's my beef, expressed in a non-real cyber window. But am I free to express this? Do I have freedom of speech as the people from the real world do have? That's another very valid question as I may be more like a robot in here. It also may be a side issue. The real issue may be that the real world is suffering from people who take the cyber window for the real world and I would prefer if we focused on that.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3022
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 16th, 2019, 4:48 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 16th, 2019, 12:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:03 pm

Your statement is both, especially the latter.
But obviously it's not your fault because you only typed that sh1t into the computer, you are not responsible for it, it's the computer's fault.
Scultor1, your approach here in your response may be invalid because of your apparent ignorance of some key facts.

1) The first fact is that no, I haven't typed what you seem to think that I have typed into the computer. I am completely innocent of that. So regardless of whatever you believe about what you allege that I have typed in the computer, your suggested logical angle that I have typed it and then found the computer responsible --as if I were using it as a scapegoat-- is a straw man argument.

The correct approach is that whatever typing --if it occurred-- never came from me and yet you still seem unconvinced that I am not responsible for it. You seem to suggest that "only in my own head" --because of apparently absurd beliefs-- can I consider myself not responsible for it. I mean, if I agreed that I had typed anything in the computer, then you would have a point but you are loading your statement with a point of view that I actually strongly reject.

Your mind seems to be so much settled in the old ways that it appears it cannot grasp the new concept that I am introducing here. Maybe if you understood how I can believe the fact that I am not typing as I appear to type, you would stop laughing at what I am saying.

2) The action of typing is not unlike the action of driving a car. You don't drive a car (driving means to propel :to push. It is the engine that does that) but everyone calls the person behind the wheel of the car the driver. That is absurd. But you don't laugh because everyone seems to agree that is the way things are. Typing is the same. You can only type when you use a manual typewriter because it is your fingers' energy that will put the ink on the paper (this is consistent with my analogy of the use of knife versus the gun). So, if you followed what I am trying to say, you wouldn't stand here saying that I have typed anything in the computer. You would understand my thought process but that thought process appears beyond you. It is a normal reaction to laugh at and find absurd what you do not understand or are unfamiliar with. Actually, suggesting to me that I type things into the computer suggests to me that I think I am the computer since it is the computer that types things onto itself. Maybe there is some substance to this?

3) Your only remaining argument that you can make against my viewpoint is to ask, "Well, if you aren't typing in the computer, how can I be having a conversation with you? Who am I communicating with here?" If you want me to go into that, just make my day and ask. The answer to that question is both fearsome and highly interesting. And I would suspect that there must be a conspiracy to ensure that people don't try to think about these questions. To that end, you have all that propaganda talk out there suggesting that we "drive" cars, "type" in computers, etc. when all of that is clearly false.

4) I am Empiricist-Bruno, a handle in philosophy forum. I have been given special moderating privileges by another handle, Scott. We form part of the cyber world. When I am linked to an IP address I can put forth what appears to be stories to others from/ for the real world.

We are not for real or are we? Some people think we are. It's like puppets in a show: If you look at them for too long, you will believe that puppets are real. Yes, if you go to a live show, they will be real, but they are not meant to be taken as real. It is just art. But I can see that some people are taking what isn't real for reality in some troubling situation and that's my beef, expressed in a non-real cyber window. But am I free to express this? Do I have freedom of speech as the people from the real world do have? That's another very valid question as I may be more like a robot in here. It also may be a side issue. The real issue may be that the real world is suffering from people who take the cyber window for the real world and I would prefer if we focused on that.
Frogs end up in soup. Their leaps are quite minor affairs.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4398
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by LuckyR » October 16th, 2019, 7:14 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 15th, 2019, 11:41 am
Yes, you do-- a little. Do you have any suggestion for me? I found that when you try and create new words for abstract concepts, you kind of lose your audience. Recycling words or giving new particular meanings to current words is another strategy. But it's like creating a new science, and sciences have their own language but I feel I am still at the point where I need to just show outrage at the stupid results of the current thought process. My indignation is starting -- a little-- to get people's attention. I feel as if I am on the cusp of breaking through with getting my views recognized more widely. That could be explosive.

The ideas that I am putting forward are ideas that have the potential to change the world in a meaningful way and as people challenge my views, I must dangle in front of everyone the prospect of a changed world, and this is captivating. But then there are the skeptics. I think am at the stage where they feel the need to try and contradict me and that's awesome. It's like when Louis Pasteur came up with his idea that life must come from life and all kinds of people tried to prove he wasn't right.
Yes, I do. Stop using the knife vs gun analogy. No one else is there (yet). Use the knife vs semi-autonomous guard robot analogy. If I activate a robot that has some AI programmed into it, it may or may not decide on it's own to kill the victim depending on various factors (the programming, the input from the victim, confounding factors etc). Thus there is a serious chance that the robot will not harm the victim, ie there is not an inevitability to it (like there is with a gun).
"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 17th, 2019, 1:03 pm

Felix wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 8:47 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: The idea that guns kill does create a variety of reactions in different people. Some people do not think they kill because their faith belief is that people kill people and not guns. But when you tell them that volcanoes kill people and you ask them if it means that volcanoes are people or if their idea that people kill people only is absurd you hit a wall of silence from them.
Oh for sure, volcanoes are used to commit homicide much too often, perhaps even as often as guns. We really need to lock up more volcano toting murderers. And the crime scenes! - always such a damn mess, lava and ashes everywhere!
Felix, it took me a few minutes to assess your post before I saw something that I had initially missed: When people say, "people kill people, not guns" they are referring to the act of committing a homicide.

So, you are making a subtle point: I may not have understood the initial concerns of people who say "people kill people, not guns". What you seem to suggest here is that the people who are saying this, are in fact pointing to the fact that you can't convict a gun of having killed anyone.

So, if you can't be convicted of doing something, it must be evidence that you haven't done that something.

Well, what I have to say to this is that one of the reason why you shouldn't be convicted of having done something is when you didn't do it but you should understand that there may be other reasons why you shouldn't be convicted of having done something even if you did it. For instance, you may not be accountable under the law of a people. So, I do agree that guns do not commit homicides as they kill people because they are not subjects of the law. The same goes for volcanoes.

Your comments also draw attention to how people think. When people die of gun violence, the deplore the criminal acts and not the deaths involved. People need to follow the law. Not following the law is the terrible thing here, not the fact that a person has lost her/his life. That's because law makers are first and foremost concerned about their legal control over others. If you don't follow the law and as a result people die, then the law becomes much more important and so the lawmakers become equally so much more important as your life depends upon them!

So, when objects that escape legal accountability start killing people, these deaths are not a legal concern because they do not threaten the ruling class --only criminality may erodes their power. So, the angle of trying to prevent gun deaths is a meaningless angle; it is like trying to stop of volcano from erupting. No one can do that. So, my suggestion that the guns kill is basically just stating a fact that does nothing for them. What does do something for them is that you follow the law and remain fearful of doing otherwise!! They are centred upon their power. They try to harness the power of rivers to themselves through electricity thinking it makes them more powerful when in fact it only assists the invasion and dominance of machines. Yet, they think it is the way to grow as a human. So, their philosophy is about dominance. In such a political climate, trying to view guns as killer objects requiring proper management seems like a side road to nowhere to them. And people in general tend to view things the way the lawmakers view them. Your comment helped me put things in perspective, thanks Felix.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Felix » October 17th, 2019, 3:49 pm

Empiricist-Bruno: So, if you can't be convicted of doing something, it must be evidence that you haven't done that something.
Thinking rationally is obviously a tremendous challenge for you.... to any rational person, the idea of "convicting" an inanimate object of a crime is utter lunacy.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

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 18th, 2019, 12:59 pm

LuckyR wrote:
October 16th, 2019, 7:14 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
October 15th, 2019, 11:41 am
Yes, you do-- a little. Do you have any suggestion for me? I found that when you try and create new words for abstract concepts, you kind of lose your audience. Recycling words or giving new particular meanings to current words is another strategy. But it's like creating a new science, and sciences have their own language but I feel I am still at the point where I need to just show outrage at the stupid results of the current thought process. My indignation is starting -- a little-- to get people's attention. I feel as if I am on the cusp of breaking through with getting my views recognized more widely. That could be explosive.

The ideas that I am putting forward are ideas that have the potential to change the world in a meaningful way and as people challenge my views, I must dangle in front of everyone the prospect of a changed world, and this is captivating. But then there are the skeptics. I think am at the stage where they feel the need to try and contradict me and that's awesome. It's like when Louis Pasteur came up with his idea that life must come from life and all kinds of people tried to prove he wasn't right.
Yes, I do. Stop using the knife vs gun analogy. No one else is there (yet). Use the knife vs semi-autonomous guard robot analogy. If I activate a robot that has some AI programmed into it, it may or may not decide on it's own to kill the victim depending on various factors (the programming, the input from the victim, confounding factors etc). Thus there is a serious chance that the robot will not harm the victim, ie there is not an inevitability to it (like there is with a gun).
That's very interesting. Thanks for the suggestion...

Your reply makes me want to touch on the issue of AI, which I believe stands for Artificial Intelligence. I think the concept of AI is just as corrupt as the concept of "driving" a car or "typing" things into the computer. So, whatever argument I'd make to try and promote my ideas using this concept would perhaps not sound too sincere.

Another corrupt thing that I read in your post is the notion that "it [the robot] may or may not decide on its own to kill..." I feel pretty sure that "it" here never decides anything. Machines don't make decisions because if they did, they could be mistaken and machines never make mistakes. Machines' decisions about things are like the decision of a flow of melting water from a mountain "deciding" on a route to the bottom of the hill.

Also, guns don't always works. Sometimes, you press the trigger of a loaded gun and it simply jams. From my perspective, that's as much a decision not to fire as the decision from the semi-autonomous guard robot. In both these cases, no conscious decision on the part of the object is involved as it delivers its results.

All of this is at the core of my philosophy. I have a feeling you can have a cognitive grasp of my ideas but I'm not so sure about the other bloggers on this thread.

Now, that my ideas are up here in the cyber window, it is time for me to try and raise them up in the real world!! I'll let you guys know if I make any progress there.
Support the Vegan Revolution

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1043
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Are online Pranks real?

Post by Papus79 » November 3rd, 2019, 10:42 pm

I think if anything this story's just a miracle of absurdities, ie. man dead after a puff of flatulence aggravated a butterfly which caused a stampede etc., not sure what else to write on the headstone.

What's obvious - anyone making calls for potentially lethal force to be applied by law enforcement somewhere as a means to settle embarrassment over who cracked a better headshot on Call of Duty, there should probably be jail time for that sort of thing regardless of whether anyone gets hurt. That this got out to a wrong address and some completely detached third party paid with their life simply for living at the residence that the other user formerly lived at might also point out that there's clearly a hole in protocol here - ie. that people call the police and 'lie about things' (brand new human problem - hooda thunk!), I'd have to ask some of the law enforcement guys I know about how many filters they have between getting a call that someone's an armed assailant and feeling like they have enough evidence to see if it's a valid lead to go in - my guess is this department has needed an internal review BADLY for some time and yes, if this kid is going to jail it stands to reason someone over there should be dealing with equivalent consequences.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.

Post Reply