The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Hanging up the phone on others is...

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
boywonderlord
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: January 11th, 2019, 6:07 pm

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by boywonderlord » January 12th, 2019, 12:32 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 5th, 2019, 5:32 pm
Hello Forum,

I just hang up the phone after picking up the line. When I picked up, I said, "hello" and given the number of seconds I had to wait before someone said something, I realized that this was due to an automated dialer that calls people all the time so that telephone marketers can focus on just talking to people and not waiting to a ringing sound.

Instead, it is me who does the waiting. I think this is wrong. If you want to speak to me, you got to be there when I pick up the line. So, my policy is to hang up immediately, without any concern, the moment someone starts talking, or even before. Is this rude behavior?

And a more deeper question, is it really possible to be rude to another while talking on the phone?

My basic assumption is that when you speak to a phone, you are not and cannot be speaking to a real person that way. Consequently, you cannot really be rude.

However, even if my rudeness is not real, it is still being perceived by a machine. Should this matter? When people tell you "talk to the hand", does it still matters to be polite, as if our habit of politeness must never be broken, even when our politeness makes no real sense?

This question tears me appart. I see it as evidence that people have not conquered fire yet, as what comes out of that phone is more like fire than it is like some human discussing, or trying to discuss things with you.

If the voice of the phone is not any human's voice, then how can we copyright it? If we can't morally copyright the stuff that the phone produces, how can we organize ourselves otherwise? This issue also connects with the idea of wills: once you die, your will cannot be accomplished because you aren't there anymore. If we understand this, we realize that wills are likely immoral too. I think not enough reasoning goes on in our heads as we are too busy respecting and organizing our stupid culture.

When you get to your red light, no one is giving you your signal, you just act as if you were being given a signal. But if no one really gave you your signal, aren't you "Just following the orders" like a machine, when you respect your signal? Isn't that too morally dubious? I suspect that we should avoid surrounding our selves with a technology that mimics us and we should especially beware of those who benefit from pushing technology this way onto people. We need justice first if we are to progress and not more technological development.
I have re-read the op's post many times now, and have decided it is poetic.

If this post is about the moral ambiguity of running traffic signs while nobody is looking and the effect of mass following technology,thats something entirely different than what I assume you are initially posting about. If it is the herd like and obedient nature of the modern man that you are blaming on technology,I would have to argue that has always been the case, at least since the victory of reverse morality(if you want to argue that noble morality was ever not sheep like in its form). Humans prefer to stay alive, and that generally means staying out of trouble.I would attribute our being Nietzsche's "dogs with no bite" less to the red lights and more to the growing comfort of society as a whole. In any case, I don't think thats what you're arguing, but I don't actually know what you ARE arguing. In regards to rudeness, if you hold the idea that it is something that exists somehow inherently in the universe as some god given gift, then yes, it probably translates over to cellphones. I'm not certain how it wouldn't translate over to cellphones, yet would translate to cellphones while talking to a robot. A madness caused by the fear of a program being able to to see you as rude. Incredible.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 12th, 2019, 1:31 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 2:09 pm
When you cut off a conversation abruptly with someone, you may not think it is rude, but is it good manners? The other could be offended and decide you are an asshole and hit you. That is why good manners, trying not to be rude is important. I mean there are other reasons but this sure is one of them. When you hang up on another, what can happen to you? He or she is going to call back? Now, that does not give me existential fears. I am not that afraid of machines yet.
Here it seems like you are defining rude as 'something that might piss someone off AND they can hurt you for it.' That's a unique way of defining it. But, in any case, in all my years of walking around people asking for money for various charities, signatures for petitions, people selling cellphone subscriptions, etc., in the street without answering them, or abruptly saying I am not interested, no one has hit me. So I can safely do this as far as I can tell.
In my opening statement, I talked about the phone but expended the conversation to include all kinds of other topics as well and I am happy to see that you came up with a different type of machine and used it to try and mitigate my point. You are thinking and that is exactly what I am trying to trigger. My reply here is that when a machine is used to mitigate an infirmity or a disability in a person, that machine that mitigate the infirmity is not what people would consider as a means to communicate. It is a means to overcome an infirmity. In that sense, it is there to replace or assist a falling organ. The type of machines that I want to discuss are those machines that aren't viewed in that way because when a machine has been built to assist a person that is pitiable due to its infirmity, you don't pick on that as it is bad manners.
But sowhy only machines? There is no direct contact. All communication is via media - the air, via photons or sound waves. Why does human made mediation eliminate the possiblitity of rudeness but not natural media? And my grandfather cannot hit me, so I am safe, so what's the difference?
I don't think you can be rude to a machine.
Me neither. Though I do think machines can convey my rudeness. And heck, if I am rude here over the internet, someone with hacking abilities might figure out where I am and get me. Would that then make what I did rude?
When people pick up "your" rudeness through a phone or other device, it is because they see the sounds emitted by the machines as "your" sounds and this is offensive in itself. But if you agree that the machines stands for you as it is being rude to others, then you too are being offensive in the sense that you think you are that machine or you agree to be represented by a machine. I think this is to be avoided. And this is why I am readily willing to disown what I appear to write here. I sure won't fight for a copyright here and I hope you understand why.
I get how that it is making your position potentially consistant, to the degree it deals with your behavior here. I think a stronger point would be for you to say that nothing anyone says to you here could you consider rude.
You see, I am writing here not as if I were here to talk to you another person somewhere else on Earth. I am just writing here as an author creating a narrative with characters that have, in my opinion, lost much of their humanity through evil interaction with machines. I am pleasantly surprised to see that my ideas appear as worth commenting here by many characters. I won't stop if I can. It really took me ages to reached the point where I feel I can do this.
I always like what appears to be ridiculous at first glance. And I have similar reactions to the digital world and humans arel osing their humanity. Give kids a computer or a smartphone and they will, within six weeks do less well on tests of the ability to read other people's emotions. That's a fundamental human skills and we are creating generations of less human people. And given that their parents are also looking into their devices, rather than being present, humanity is drifting away. It is no surprise that in silicone valley the people who created facebook, etc, do not let their kids have these devices. They know what they did, they know the research, they know what they intended to do and that it worked. Not that they set out to eliminate empathy, but to make us more machine-like and controlled, absolutely.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Eduk » January 12th, 2019, 1:48 pm

@Karpel Tunnel do you have any evidence for any of that stuff about empathy?
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 12th, 2019, 9:24 pm

Sure, there are several books out there on the subject and there are papers online. In my experience you present little evidence of your beliefs but expect people with beliefs you disagree with to present evidence of theirs. When I have you have not responded with much effort, often including straw man arguments or implict, no fleshed out arguments. And you don't acknowledge much, if anything when evidence is presented. So frankly, I don't see the point. You're a big boy. If you are curious, google away. Other people who interact with ideas in my posts, make it clear what points they are responding to in mine, who raise substantive arguments...well, with them I am happy to go into greater detail.

I know, you just asked a question. Perhaps you agree with me, a little, some, a lot. In any case, you can find out for yourself if you are interested.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Eduk » January 13th, 2019, 4:49 am

@Karpel Tunnel well there is a lot of garbage out there. I can Google and find articles on just about anything. So I'd like to see the articles you have read which lead you to believe we are becoming less human. There is a small chance I might learn something.
Not a fan of calling people less human. Reasons should be obvious?
Parents in silicone valley not allowing their children to use computers sounds highly unlikely. I mean I'm sure you can find some parents, but I doubt its a statistically significant number as opposed to other regions.
Oh and if you feel I am making a fact based argument then please feel free to ask for sources.
I also find fallacy accusing to be unuseful.
Luddites have found doom in technology since, well for as long as humans have been about I suspect. So far there has been no doom but it's not exactly plain sailing either.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 375
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 13th, 2019, 2:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 12th, 2019, 1:31 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 2:09 pm
When you cut off a conversation abruptly with someone, you may not think it is rude, but is it good manners? The other could be offended and decide you are an asshole and hit you. That is why good manners, trying not to be rude is important. I mean there are other reasons but this sure is one of them. When you hang up on another, what can happen to you? He or she is going to call back? Now, that does not give me existential fears. I am not that afraid of machines yet.
Here it seems like you are defining rude as 'something that might piss someone off AND they can hurt you for it.' That's a unique way of defining it. But, in any case, in all my years of walking around people asking for money for various charities, signatures for petitions, people selling cellphone subscriptions, etc., in the street without answering them, or abruptly saying I am not interested, no one has hit me. So I can safely do this as far as I can tell.
In my opening statement, I talked about the phone but expended the conversation to include all kinds of other topics as well and I am happy to see that you came up with a different type of machine and used it to try and mitigate my point. You are thinking and that is exactly what I am trying to trigger. My reply here is that when a machine is used to mitigate an infirmity or a disability in a person, that machine that mitigate the infirmity is not what people would consider as a means to communicate. It is a means to overcome an infirmity. In that sense, it is there to replace or assist a falling organ. The type of machines that I want to discuss are those machines that aren't viewed in that way because when a machine has been built to assist a person that is pitiable due to its infirmity, you don't pick on that as it is bad manners.
But sowhy only machines? There is no direct contact. All communication is via media - the air, via photons or sound waves. Why does human made mediation eliminate the possiblitity of rudeness but not natural media? And my grandfather cannot hit me, so I am safe, so what's the difference?
I don't think you can be rude to a machine.
Me neither. Though I do think machines can convey my rudeness. And heck, if I am rude here over the internet, someone with hacking abilities might figure out where I am and get me. Would that then make what I did rude?
When people pick up "your" rudeness through a phone or other device, it is because they see the sounds emitted by the machines as "your" sounds and this is offensive in itself. But if you agree that the machines stands for you as it is being rude to others, then you too are being offensive in the sense that you think you are that machine or you agree to be represented by a machine. I think this is to be avoided. And this is why I am readily willing to disown what I appear to write here. I sure won't fight for a copyright here and I hope you understand why.
I get how that it is making your position potentially consistant, to the degree it deals with your behavior here. I think a stronger point would be for you to say that nothing anyone says to you here could you consider rude.
You see, I am writing here not as if I were here to talk to you another person somewhere else on Earth. I am just writing here as an author creating a narrative with characters that have, in my opinion, lost much of their humanity through evil interaction with machines. I am pleasantly surprised to see that my ideas appear as worth commenting here by many characters. I won't stop if I can. It really took me ages to reached the point where I feel I can do this.
I always like what appears to be ridiculous at first glance. And I have similar reactions to the digital world and humans arel osing their humanity. Give kids a computer or a smartphone and they will, within six weeks do less well on tests of the ability to read other people's emotions. That's a fundamental human skills and we are creating generations of less human people. And given that their parents are also looking into their devices, rather than being present, humanity is drifting away. It is no surprise that in silicone valley the people who created facebook, etc, do not let their kids have these devices. They know what they did, they know the research, they know what they intended to do and that it worked. Not that they set out to eliminate empathy, but to make us more machine-like and controlled, absolutely.
Karpel, my way of definning rude is not unique. My favorite teacher in the field of good manners states that the proper grounds for good manners is located somewhere between fear and pity. And why can't your grandfather hit you?

Karpel, you ask the better questions in my opinion. To me that means you have the better mind. Still, we are far apart, especially when you state: “I do think machines can convey my rudeness.”

But your point of view here is also deeply entrenched into our stupid human culture and so, it would be a big surprise if you thought otherwise. And this therefore is also the big hurdle for me, trying to convince others that something they have accepted for years is and which appears obvious to them is, in fact, quite wrong.

There are endless ways for me to make my point. I think it might work well if I were to start by asking you à series of questions that will lead you to realize by yourself that you stand with a delusion here. Let's start the quiz: You have a bulldozer and you get angry at a house. You hop on the machine and with you, the bulldozer destroys the house quickly. And so, the destruction of the house by the machine conveyed your anger at it. So let's just see if we are still on the same page now. Do you agree with that hypothetical scenario? Do you think à machine can express your anger that way, as if you were angry at the house and this was your result? Don't hesitate to reply by a simple yes or no here. That is all I need to move on to the next questions.

You ask another very interesting question about a hacker finding about you and getting back at you. It reminded me of how Cathy Griffin nearly lost her career as a comedian after dangling a mask of Donald Trump with ketchup on it in à Tweet. Should tweeted art on the internet expose you to personal retributions? I definitely want to deal with that topic but not before we are on the same page about whether or not a machine can convey your rudeness.

Another interesting point you make is pretending to somewhat understand my position here.

”I get how that it is making your position potentially consistant, to the degree it deals with your behavior here. [Rejecting copyrights] I think a stronger point would be for you to say that nothing anyone says to you here could you consider rude.”

I am willing to consider the deeds of the machine as your deeds if you so intend them to be and believe them to be. Therefore, some people can be rude to me in cyberspace. For instance, @s@Steve3007 when he mentions to me, “it was nice talking to you” I think this is rude because he clearly makes the point he believes that the message I see on my screens is him writing to me. So, I can take this as rude if I am so inclined but I prefer to see this as dim witted. So, in special circumstances, I will agree that a person (a dim wit) is being rude to me over the Internet or that I suspect a person intended to show rudness to me in cyberspace (or, in other words, I suspect someone with grave misconceptions about technology is busy misusing technology.)
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by LuckyR » January 14th, 2019, 2:09 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 2:30 pm
LuckyR wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 4:26 am


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

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

If you think that automatic doors express your rudeness only in some circumstances where you are responsible for their actions and then you don't blame anyone when the circumstances don't give you a culprit, then aren't you just looking for an apparent reason to blame others when in fact the machines deserve the blame?
You are rude for the intent. You would be rude if you stepped on the door's trigger, but it happened to be broken and didn't even hit the kid.

If the builder designed it to be fast because he predicted it would injure folks he is "rude" whether his prediction is correct or incorrect. The murkier question is if a competent builder should have known that his design would injue people but he didn't know. To me, he is at fault ethically, even though his conscience may be clear ie it was not an intentional error.
"As usual... it depends."

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 14th, 2019, 1:56 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:30 pm
Karpel, my way of definning rude is not unique. My favorite teacher in the field of good manners states that the proper grounds for good manners is located somewhere between fear and pity. And why can't your grandfather hit you?
I think it's unique in that it requires threat from the person you are rude to. I think most people define rude as behaving with unnecessary unpleasance such that it gives other people a bad experience when there was no need for this. Period. REgardless of whether they can punish you. And a person calling you could conceivable go postal, find where you live, and shoot you for breaking the camal's back after their long years as an insulted phone salesperson. Your boss calling you, if you are rude to your boss, could fire you. Just because a phone gets in the middle does not eliminate consquences. My grandfather would be too slow and sitting down and to weak to offer me a threat of even a momentarily sore arm. I would find it odd to decide that I cannot be rude to him because he cannot punish me.
But your point of view here is also deeply entrenched into our stupid human culture and so, it would be a big surprise if you thought otherwise. And this therefore is also the big hurdle for me, trying to convince others that something they have accepted for years is and which appears obvious to them is, in fact, quite wrong.
Well, I certainly have issues where I feel this way.
There are endless ways for me to make my point. I think it might work well if I were to start by asking you à series of questions that will lead you to realize by yourself that you stand with a delusion here. Let's start the quiz: You have a bulldozer and you get angry at a house. You hop on the machine and with you, the bulldozer destroys the house quickly. And so, the destruction of the house by the machine conveyed your anger at it. So let's just see if we are still on the same page now. Do you agree with that hypothetical scenario? Do you think à machine can express your anger that way, as if you were angry at the house and this was your result? Don't hesitate to reply by a simple yes or no here. That is all I need to move on to the next questions.
I think if I pick up a stick and hit my neighbor that stick conveys my anger at least as well as my fist. If I call up the IRS and make an appointment pretending to be my neighbor, saying as him that I regret have cheated the IRS, and then do not show up for the appointment and he gets audited, the phone conveyed my anger. I think we all use tools and intermediaries to convey anger. If I use a gun, which is a very simple machine, it conveys my anger.

If someone shoots me with a gun, I can't say no one was violent with me. I was shot by a gun. I was shot by my neighbor.
Another interesting point you make is pretending to somewhat understand my position here.
Hey, I am smart enough to only partially understand something unintentionally.
I am willing to consider the deeds of the machine as your deeds if you so intend them to be and believe them to be. Therefore, some people can be rude to me in cyberspace. For instance, @s@Steve3007 when he mentions to me, “it was nice talking to you” I think this is rude because he clearly makes the point he believes that the message I see on my screens is him writing to me. So, I can take this as rude if I am so inclined but I prefer to see this as dim witted.
LOL, it's hard to know how much tongue in cheekc there is in your posts...but, just to pretend it isn't in your cheek...

A machine can't be dimwitted. It isn't witted. So you can't take it as never rude, but sometimes dimwitted, and thus also potentially just plain witted.
So, in special circumstances, I will agree that a person (a dim wit) is being rude to me over the Internet or that I suspect a person intended to show rudness to me in cyberspace (or, in other words, I suspect someone with grave misconceptions about technology is busy misusing technology.)
People do intend to show rudeness. Though the worst are the good rational ones who are not intending to be rude but think of themselves as being Joan of Arc for rationaliy and goodness when they are in fact simply being rude and closeminded and irrational.

But then, a machine can't be closeminded, it doesn't have a mind. Nor can it be irrational.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 14th, 2019, 1:57 pm

Could the dying Jews be angry at the Germans. I mean, it was cannisters of poison gas....

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 375
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 16th, 2019, 1:24 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 1:56 pm
I think if I pick up a stick and hit my neighbor that stick conveys my anger at least as well as my fist.
I agree, we are on the same page here. The stick, as it hits your neighboor, directly uses your energy.
If I call up the IRS and make an appointment pretending to be my neighbor, saying as him that I regret have cheated the IRS, and then do not show up for the appointment and he gets audited, the phone conveyed my anger.
In my opinion, here the phone does not even convey your voice to the IRS. If you were angry at your neighbor and prayed for his destruction and the next day, he dies as a tornado hits his home. Did the tornado also conveyed your anger there?
I think we all use tools and intermediaries to convey anger. If I use a gun, which is a very simple machine, it conveys my anger.
My problem is where do you draw the line as you go about doing this. As mentioned above, I am willing to agree that a stick that you use can help you convey your anger; it is your own angry energy that propels it. If your grandfather asks another to hit you for him, does that other person is absolutely free from having any anger issue as it is only your grandfather getting back at you for being rude to him? And what about an atomic bomb? Can you use that to convey your anger too? A large city being destroyed by you pushing a button is the result of your anger? How do you measure the size of your anger or the size of any person's anger? By the number killed? by the number of stab wounds in the body? By the amount of suffering infliced?

Also, if you use a gun to get even with a neighboor and you select for your task bullets that spread on impact causing more internal damage than bullets that remain mostly intact on impact. Does that mean you are more angry if you use the bullets that spread? If you are unaware of the type of bullets you use, does that mean you don't know really just how angry you are? That would seem to suggest that anger does reside to some extent in the means you use or in the means that are using you. Doesn't it?

But then, a machine can't be closeminded, it doesn't have a mind. Nor can it be irrational.
In my many years of study of the machines and technology, I have learned it is better not to believe to know how a machine is conceptually speaking, or what a machine is. All I have I found useful to learn is how to deal with what I suspect may be a machine. When someone appears to know what a machine is, he or she often is found to be that machine. So, in order to confirm my suspicion, I have to ask: do you think you are a machine, Karpel? In my experience, many people view others as machines, especially the good capitalists.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 375
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 16th, 2019, 1:36 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 2:09 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 2:30 pm


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

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

If you think that automatic doors express your rudeness only in some circumstances where you are responsible for their actions and then you don't blame anyone when the circumstances don't give you a culprit, then aren't you just looking for an apparent reason to blame others when in fact the machines deserve the blame?
You are rude for the intent. You would be rude if you stepped on the door's trigger, but it happened to be broken and didn't even hit the kid.

If the builder designed it to be fast because he predicted it would injure folks he is "rude" whether his prediction is correct or incorrect. The murkier question is if a competent builder should have known that his design would injue people but he didn't know. To me, he is at fault ethically, even though his conscience may be clear ie it was not an intentional error.
I am rude for the intent? Really? What if I thought of doing something rude but as I get my rude plan into motion, my conscience holds me back and I change my mind and don't do anything rude. I have been rude anyway because I did harbor a rude intent for a few seconds? Is that what you are suggesting?
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 17th, 2019, 12:23 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 1:24 pm
I agree, we are on the same page here. The stick, as it hits your neighboor, directly uses your energy.
So if I find a crossbow that someone else has set up - they drew back the bolt, it is their potential energy added - and fire the bolt, is it still my anger? If I have a dead man switch, so it is the reduction of energy output that sets off a weapon? If I make an IED that sets of an explosion under his car using the signal from a cellphone, is it not longer my anger?
In my opinion, here the phone does not even convey your voice to the IRS. If you were angry at your neighbor and prayed for his destruction and the next day, he dies as a tornado hits his home. Did the tornado also conveyed your anger there?
What? I can affect the actoins of other human beings through the phone, set up a chain of causes and effects. Me, I am powerlesss in controlling tornadoes.

My problem is where do you draw the line as you go about doing this. As mentioned above, I am willing to agree that a stick that you use can help you convey your anger; it is your own angry energy that propels it. If your grandfather asks another to hit you for him, does that other person is absolutely free from having any anger issue as it is only your grandfather getting back at you for being rude to him? And what about an atomic bomb? Can you use that to convey your anger too?
Of course. If I had one and was a terrorist based on my rage at, infidels say, sure.
A large city being destroyed by you pushing a button is the result of your anger? How do you measure the size of your anger or the size of any person's anger? By the number killed? by the number of stab wounds in the body? By the amount of suffering infliced?
But that argument **** up your stick statement above. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, I can kill them, with my fist, unlikely. Most people probably would be angrier if they went for the hammer, but the degree of damage has nothing to do with the fact that swinging my fist in anger and a hammer in anger both are expressions of my anger. Regardless of how much impact. Why should the amount of impact mean I did not act my anger out on the other.

And let me get this straight. I hit you with a stick, you blame me. I use a cellphone set off bomb that fills you with shrapnel, but you live, you don't blame me? It was a phone that hurt you?
Also, if you use a gun to get even with a neighboor and you select for your task bullets that spread on impact causing more internal damage than bullets that remain mostly intact on impact. Does that mean you are more angry if you use the bullets that spread?
Again this is confused. It is still an expression of my anger, with technology allowing me to amplify the effects of my anger.

If you are unaware of the type of bullets you use, does that mean you don't know really just how angry you are? That would seem to suggest that anger does reside to some extent in the means you use or in the means that are using you. Doesn't it?
If I miss you with the punch was I less angry? If my granpas punch is less powerful than yours does that means he's less angry? If I am someone who abhors violence but can hate as much as anyone else and I yell at you while some other guy punches you does that mean I was less angry? You are mixing up two unconnnected things.
In my many years of study of the machines and technology, I have learned it is better not to believe to know how a machine is conceptually speaking, or what a machine is. All I have I found useful to learn is how to deal with what I suspect may be a machine. When someone appears to know what a machine is, he or she often is found to be that machine. So, in order to confirm my suspicion, I have to ask: do you think you are a machine, Karpel? In my experience, many people view others as machines, especially the good capitalists.
Nope, not a machine. For a variety of reasons. I experience. I was not made by another for a purpose. I am more complicated than any machine and by far. I got a soul.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by LuckyR » January 18th, 2019, 3:06 am

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 1:36 pm
LuckyR wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 2:09 am


You are rude for the intent. You would be rude if you stepped on the door's trigger, but it happened to be broken and didn't even hit the kid.

If the builder designed it to be fast because he predicted it would injure folks he is "rude" whether his prediction is correct or incorrect. The murkier question is if a competent builder should have known that his design would injue people but he didn't know. To me, he is at fault ethically, even though his conscience may be clear ie it was not an intentional error.
I am rude for the intent? Really? What if I thought of doing something rude but as I get my rude plan into motion, my conscience holds me back and I change my mind and don't do anything rude. I have been rude anyway because I did harbor a rude intent for a few seconds? Is that what you are suggesting?
No. As I mentioned, if you did everything in your power (came up with the idea and stepped on the door's trigger, in the example I used), but an outside circumstance (broken door trigger, in my example) thwarts the action, you are rude.

If you change your mind, you were headed to rudeness, but stopped along the way
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 375
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 18th, 2019, 1:36 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 12:23 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 1:24 pm
I agree, we are on the same page here. The stick, as it hits your neighboor, directly uses your energy.
So if I find a crossbow that someone else has set up - they drew back the bolt, it is their potential energy added - and fire the bolt, is it still my anger? If I have a dead man switch, so it is the reduction of energy output that sets off a weapon? If I make an IED that sets of an explosion under his car using the signal from a cellphone, is it not longer my anger?
In my opinion, here the phone does not even convey your voice to the IRS. If you were angry at your neighbor and prayed for his destruction and the next day, he dies as a tornado hits his home. Did the tornado also conveyed your anger there?
What? I can affect the actoins of other human beings through the phone, set up a chain of causes and effects. Me, I am powerlesss in controlling tornadoes.

My problem is where do you draw the line as you go about doing this. As mentioned above, I am willing to agree that a stick that you use can help you convey your anger; it is your own angry energy that propels it. If your grandfather asks another to hit you for him, does that other person is absolutely free from having any anger issue as it is only your grandfather getting back at you for being rude to him? And what about an atomic bomb? Can you use that to convey your anger too?
Of course. If I had one and was a terrorist based on my rage at, infidels say, sure.
A large city being destroyed by you pushing a button is the result of your anger? How do you measure the size of your anger or the size of any person's anger? By the number killed? by the number of stab wounds in the body? By the amount of suffering infliced?
But that argument **** up your stick statement above. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, I can kill them, with my fist, unlikely. Most people probably would be angrier if they went for the hammer, but the degree of damage has nothing to do with the fact that swinging my fist in anger and a hammer in anger both are expressions of my anger. Regardless of how much impact. Why should the amount of impact mean I did not act my anger out on the other.

And let me get this straight. I hit you with a stick, you blame me. I use a cellphone set off bomb that fills you with shrapnel, but you live, you don't blame me? It was a phone that hurt you?
Also, if you use a gun to get even with a neighboor and you select for your task bullets that spread on impact causing more internal damage than bullets that remain mostly intact on impact. Does that mean you are more angry if you use the bullets that spread?
Again this is confused. It is still an expression of my anger, with technology allowing me to amplify the effects of my anger.

If you are unaware of the type of bullets you use, does that mean you don't know really just how angry you are? That would seem to suggest that anger does reside to some extent in the means you use or in the means that are using you. Doesn't it?
If I miss you with the punch was I less angry? If my granpas punch is less powerful than yours does that means he's less angry? If I am someone who abhors violence but can hate as much as anyone else and I yell at you while some other guy punches you does that mean I was less angry? You are mixing up two unconnnected things.
In my many years of study of the machines and technology, I have learned it is better not to believe to know how a machine is conceptually speaking, or what a machine is. All I have I found useful to learn is how to deal with what I suspect may be a machine. When someone appears to know what a machine is, he or she often is found to be that machine. So, in order to confirm my suspicion, I have to ask: do you think you are a machine, Karpel? In my experience, many people view others as machines, especially the good capitalists.
Nope, not a machine. For a variety of reasons. I experience. I was not made by another for a purpose. I am more complicated than any machine and by far. I got a soul.
Karpel, I do not believe that I am mixing up two unconnected things but I don't want to spend my limited time online arguing this point at the moment. There is something much more interesting and important that you are saying which I prefer to focus on for now.

First, you mention and even argue that you are not a machine, by presenting a vision of yourself that does not match your vision of what a machine is. That's fine, but above that, you strongly argue that what is clearly the product of a machine is in fact your product. If the product of a machine is your product and you are fine with that, I see it as you voluntarily saying that you are a machine and agreeing to this definition for yourself. That is what I determine by reading your thinking as opposed to hearing your voice.

See, when you say this,
What? I can affect the actoins of other human beings through the phone, set up a chain of causes and effects.
you suggest that it is your voice that gets things going when a phone fabricated voice is being heard. So if you identify what comes out of phone speakers as a voice not made by another it means your are a phone. I guess that now you have to say that phones aren't a machine? I don't know what you are yet, but it does seem to me that what ever it is that you think you currently are, it isn't consistent or plausible.

I understand that we live in a society that supports your views that when people hear you on the phone, they aren't hearing the voice made by the phone; they are hearing your voice. I think we have been brainwashed into thinking this way and that this is dehumanizing. You know when I said that the machines were a fire out of control? Well, it is there and people don't even know it is there and this allows it to propagate.

Our modern culture depends on us seeing things as you do now to help capitalist artists make a fortune that was, in fact, earned by the machines. We believe in the copyright of its voice. With it, successful artists can make millions from the machines.

But this money, which was truly earned by the machine, wasn't earned for the purpose of making any capitalist artist rich. It was made to reward machine proponents as more machines will get to be built if you can get have desirable "super artists" in every corner of the world by reproducing more machines. We are in the midst of a machine invasion, similar to how a virus affects an organism. The more we understand about how this is happening, the better we will be in a position to deal with this problem. But for now, as long as people think the machine's voice is theirs, it's like just me walking in Plato's cave after having seen the sun talking to others who haven't seen it...
And let me get this straight. I hit you with a stick, you blame me. I use a cellphone set off bomb that fills you with shrapnel, but you live, you don't blame me? It was a phone that hurt you?
If you set up a bomb beneath my car, you are helping the machine by providing it with a specific aim. Aiming is something that is needed in this case and aiming is your responsibility. So, you have had your energy involved in an angry action. But the deadly blast isn't your anger...

If someone hands over to you a phone and as soon as you touch a dial, my car blows up, do you expect me to think it was your fault?
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 375
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Hanging up the phone on others is...

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » January 18th, 2019, 4:12 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 18th, 2019, 3:06 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 1:36 pm


I am rude for the intent? Really? What if I thought of doing something rude but as I get my rude plan into motion, my conscience holds me back and I change my mind and don't do anything rude. I have been rude anyway because I did harbor a rude intent for a few seconds? Is that what you are suggesting?
No. As I mentioned, if you did everything in your power (came up with the idea and stepped on the door's trigger, in the example I used), but an outside circumstance (broken door trigger, in my example) thwarts the action, you are rude.

If you change your mind, you were headed to rudeness, but stopped along the way
Now, this is getting interesting. What if there is no button to activate the door. The door is motion sensor activated. For some reason, you suspect that the child is too small to be picked up by the sensors and you think that by walking by, you can activate the door. You try and do that and nothing happens as the motion sensor does not work. Are you rude for what you did? If I understand you correctly, you say yes, that was rude. But if another person doesn't know about the motion sensor walks and does the exact same thing as the other "rude" person and again, the door does not swing open on the child as it is broken. The person that didn't know about the motion sensors is not rude? Two people do exactly the same thing with exactly the same effect: nothing happens and one is quite rude while the other is still a polite person?

Attempted murder isn't murder, right? Why should attempted rudeness be rudeness? Why should attempting to do a thing be the thing you want to do? To me, that simply does not make sense. The point of attempting to do a thing is to try to be successful at doing a thing because the thing won't get done without trying and trying implies the possibility of failure.

If there is inherently no possibility of failure in any attempt, can your attempt really be called an attempt? You are successful right from the start. And so the very moment you think about doing something possibly rude, you should be deemed rude if you are rude for the intent. Maybe you mean "upon completion of your rudeness intent" but this is contradicted by the fact that you say that "if you are thwarted by an outside circumstance, you are still rude."

It seems to me that if your rudeness intent isn't complete because of outside circumstances, then you should simply be, as you say, "headed to rudeness" but not rude yet.
I am a frog. I choose to be a frog. I make big leaps.

Post Reply