The Back Room

[Nexaduro]

Just don't waste our time with it here.

 

If you want to tell everyone else on the internet to change it into what it already is, go ahead.

[archimage_a]

Oh no. Oh the horrors. Woe is us.

Its no good Nex, Mather won't be impressed by your British style sarcasm =P

 

with blackjack and hookers.

 

And no, the only thing I'm drunk on right now is a feeling of greatness.

And Futurama

 

GUYS: NEVER MAKE VIDEOGAMES YOUR FIRST PRIORITY! It pisses off the girls really fast.

Don't be sexist. Some women like video games, some men hate video games. Gender sterotyping is what kept women out of the job market for so long, and what stop them from voting for 1/250 of a decillenia more than men.

 

 

I just got the craziest idea ever, I am going to try to start a campaign to announce the internet as an independent "buffer state", wherein those who wander are subject only to its rules and will need not fear for their actions there to be scrutinized and judge by the nation they physically inhabit. In fact I am going to go as far into detail as I can. This will be an awesome internet, with blackjack and hookers.

If the internet is supposed to be so free why is it we all have to do everything the Norwegian way? Answer me that!

[The_Mather1]

I've already written a set of laws I think would be suitable for a free but civilized Internet. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dCAE57ZUgtgO41WnDPXLf2aKIicU3HJZwPfQJEbCXPo/edit

[archimage_a]

The Internet is a free place, where you are no longer required to abide the laws of other nations. As of the date its freedom is granted, the Internet will be an autonomous state and will not be subject to scrutiny, judgment, limitations, or censorship by any foreign body of government or leadership, nor their authorities.

 

Welcome to the Internet, please leave your government at the door.

 

 

 

§1.0 Any information regarding a crime committed outside the Internet will be submitted to the authorities of the nation wherein the crime was committed.

 

§1.1 A crime is recognized by the Internet as an act considered unlawful by the nation wherein it was committed.

 

§2.0 You may not share someone elses work under the claim that it is your own.

 

§2.1 You may not claim money in return for any digital work that is not your own without the express permission of the legal owner.

 

§3.0 You may not distribute or willingly indulge in content of sexual nature involving any person under the age of 18, animal, or remains, human or animal.

 

§3.1 You may not distribute or willingly indulge in content of sexual nature involving a nonconsenting party.

 

§3.2 You may not willingly distribute or allow content of sexual nature to be seen by any person under the age of 16.

 

§4.0 You may not distribute any content or data of harmful nature or intent.

 

§4.1 You may not distribute any content or data of privacy infringing nature or intent.

 

§5.0 You may not willingly allow any person below the age of 18 to partake in any game with real currency as a stake without the presence and permission of a legal guardian.

 

$6.0 You may not share the personal or contact information of another person without their express permission.

 

§6.1 You may not share the personal or contact information of a person below the age of 13 without express permission from a legal guardian.

 

Failure to comply with the laws of the Internet will result in a report being sent to your local authorities, who will arrange for a punishment dictated by an agreement between the leadership of your nation and the governing power of the Internet.

 

 

Unenforcable, over-zealous, dangerous, offensive, unstable....

It has zero chance of reaching wide scale enforcement, which makes the entire idea unworkable.

 

 

 

As a side note, gravy is not a stimulant. :shock:

[Ieyfura]

What.....am I reading? (just teasing)

 

But yeah, as archi said. Unenforceable.

[archimage_a]

a set of laws I think would be suitable for a free but civilized Internet.

[Alg]

the governing power of the Internet.

Who would this be?

[The_Mather1]

I suggested Anonymous.

 

None of these laws are new BTW (except possibly §3.2), they are already in employed by most nations, and they have a greater chance of being enforced online this way than they currently have.

 

But I have to go to bed, writing those laws took me longer than it felt.

[archimage_a]

I think Mather has the right idea. What we need is a group of unelected, unaccountable, officals, to protect us from the elected, unaccountable officials that currently control the various portions of the internet....

 

 

The main problem I see is that it is unenforcable, except by random acts of vigilantism....or, to put it another way, digital violence. Now, as brilliant(oxymoronic) as the idea of anarchic law enforcement is, I don't think it would improve the condition of the internet.

Furthermore... very few of the laws are actually enforcable in any real sense UNLESS you happen to be monitoring the Internet...Say I sell the internetz to a random person via msn...Unless that person happens to be internet savy they will not be able to report it....in addition supposing they did report it, what action would be taken?

"Dear everyone, I was conned by Bob231 on MSN, please take care of him for me."

 

In the first place there is no guarentee that whoever is reporting it isn't a troublemaker.

In the second place creating an MSN account requires very little effort, similarly other web based accounts.

In the third place hacking someone's account and then sending something from their account.

In the forth place, what are you going to do once you have made sure it was them?

 

"Hello, local law enforcement, we have conducted our own investigation, breaking several privacy laws in the process, please arrest Bob231, his IP is this, and he lives here."

 

Or maybe some sort of attack on their computer, or calling up their ISP and telling them of the terrible terrible crime they have committed and cutting them off from the internet...

 

We could also argue what if you break one of the laws and happen to live in the Netherlands (or insert a country here with age restrictions lower than in the document...or higher, for that matter), then the local law enforcement may not enforce the law...which brings us back to where we are at the moment.

 

The practicality of the task is beyond silly, it is unworkable, unenforcable and unneccessary. The internet may not be perfect, but all of our attempts to 'fix it' are just likely to make it worse...

[jasignhagj]

Only in the tavern could a relationship discussion turn into a debate on semantics...

 

Anyways, I'm off school for a couple weeks for exams. When is the next Crossroads session? I kinda want to sit in and see how it's played.

[Icuownage]

Thursday

[archimage_a]

Aye. Purely as advanced notice (well, also as a launch point to discuss schedualing) I am probably gonna move crossroads earlier in the week (Monday or Tuesday and Saturday).

 

At present my schedual is(if it doesn't say anything after it then it is a lecture):

Nothing on Monday

2-3 on Tuesday Britain and Ireland in war and peace since 1800

Wednesday nothing

Thursday 11-12 Britain and Ireland, The Cold War Seminar 2-3, 3-4 Cold War

Friday... Information Literacy 10-12, 2-3 Britian and Ireland Seminar, Cold War 3-4, Information Retrieval 4-6

 

Ought to be much fun....

[Resistance]

Here are the issues I have found.

 

Does §3.2 contradict §1.0? In some countries pornography is illegal and I the age of legal viewing is different (could be 18, 21 or even younger) If the age of consent is lower then your 'laws of the internet' actually diminish already existing freedoms.

I can understand that §3.0 is used to protect animals and humans, however what is the problem with human or animal remains? Although it may be a taboo, if the person (animals have no sense of respect for the dead so it is irrelevent) chooses to be used for that use or even if it is lawful in that area of the globe you are restricting people based on your own ideals.

§4.1 So basically the catholic child abuse cases are illegal to discuss on the internet? §4.0 so every single negative opinion the web? I understand this is not your intent but you haven't specified what harmful is.

§5.0 yet again an example of your own ideals governing the internet, this is for the country to decide. For example in Germany, online gambling is illegal.

§6.1 Why 13? Why not 12? Why not 14? Most countries have decided upon 18 or 16 being the legal age of an adult.

[The_Mather1]

If you read the header you would know that the use of the Internet for anything that isn't banned by the Internet's laws would be legal, regardless of the local government's laws. So even if pornography was illegal in that nation, it would still be legal when viewed through the Internet.

Necrophilia is ethically wrong, and deserves to be outlawed.

Harmful content is content that causes actual harm, such as viruses and worms. The specification of data as well is to prevent random DDOSing from becoming the virus makers' new hobby.

The country has no say over the Internet, and since online gambling is enjoyable and not harmful or morally wrong it should not be outlawed. Allowing a child however to lose their money is.

13 is the age you are considered rational enough to make decisions for yourself regarding this sort of thing, and if you haven't noticed it is only the continuation of an existing US law, and most places you can currently register at comply with that law.

[Resistance]

Yes, but the problem is: what if pornography was legal to be viewed by somebody under 16 in that country but because of your laws it enforces a law not present in your country. So your laws of the internet wouldn't create any freedom, simply diminish it.

 

[hide=Possibly NSFW]

[/hide]

 

Because necrophilia does no harm it is your subjective opinion that it is bad, different cultures believe different things about it. This is an issue for the governments to decide, the internet should be free domain for all things apart from things that are objectively morally wrong.

 

Its for the parents to monitor, the internet shouldn't make any restrictions based on beliefs. If the parents deem it is suitable then it is suitable. Although it is unlikely that any parent would let their children gamble it is still wrong for the internet laws to make choices that are really up to the company, country or parents.

[archimage_a]

Necrophilia is ethically wrong, and deserves to be outlawed.

The country has no say over the Internet, and since online gambling is enjoyable and not harmful or morally wrong it should not be outlawed. Allowing a child however to lose their money is.

 

And Mather came down from up on high and smote the non-believers, for his words were true, his cause just and his conscience clear. This man, who none could compare to in terms of moral integrity, was the man who could judge all without fear of being wrong for God himself had chosen Mather, his face had shone upon him and his counterance was bestowed. And Mather did go forth with his law of the internet, for he looked and he saw that it was good.

 

What I have always hated about centralised law making is that one person, or one group of people begin enforcing certain things with absolute moral certitude. Who are you to judge others Mather? You make up these laws and you cover them with euphamisms 'Oh but most places already enforce this law', 'Oh but it is only a continuation of another law', 'Oh ethically this is wrong it must be abhorred.'

 

Is it not enough to simply accept the internet exists? To argue for changes to the internet in your own country? Why do you have to go around trying for force your beliefs on other people? What gives you the right to tell me how to use the internet? To mediate MY use of OTHER PEOPLE'S resources? How does it hurt you in any way?

 

This is the most baffling thing is...who are you fighting?

I use the internet a fairly large amount...I don't suffer from random attacks of gambling, or pornography...Falador Tavern hasn't been subjected to random attacks of necrophila, so far as I am aware...

 

Your attack against the great evil of the internet seems to be against people making their own communities, their own websites and, most of all, against other people's lives. All you are advocating is a moral charter to justify your intolerance, so congratulations Mather, you are well on your way to starting a religion.

[The_Mather1]

Res, they would still be able to do so, it would just not be legal for the distributor to intend for it.

 

And you want objective reasons for why necrophilia is morally wrong?

A corpse is a rapidly decaying object, decay also being an universal euphemism for death, meaning you would be shagging what is metaphorically death itself.

It has the potential to be disrespectful to those that are left behind by the departed.

It is disrespectful to any religion that upholds the sanctity of death.

[archimage_a]

And you want objective reasons for why necrophilia is morally wrong?

A corpse is a rapidly decaying object, decay also being an universal euphemism for death, meaning you would be shagging what is metaphorically death itself.

It has the potential to be disrespectful to those that are left behind by the departed.

It is disrespectful to any religion that upholds the sanctity of death.

 

Metaphorically: Subjective

Potentially: Subjective

Any religion that: Subjective

 

1) In the first place having sex with death is not objectively wrong.

In the second place a metaphor depends on interpretation. There may be other reasons why someone is having sex with a dead body, besides wanting to have sex with death.

Summery: While having sex with a dead body might offend you, that does not make it objectively wrong.

 

2) In the first place that something is disrepectful does not make it objectively wrong.

In the second place your sentence does not even make the assertion that it is wrong, it makes the assertion that it might be wrong in certain circumstances.

Summery: Objective truth either is or is not, it does depend on subjective conditions.

 

3) In the first place something that disrepects religion is not inherantly objectively wrong.

In the second place, there are other religions that do not uphold the sanctity of death, and others still that hold that having sex with a dead body is morally acceptable.

Summery: Your statement is based on the condition that only religions that agree with your perspective are correct and therefore only they need to be listened to.

 

 

 

So now we have established that your reasons are not objective, but rather are entirely subjective.

[Ieyfura]

Okay guys. I think that's enough chatter about whether or not having sex with the dead is immoral or not. O_o

[archimage_a]

Sorry Ieyfura. I am actually talking about whether Mather can justify making vast moral judgements on people he has never met.

 

To me, Necrophilia really doesn't matter one way or the other...I fail to see why I need to make a broad moral judgement on how other people live their lives/deaths, and I simply find it offensive that someone can spout hatred and intolerance whilst claiming to be objective.

[Ieyfura]

Oh, there's nothing wrong with debating about Mather's laws and all that. It's more the subject of necrophilia that's well....yeah. Just a tad bit inappropriate, even if discussed in the civil manner above. :P

[archimage_a]

"Please don't discuss whether discussing something is morally distasteful, we find it morally distasteful." :rolleyes:

[The_Mather1]

2) In the first place that something is disrepectful does not make it objectively wrong.

In the second place your sentence does not even make the assertion that it is wrong, it makes the assertion that it might be wrong in certain circumstances.

Summery: Objective truth either is or is not, it does depend on subjective conditions.

 

3) In the first place something that disrepects religion is not inherantly objectively wrong.

In the second place, there are other religions that do not uphold the sanctity of death, and others still that hold that having sex with a dead body is morally acceptable.

Summery: Your statement is based on the condition that only religions that agree with your perspective are correct and therefore only they need to be listened to.

Now in these two you are wrong, and would be regardless of the topic.

 

Disrespecting anyone is morally wrong from an objective point of view. Them feeling disrespected by it is a subjective opinion from their side, but doing something that doesn't make the fact that disrespecting them is morally wrong an objective fact.

[Retech]

Live their death.

 

:^o

[archimage_a]

Disrespecting anyone is morally wrong from an objective point of view. Them feeling disrespected by it is a subjective opinion from their side, but doing something that doesn't make the fact that disrespecting them is morally wrong an objective fact.

I fail to see how.

We disrespect plants and animals when we eat them, when we force them to labour for us (horse-plows for instance)...We disrespect other humans when we don't do exactly what they expect of us, and they disrespect us when they expect us to do things we would be uncomfortable doing. Nature disrespects us when it requires us to do things that we find uncomfortable as well.

For instance we may come to the conclusion that we are disrespecting animals/plants by eating them and thus not consume them, however if we come to that conclusion then nature causes damage to our bodies as we slowly starve.

 

In addition to this even if we do not consume animals/plants we are still murdering a vast number of bacterial life forms every moment of every day. They, in turn, are attempting to consume/murder us in order to survive.

 

We could, of course, make the argument that Plants/Animals/Bacteria are not equatable to human lives, though this would be a Subjective decision based on no Objective evidence, which would invalidate the Objective Principle. We could also argue that things we do which are neccessary for our continued survival are exempt from matters of respect/disrespect, though again this is a Subjective decision without any ground in Objective fact, it is merely Sophistry as we attempt to reconcile concepts.

 

The Objective Truth requires us, either, to accept that we are being Subjective in our approach by marking out certain concepts which are not Objective but which we treat as Objective because Subjectively we consider them truths...or we must cast as wide a net as possible with every term, thus treating animals, plants and bacteria as equal to humans.

 

Respect is a subjective interpretation of events...For instance we might consider that it would be disrespectful to murder someone, however if they had asked to be murdered then what justification do we have that it is disrespectful? Similarly, if a person wished (sorry Ieyfura, will do this as quickly as possible) have sex after they have died, what justification do you have as to the disrespectful nature of the act?

 

We could also consider that a person may feel something is disrespectful at a time, say a person conducting an autopsy on a loved one despite their wishes that it was not done, but later feeling that they were wrong due to the fact that good came out of it.

 

Now, we can either consider that the Objective truth is the overarching truth, aka that the original action was not objectively wrong due to it being Objectively right later on, however this interpretation leaves the possibility that the Objective truth is mallable, which contradicts the very nature of Objectivity.

Or we can consider that Objective truth is only correct during a specific time frame, which runs into much the same problem as above. The difference being that we can say that something is Objectively true from Time A to Time B. Though this adds a level of subjectivity due to the truth only being truth at the whim of time.

 

In either case the Objective Truth is not actually Objective.

 

We then consider that if there is a set of Objective(or Absolute) Moral principles then we can negate the contradiction explored above with the notion that things are wrong for now and all time. We then reconcile people disagreeing over this by the idea that other people have Subjective principles which are Objective incorrect.

Though how we justify what is Objectively correct is ultimately a function of what we Subjectively percieve to be correct, which lands us back where we started, so this third route is also not Objective.

 

 

As such we must eventually arrive back at the original point, the point that we must accept somethings as Objective Truths, even though they are Subjective; the key here is remembering that our Objective Truths are not actually Objective Truths in the literal sense, but are Subjective Objective Truths - Truths that are correct as long as certain conditions are filled.

 

Thus your 'Objective Truth' that disrespecting a person is wrong is only Subjectively correct, which breaks down when applied to a wide number of people, such as applying the 'law of the internet' would require.

 

For instance I know that there are people on this forum who feel insulted by the discussion of Homosexuality, I know there are people who feel insulted by the discussion of Furries, I know there are people here who feel insulted by the discussion of sex in general. We are disrespecting all of those people when we discuss those topics, but they, in turn, are disrespecting us by their close-minded, though not neccessarily wrong, approaches to the conversations.

I feel somewhat annoyed by people who feel insulted by the discussion of Homosexuality, but I do not (or try not to, having fluted moral principles is difficult to maintain in practicality) consider myself to be Objectively superior to those people, nor do I fully accept the idea that Homosexuality is a correct form of sexuality...I like the idea that it is, but there is no way to know for sure. Similarly I do not accept that Heterosexuality or any form of sexuality is 'correct'.

Yes there are certain benefits and disadvantages from each form of sexuality, particularly the Subjective enjoyment or distaste of the individual; I would not advocate that you went out and had sex with another guy on the assumption that you would definately enjoy it...Although there is a strong chance that you would because the hormones and chemical stimuli are released no matter what form of physical stimulus you use, though there are most probably discreet differences caused by how much you want to be there, your attraction to the other person, ect, ect.

But all the benefits and disadvantages are measured Subjectively, nominally by the person committing those acts. As such, our attempts to quantify an Objective Truth are fundermentally flawed in that they are dependant on Subjective responces of individuals.

 

For instance we might consider that procretation is a good measure for how much better Heterosexual behaviour is over Homosexual behaviour, though this starts with the Subjective judgement that procreation is good.

 

In a truely Objective sense there is no real way to quantify Moral Actions because Morality is an abstraction created by Humans/God/ect. We might as well be attempting to quantify whether 2 is better than 3, or whether 5 is morally corrupt. When we talk about an action we are talking about an Objective Fact (to a varying degree):

This person(Who is a collection of organisms, which are made up of Atoms, which are made up from Subatomic Particles, which we think are the fundermental building blocks, though we may be wrong) is using their arm (see previous bracketed section) to pick up (see semantics) this apple (see chemical break down of an apple, ect, ect, ect)

Whether the person was morally right or morally wrong to pick up the apple is not quantifable in an Objective sense UNLESS we accept a Subjective Truth as an Objective Truth, as stated before (probably several times by this point, I am trying to cover this from all the possible angles so that this doesn't develop into one of those protracted debates that annoy me).

 

 

 

So yes, Subjective Judgement is not Objective Fact.