Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by vonork, May 24, 2004.
Watchers watching the watchers watching them watch them
@LR: I had thought of those two already.
Let me take point two first.
You research a drug and find its formulae. You are entitled to a profit. But the profit comes from not what you have found out and keeping it secret but from making the drug and selling it. There is already a law for that. Patents. I have exclusive right to manufacture what I have discovered first. As to the formulae everyvody can see it and similarly everybody can improve on it and remember so can I see everybody else's work. So the competition now is not to keep my work secret but to better on it as fast as I can while seeing everyboy else's work on making it better too.
Now who is worse off? Nobody. Everybody's sole mission in life is to profit by coming up with a better formulae using the research that is being done by everybody .
Now let us take point one.
Firstly, the point is not benefit. There may or may not be benefit. What I said was and i quote
"I have given this some thought and I cannot come up with a scenario where everybody knowing something leaves everybody worse off"
So just because it does not do everybody benefit does not mean it should not be public knowledge.
Next, if you are doing something that could be to your detriment then you should not be doing it in the first place. if you still want to do it then you should take responsibility for all your actions. Why should you have to right to do something and not take responsibility for all the repercussions.
lastly, I can argue that the public benefits from seeing you. They know that you get happiness from torturing someone. if I were joe schmoe and i know that then I would benefit because I would rather not associate with somebody who does so. So you see even in this case majority might be benefited.
It is rather 'the ability to watch the watcher's ability to be able to watch the ability to watch them'
(Fun with quotes)
Caramel? I hope the caramel isn't hot!
Frankly, I feel that nouget has been to often neglected in the whole medieval midget fetish thing.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But in your world, other companies get to watch each and every stage of development. So what happens when on the verge of completing my drug, my lead researcher gets sick for week? And during that week, my competitor uses what I've spent the last 5 years developing, puts the final touch on it and beats me to the patent office by 3 hours? Am I just screwed, out millions of dollars while he rakes in billions?
In that kind of environment, why would anyone risk developing anything? Wouldn't it be cheaper/safer just to wait for someone else to do the work, then try to steal the end result? Why risk investing so much money if anyone can steal the rug out from under you?
Granted, but as I pointed out, revealing my fetishes certainly leaves me worse off. And I'm part of everyone. So given that I'm going to take it in the shorts, there should be some good accomplished somewhere to balance it out, no? If not, revealing my fetishes to the world has been a net detriment to society, since it has caused me to be worse off without providing any benefit.
What's detrimental about watching midget porn, provided only myself and my ISP knows? Who am I hurting? As long as I am not causing harm to others, why should my activities be restricted?
Who gains from setting a webcam in front of me, provided that I do not want it there?
Torturing someone? I stated in my original post that while racks may be involved, it's all consenting adults. Just because you don't relish the idea of having your Johnson branded doesn't mean some people don't get off on it. But you haven't provided a compelling case for why the public is better off knowing that I do. How does it help society to not have people associate with me? If I lose my job as a result, how does it help my company? Think about where this inevitably leads: Do we really want only gays hiring or associating with gays?
But real life research does not work like that. You cannot sit back and relax and do nothing but wait till just before the end product. Say, Monsanto today is working on a gene to make a new crop beetle resistant. their lead scientist is close. sometime probably next week he will finish all his work. Say I took all his notes and gave it to Monsanto's competitor. Do you think they will be able to come up with the result next week. I doubt it. In research nowadays it is not just the end result that count. But also the process.
But let us go further and assume that the competitor does copy your work and come up with a solution next week and your lead scientist falls sick. It is truly unfortunate. But you are not in a hole. When your lead scientist comes back up he can better his work and come up with a more effective solution. remember it is you who has the whole process behind you. So you can always innovate while your competitor who is just a copycat. How long do you think he will last in research just copying someone else?
Once again I am not going to make an argument that everyone is better off by seeing you. That is not necessary. Also if you are wrose off then you should not do it. Simple. If you put the logic that putting the webcam will hurt you then you are applying the precise logic that I am trying to counter here - the logic of "I am hiding because I think that I will be hurt if people will see me". That is the precise logic politicians use too. Would you argue that is ok too? If you think you will be hurt if people will see you then you should not do it. Period.
yes I thought about that too (although I admit it is a rather slippery issue). If a company does not want to hire a gay because he is a gay the gay can still take him to court. There are laws for that.
Anyway, Earlier gays hid behind in bedrooms. Now they have to hide behind laws. So are they more free? I do not think so. It is just a semantic difference. Gays will be free the day when average Joe will not give a damn about whether a gay is a gay not because it is illegal but becuse he just does not give a damn. As long as gays think that it is for their benefit to hide their sexual orientation they will never be free. So I can argue disclosing sexual orientation of gays everywhere maybe to gays benefit. Maybe they will find that there are more of them and they are everywhere. Maybe there are many gays who are ashamed to admit it now and lead repressed lives. In this new scenario they will have to get over their shame, indeed they will get over their shame since so many else will.
I wonder if a gay will not prefer that world?
A very creative solution, betazed, thanks for posting it.
As to the pharmaceutical development, the problem is that the other company IS going through the development, in effect - they're not just getting the papers a week before and having to "catch up", they're following it closely the whole way. It is akin to a great author writing a book; a copycat copies it word for word the whole way and then adds the final paragraph a day before the great author does - inherently unfair. Of course, the original pharmaceutical and the great author could both spy on their lesser competitors, but the effort required to protect intellectual property gets pretty extreme.
As to the fetishist, it is a valid point with regard to homosexuals being "outed" en masse, but what about the folks with very unusual fetishes (and let's stick to the ones involving only consenting adults and leave criminal acts per se out of it)? There would be no "critical mass" that would convince people that it was actually a harmless activity, thus the stigma would remain.
I'm glad that these photos have been made public. They show the general public that something can be wrong in Iraq. And personally I think that torturing people is wrong.
I know that these photos, videos can be faked, but for several reasons (arguements) I don't think they are and therefore I'm again glad that they have been published.
I really disliked those photos, they were disgusting, but OTOH they showed me what the results of abuse of power can be.
In general I like my own privacy (no photos should be taken without my own agreement, acceptation), but these photos and the discussion in this thread give me reason to doubt if I still like my privacy so much.
I have something to think about...
I aim to please.
Ok, let's think about this fetish thing again. We will always consider consenting adults when there are at least two parties concerned.
Let's take as a first example somebody who is a transvestite. Now let us also assume that there are no critical number of transvestites to whom this person can turn to if the society as a whole rejects him. So what is his best course of action?
As far as I can see he has two choices. (a) hide for the rest of his life and forever be afraid of being found out and have a guilt feeling (b) Not hide and take it as it comes - if in doing so he is rejected by most and he cannot get over the rejection then he/she seeks psychiatric help; if he can get over the rejection then he/she leads his life as best as he/she can.
Can we argue definitely that the results in choice (b) are worse off than in (a)?
Now let's take another example. Lets say two consenting adults get enjoyment using BDSM. One is the S person and the other is the M person. I would say both of them need psychiatric help anyway. People around them will be better off if they are cured of their SM fetish. Who knows how much of that S practiced in private spills out in public (in covert means!). But it is legal you will say. Of course it is legal; but just because something is legal it does not make it right!
maybe this way of letting everyone know everything we will find all those things that are legal but not right.
Caramel, nouget, even chocolate are ok, but I draw the line at nuts.
The US is paying for this war in Iraq, and is being represented as a nation there. Abuses are extreme examples, and should definitely be made public if they can't be controlled. The control and prevention of abuse is the preferred response, bu tit is disgusting tha ta public official even hints at a stance that the abuse is not the problem but the disclosure of the abuse is. That's Homer Simpson's response - "I wouldn't have done it if I thought I'd be caught". It's a funny joke, but a very sad reality.
on the other hand, I believe strongly in private/corporate privacy. I don't want my personal issues up for public scrutiny, and I don't want my business's secrets airing in public. There's a lot to be protected in the corporate world - not just the final product, but R&D strategies and procedures. There is strong incentive for keeping information private.
I can argue definitely to that effect, yes, if you would adjust it such that the 'guilt feeling' is not a foregone conclusion. One can hide because they fear society's disapproval, or one can hide because they wish to avoid the effects of society's disapproval.
I would strenuously disagree with your views on BDSM, and in fact I would point to the quoted paragraph as a perfect example of what those S and M people have to fear - a very reasonable and intelligent person expressing unreasoned opposition to something that is legal and harmless.
@Sanaz, I agree with you I like my privacy too. I also understand and I know how to handle it, the privacy of the company I'm working for.
But I also know that privacy, or keeping things private, can keep forbidden or unfair things secret and not punished. Do you think that's fair ?
I know the answer is difficult, but it's something I struggle with for a long time now.
maybe you are right. even if I concede the point that he is better off staying hidden in this case, I still feel that as a person one should always be held responsible for his/her actions whatever they be and deal with the repercussions whatever they are. laws of society should help him deal with it. laws of society should not help him hide it.
That is the distinction that I want to emphasize here.
As I said, legal does not make it right just like we know illegal does not make it wrong (slavery was legal once, abortion was illegal once).
As for harmless, how can you be sure it is harmless? Don't you think it is at least physically harming one of the persons?
Ask yourself this, if you knew your son or daughther was involved in a regular BDSM practice would you feel it is ok for him/her and you just because it is legal?
Understood. We'll just disagree then, because while I do agree with you that one should always take responsibility for one's actions, I don't think society has an obligation to "help him deal with it" because frequently society does more harm than good in that regard.
I agree with you that just because something is legal, it is not necessarily ethical, and with the contrapositive of that statement as well. I was including "legal" because by and large if something is legal then the police at least are prevented from acting against the activity.
As for harmless, I was referring to harming anyone other than the consenting adults involved. Between them, assuming they DO legitimately consent, who else should care? Not me, certainly.
If my son or daughter was of legal and emotional maturity, and the activity was safe, sane, and consentual, I would be ok with it, yes. The "it is ok for him/her and you" part of your question isn't implying that my child and I should participate together, right?
I am fine with society not taking any steps to deal with it also. That has nothing to do with my original argument. However, I do think society should lay down some laws as guidelines to be always followed. I meant "help" in terms of those laws.
Of course if two consenting adults are participating in some activity that is legal no one can object to it. But making the act known is not the same as objecting to it, is it?
No I was not.
Anyway, here comes the crucial part of my argument (which was my original intent always, but I delayed it to provide some thought). Let us assume that there really is no benefit in revealing publicly that two consensual adults engage in BDSM in their home (although we have not shown that convincingly). In fact let us even go further and assume that in this particular case it actually hurts the two individuals and their not taking any responsibility of their actions and hiding is ok(which we definitely have not shown). However, don't you at least agree that this exercise just showed us that we have to go to extreme cases to show examples where my policy of everyone knows everything is not valid? And even in these cases the harm caused was minimal. No lives were lost, no fortunes was lost etc. etc. However we can easily come up with situations where the policy of hiding information hurts large number of people (whole nations included) and causes untold misery for millions over generations! I hate to take up examples here because it will immediately become a partisan issue and channel the argument into something irrelevant here but I am sure I can come up with a dozen examples if challenged.
So even if we agree that both system have flaws, which is the lesser of two evils? Which is the system that will stop greater inequities? Which is the system that will cause greater satisfaction of the greater number?
I for one is willing to live under a system where everyone knows everything because the more I think about it the more I have found that I have NOTHING to hide.
Some have more to hide than others. Unfortunately, this would not be an equal exchange in a lot of ways, just like socialism. If I have more to gain by a change, then I will be in agreement. If I have more to lose, I will be in disagreement.
For example, I may not be that great to look at naked. I can not offer up an exchange in visual privacy to someone beautiful, because, lets face it, I probably have everything to gain, and they have nothing to gain. Maybe I'd be open to it, and they'd be against it. Say we're talking about knowledge, where maybe I have a lot of value in my head. If I make a free exchange with a knucklehead, what would I gain? I'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain, so I'd be against this level of openness.
But this doesn't apply to criminal behavior, especially in te federally funded military. I believe that there are plenty of national secrets, and I don't like it when they are reported irresponsibly by the news organizations (for example when it puts lives in danger dues to giving up locations). But I don't think abusing prisoners falls into this category.
And the problem is? We can clearly see that they are watching us, that would be industrial spying, and therfore illegal, if the person use it to gain his own reasearch.
Sanaz, you have to go beyond just you and somebody else to see this. Remember it is not just you and somebody else who is seeing each other. Everybody is seeing everybody. So while you will see somebody who you find beautiful someone else who finds you beautiful will look at you. So what's wrong in that? Everybody gains. The weak argument that comes along when I say this is "so what about the most beautiful person"? So, What about her (him? I think not ) ? She is probably selling her looks anyway, dishing it out in not so discreetly hidden body parts in magazines and films. This way that person does not have to go to such ridiculous extents to do so and can probably ditch that fashion/film career and do something productive for the society for a change! (I know, I know I am really going overboard with my cynicism here, but the logic is inscrutable).
Do we even want to go there? Too many wrongs, nepotisms, chicanery, avarice, in short all the basest of human qualities have been swept under that rug! Ask yourself which national secret if it did not exist would imperil your life or your fellow citizen's, or even lower the quality of your life. OTOH, I can detail quite a few that would definitely have a salutary effect on your life if they were revealed; or better yet if those secrets never existed.
Separate names with a comma.