I think our law is complete ;)
It's pretty straightforward, especially with the commentary. It's easy to follow unless you're up to no good and you know it. I'd also say it is complete.
Quote from: Piotr on January 26, 2013, 10:48:05 AM
I think our law is complete ;)
Can we start calling it our creed?
Quote from: Umbra on April 01, 2013, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: Piotr on January 26, 2013, 10:48:05 AM
I think our law is complete ;)
Can we start calling it our creed?
It is free to use however you please http://ultimatelaw.org
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
I don't believe so. For example, if I thought you were a horrible person, I could say it in a non-aggressive way, like "Piotr, I think our morals are quite different" or something like that.
On the other hand, I could say "Piotr, you're a .loving. disgusting human being." Now, if I actually thought that (which, of course, I don't) I would be telling the truth, but would be doing so in a way to intentionally cause you harm. This would go against iMtG Law.
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
Logically no, not as it stands now. There are always situations in which truth can potentially be harmful, or perhaps in some other way go against iMtG law.
"Honey, do I look fat in this dress?"
Truth: "Yes, dear, you look like a cow that just ate a blimp." This truth break other laws. Notably "Do not harm" and "do not do to others as you do not wish to be done to you."
But by lying as saying she looks good in it, can also be considered harmful (she'll go out looking terrible and potentially become horribly embarrassed by the children at the sushi restaurant you're going to all scream "Godzilla!")
Thus we get a logical paradox.
What should one do in these situations? Well, they are pretty case-by-case, but using the ultimate, ultimate law (use logic), you can usually find the least-harmful course of action and the best results
What I would say in this example: "What about that green one with the things on the side*? You look really good in that one."
Didn't quite answer truthfully, in that I did not tell her how bad she looked, but I didn't lie either. Did my best to offer a solution that is best for everyone, without harming anyone.
*Im pulling these dress details out of my butt. I have no idea where this is coming from.
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
I don't believe so. For example, if I thought you were a horrible person, I could say it in a non-aggressive way, like "Piotr, I think our morals are quite different" or something like that.
On the other hand, I could say "Piotr, you're a .loving. disgusting human being." Now, if I actually thought that (which, of course, I don't) I would be telling the truth, but would be doing so in a way to intentionally cause you harm. This would go against iMtG Law.
I'm not sure I'm convinced: what you believe to be true may not always be so. Ones belief does not make truth, does it? We need some logic, some objectivity, some science. Can you give me a definition of a, hmm, disgusting human being' other than 'Piotr is an example of a disgusting human being', please?
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
I don't believe so. For example, if I thought you were a horrible person, I could say it in a non-aggressive way, like "Piotr, I think our morals are quite different" or something like that.
On the other hand, I could say "Piotr, you're a .loving. disgusting human being." Now, if I actually thought that (which, of course, I don't) I would be telling the truth, but would be doing so in a way to intentionally cause you harm. This would go against iMtG Law.
I'm not sure I'm convinced: what you believe to be true may not always be so. Ones belief does not make truth, does it? We need some logic, some objectivity, some science. Can you give me a definition of a, hmm, disgusting human being' other than 'Piotr is an example of a disgusting human being', please?
Hmm, good point. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. This should be better:
If I told somebody "I think you are a worthless, disgusting human being" I could very well be telling the truth (so long as I believe they are a horrible person), but doing so in a way that is intended to cause harm.
I think truth in general is a good way to go, as long as it doesn't go against the law in its entirety (do not harm, for example).
Quote from: Gorzo on May 11, 2013, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
Logically no, not as it stands now. There are always situations in which truth can potentially be harmful, or perhaps in some other way go against iMtG law.
"Honey, do I look fat in this dress?"
Truth: "Yes, dear, you look like a cow that just ate a blimp." This truth break other laws. Notably "Do not harm" and "do not do to others as you do not wish to be done to you."
But by lying as saying she looks good in it, can also be considered harmful (she'll go out looking terrible and potentially become horribly embarrassed by the children at the sushi restaurant you're going to all scream "Godzilla!")
Thus we get a logical paradox.
What should one do in these situations? Well, they are pretty case-by-case, but using the ultimate, ultimate law (use logic), you can usually find the least-harmful course of action and the best results
What I would say in this example: "What about that green one with the things on the side*? You look really good in that one."
Didn't quite answer truthfully, in that I did not tell her how bad she looked, but I didn't lie either. Did my best to offer a solution that is best for everyone, without harming anyone.
*Im pulling these dress details out of my butt. I have no idea where this is coming from.
Lesser of two evils, I think I'm pretty much convinced. Please note that in your example, you didn't answer the question, you did answer a different question. This is pretty much the same as keeping your mouth shut. It is difficult to lie or tell the truth while not saying anything ;)
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:01:25 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
I don't believe so. For example, if I thought you were a horrible person, I could say it in a non-aggressive way, like "Piotr, I think our morals are quite different" or something like that.
On the other hand, I could say "Piotr, you're a .loving. disgusting human being." Now, if I actually thought that (which, of course, I don't) I would be telling the truth, but would be doing so in a way to intentionally cause you harm. This would go against iMtG Law.
I'm not sure I'm convinced: what you believe to be true may not always be so. Ones belief does not make truth, does it? We need some logic, some objectivity, some science. Can you give me a definition of a, hmm, disgusting human being' other than 'Piotr is an example of a disgusting human being', please?
Hmm, good point. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. This should be better:
If I told somebody "I think you are a worthless, disgusting human being" I could very well be telling the truth (so long as I believe they are a horrible person), but doing so in a way that is intended to cause harm.
I think truth in general is a good way to go, as long as it doesn't go against the law in its entirety (do not harm, for example).
Hmm, how about the other way round: can I get offended when you call me Piotr, if you intended to insult me by calling me with my name?
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 07:10:28 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:01:25 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 PM
Is it always legal to tell a truth?
I don't believe so. For example, if I thought you were a horrible person, I could say it in a non-aggressive way, like "Piotr, I think our morals are quite different" or something like that.
On the other hand, I could say "Piotr, you're a .loving. disgusting human being." Now, if I actually thought that (which, of course, I don't) I would be telling the truth, but would be doing so in a way to intentionally cause you harm. This would go against iMtG Law.
I'm not sure I'm convinced: what you believe to be true may not always be so. Ones belief does not make truth, does it? We need some logic, some objectivity, some science. Can you give me a definition of a, hmm, disgusting human being' other than 'Piotr is an example of a disgusting human being', please?
Hmm, good point. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. This should be better:
If I told somebody "I think you are a worthless, disgusting human being" I could very well be telling the truth (so long as I believe they are a horrible person), but doing so in a way that is intended to cause harm.
I think truth in general is a good way to go, as long as it doesn't go against the law in its entirety (do not harm, for example).
Hmm, how about the other way round: can I get offended when you call me Piotr, if you intended to insult me by calling me with my name?
I think if someone gets offended by a comment, we have to consider the comment itself. People can get offended by comments even if the comments were not meant to offend.
I'll use this very discussion as an example, since its right here. In my original statement, I used you in my example. My intentions were not to offend you (and if I did, I apologize), I was just simply using you in the example since you were asking the question.
This brings up the question: Is accidental offense punishable by law?
There would be a victim (sticking with this example, you) but the "criminal" (in this example, me) was not trying to cause harm. I'm curious to how this would play out. I think in these intances, an apology should be administered, but I'm not sure if it would be punishable by law.
However, if my intentions were to cause harm, by calling you out, then yes, you have the right to be offended, and I would be subject to punishment.
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:20:42 PM
Is accidental offense punishable by law?
There would be a victim (sticking with this example, you) but the "criminal" (in this example, me) was not trying to cause harm. I'm curious to how this would play out. I think in these intances, an apology should be administered, but I'm not sure if it would be punishable by law.
Oh, but you are sure: 'apology administered' is definitely a punishment, because it is done regardless of the target's will, true or false?
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 07:25:49 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:20:42 PM
Is accidental offense punishable by law?
There would be a victim (sticking with this example, you) but the "criminal" (in this example, me) was not trying to cause harm. I'm curious to how this would play out. I think in these intances, an apology should be administered, but I'm not sure if it would be punishable by law.
Oh, but you are sure: 'apology administered' is definitely a punishment, because it is done regardless of the target's will, true or false?
True, if in this case we are enforcing the law. I am unsure if we can lawfully do this, however.
I believe the victim has the right to request it, but if there were no harmful intentions, then I don't believe we can enforce it. The law says "No victim, no crime." But I wonder if the reverse is true "If there is a victim, there is a crime."
In a case where someone is offended, but not because somebody else was trying to offend them, can we punish the offender?
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 11, 2013, 07:25:49 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:20:42 PM
Is accidental offense punishable by law?
There would be a victim (sticking with this example, you) but the "criminal" (in this example, me) was not trying to cause harm. I'm curious to how this would play out. I think in these intances, an apology should be administered, but I'm not sure if it would be punishable by law.
Oh, but you are sure: 'apology administered' is definitely a punishment, because it is done regardless of the target's will, true or false?
True, if in this case we are enforcing the law. I am unsure if we can lawfully do this, however.
I believe the victim has the right to request it, but if there were no harmful intentions, then I don't believe we can enforce it. The law says "No victim, no crime." But I wonder if the reverse is true "If there is a victim, there is a crime."
In a case where someone is offended, but not because somebody else was trying to offend them, can we punish the offender?
Too difficult for today, I'll try tomorrow, IMNS ;)
Quote from: Keyeto on May 11, 2013, 07:31:56 PM
"If there is a victim, there is a crime."
For the purpose of the law, yes. Law is practical, not just philosophy. Yes, it come out of high emotions, ethics, philosophy and whatever, but the goal is simple: solve conflicts in a fair way. There's no point bringing the law if there's no proper victim and no suspected law breaker.
When we talk about a victim in a general sense of the word, we can imagine myself a victim of the situation, if only because something in the environment is forcing me to select between evils. Then there would be no crime because environment cannot be sued ;)
Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?
Quote from: Piotr on May 13, 2013, 06:03:10 PM
Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?
I believe it is. Our karma is ours to give or take freely, within reason. If you see something you don't like, or is offensive, etc. you can give negative karma without participating. I don't see it going against any part of the law.
I've done this myself. If a user gets fussy, and starts retaliating with bad language and rude remarks, instead of partaking in the argument (unless I feel mod intervention is necessary) I usually ding them and move on. It seems more effective than commenting and potentially escalating the conversation. It goes back to the "lesser of two evils" idea. Both options aren't necessarily good (telling the user to stop the language could make them angrier; giving negative karma hurts reputation) but I believe giving someone negative karma is a better way about it.
Quote from: Keyeto on May 13, 2013, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 13, 2013, 06:03:10 PM
Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?
I believe it is. Our karma is ours to give or take freely, within reason. If you see something you don't like, or is offensive, etc. you can give negative karma without participating. I don't see it going against any part of the law.
I've done this myself. If a user gets fussy, and starts retaliating with bad language and rude remarks, instead of partaking in the argument (unless I feel mod intervention is necessary) I usually ding them and move on. It seems more effective than commenting and potentially escalating the conversation. It goes back to the "lesser of two evils" idea. Both options aren't necessarily good (telling the user to stop the language could make them angrier; giving negative karma hurts reputation) but I believe giving someone negative karma is a better way about it.
I agree with this. Karma does not really mean anything (at least to me anyways). But I feel you should be allowed to voice your opinion. What if somebody was being rude and you did not want to start a ruckus by commenting? Passing a negative Karma silently allows you to voice your opinion and not stir up trouble or make a scene. If that person flips out then they are the ones who have an issue with the increase of a negative digital number on their screen.
From a moderator perspective I really think it is valid. I personally up and down vote mostly in threads I dont participate in. I only want to post if I have the time to do that post justice. A up or down vote is an easy way to encourage or discourage good or bad behavior respectively. It is also less likely a up or down vote will be misunderstood.
As a user it seems to make less sense, unless you have a strong interest in encouraging good discussion and behavior as well as discouraging unnecessary or rude behavior. Those people will probably become mods if they arent already anyways.
You can only do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them if you are dealing punishment. True or false?
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
I do not understand what you are implying here
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
I do not understand what you are implying here
Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?
(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
I do not understand what you are implying here
Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?
(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)
I do not understand the logic in this reasoning. If the person hasn't died yet, it shouldn't be considered killing her. Why should it be considered murder?
Not exactly murder, a form of. Like: exaggerating is a form of lying rather than a form of murder, nor it is form of stealing.
Kidnapping is definately not murder. You lost me there, Piotr.
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:43:05 AM
Not exactly murder, a form of. Like: exaggerating is a form of lying rather than a form of murder, nor it is form of stealing.
What?
Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kidnapping: Take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.
Kidnapping, many times, leads to murder, showing that no, they are not the same thing. If you put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, that is murder. If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them to follow you, that is kidnapping. While they are related, in a way, they are most definitely not the same thing.
I would only disagree with murder needing to be premeditated
I'm curious why you brought up kidnapping, Piotr. Could you give some more context for your question?
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:36:43 PM
I would only disagree with murder needing to be premeditated
Not my opinion. Just copy/pasted from dictionary.com or something
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:38:17 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
I do not understand what you are implying here
Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?
(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)
I do not understand the logic in this reasoning. If the person hasn't died yet, it shouldn't be considered killing her. Why should it be considered murder?
The kidnapped person is a bit like cat in the poisonous box, neither alive nor dead, or both at the same time?
Quote from: Langku on May 23, 2013, 12:15:33 AM
I'm curious why you brought up kidnapping, Piotr. Could you give some more context for your question?
If the law cannot solve a case of kidnapping, it is rubbish.
I would say the kidnapped person is pretty much alive
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 06:39:42 AM
I would say the kidnapped person is pretty much alive
How do we know, until such person is released (the poisonous box opened)?
We don't. But by that logic, working in someone's house why they aren't home would be considered stealing. And telling something in this online forum would be considered a lie until further investigations. No one needs to prove innocence, only guilt needs to be proved, so the kidnapper isn't considered a murderer until you prove he did it
Sounds legit. What would be maximum logical punishment if we have proven that kidnapper is a kidnapper, while the child is still in the poisonous box?
IMO the main worries at that time would be to release the kidnapped, not to issue a punishment. Punishment can be issued after rescuing the victim.
Whatever happens to the kidnapper during rescue operation doesn't concern me, killing or torturing him shouldn't be condemned.
I disagree with death penalty, so maximum penalty is life, in my opinion, not legal. You have said otherwise before, though, so it should be the maximum. I do not agree with torture as punishment.
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
IMO the main worries at that time would be to release the kidnapped, not to issue a punishment.
True, and combining both seems reasonable and practical, I say blow kidnapper's brains out ;)
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 04:24:06 PMI do not agree with torture as punishment.
What would be a logical punishment for torture?
Quote from: Piotr on May 23, 2013, 04:44:23 PM
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
IMO the main worries at that time would be to release the kidnapped, not to issue a punishment.
True, and combining both seems reasonable and practical, I say blow kidnapper's brains out ;)
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 04:24:06 PMI do not agree with torture as punishment.
What would be a logical punishment for torture?
Blowing his brain might not be smart if you don't know where the victim is :P
Logical punishment for torture? Reclusion from society, probably for life. If he doesn't follow the standards of the society he lives in, he has the right to think his own way, but the society thinks they are better without him. So put them away on a cell where they can't harm the community anymore. Or, as you like, kill him.
Quote from: Mentonin on May 23, 2013, 04:50:13 PMOr, as you like, kill him.
Sounds excessive to me, but I can image societies who would do that.
Quote from: Piotr on May 23, 2013, 03:17:27 AM
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:38:17 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?
I do not understand what you are implying here
Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?
(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)
I do not understand the logic in this reasoning. If the person hasn't died yet, it shouldn't be considered killing her. Why should it be considered murder?
The kidnapped person is a bit like cat in the poisonous box, neither alive nor dead, or both at the same time?
Shroedinger's (sp?) cat? Without knowing the intent of the kidnaper, it is impossible to theorize the outcome to the kidnaped person. Thusly the kidnaped person is theoretically both alive and dead simultaneously. Theoretical nonsense IMO.
Quote from: Tonygrabowski4 on December 19, 2013, 03:48:41 AMTheoretical nonsense IMO.
How come? Did you not just describe how it relates to reality? BTW I claim to know the shortest possible definition of reality which can actually fit in a twitt or even a twatt: https://www.quora.com/What-is-reality-3/answer/Piotr-Farbiszewski