Is non truth a lie?

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Actually the Ultimate Law uses the Negative Golden Rule or the "Silver Rule" which is "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." which could be used to force socialism by making others share their wealth with less fortunate. If you were rich and put yourself in the place of the poor you would be obligated to treat them as you would like them to threat you and help them out.

But back to your normally scheduled thread about lying, I stand by the opinion I presented in my first post in this thread.

While we're teasing words apart I would like to disagree with your assumption that the Golden rule forces any agenda. I believe Christ intentionally worded it so that it only applies to one user personally and is not be used to influence others toward one's own ends. That is, assuming the original Aramaic, cultural context, and oral tradition remain fully in tact 😉.

I too believe that the wording of the Golden Rule is to promote equality and fairness. I didn't say it forced anything, only said it COULD logically be used to enforce socialism.

[Langku]

True.

[Dudecore]

Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.

Question: "...what is wrong with that?"

Answer: stupid people

[Dudecore]

I know it won't be widely adopted, but the Jains have started no wars, committed no genocide, and have not conquered anyone's homeland. Even using "The original position" hypothetical which you select the principles that will determine the basic structure of the society you will live in. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which you would not know your: ethnicity, social status, gender, age conception of the good (your idea of how to lead a good life). This forces you to select principles of impartially and rationally, as its eminently the most fair society in which all to live.

Everyone should just be anarchists and cut out the non-sense. The government does not live like the Jains, they don't think of the original position, they murder people and enslave them.

[Langku]

Jainism has some views that don't align well with my universal view and some other very compelling tenants I would like to further explore . I've never looked closely at this religion. I've been missing out.

[EvACiDe]

Id say no, because in my opinion "lying" is intentionally deceiving somebody. The intent in your case is not present, therefore not a lie. Just simply a nonfact

[Piotr]

Then you are missing the point of our very simple law and I have to question your ability to think logically.

Our law is testing the feelings of the victim, not the intentions of the aggressor. You tell your non fact to me and becomes a lie to me if it hurts me. Your intentions are not relevant. Our law is based on negative golden rule for a reason, and the reason is to ignore intentions of the aggressor and to protect the victim from sophisms like yours.

[Piotr]

Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.

I cannot eat carrots under that law. I like carrots.

[Dudecore]

No good law would suggest you've been harmed by someone else's speech. And because he said socialist ideas how does that mean he's going to vote socialist? Or that society will vote socialist? It's illogical, no one here has a time machine or a crystal ball (that I'm aware of). Potential future crimes cannot enforced with punishment, or else the law is junk and at the whims of whatever maniacal villain would impose such a law.

Any good law has to protect the rights of the minorities as well. The Golden Rule and Silver Rule produce their own kind of villains. I cannot reasonably believe you've been harmed Piotr, just merely using iMtG to squelch the critics. We know socialism is .poo., it's a force of evil and serves no purpose but to strip the humanity from everyone. But someone who is not in a position to harm you (somewhere on the internet), I cannot view you as a victim of a crime, having someone express opinions behind a vile of secrecy, and ask you to read something/watch a movie constitutes harm?

You've the rights to enforce your property rights, saying iMtG law gives you the right to fight socialism makes the law appear to be a farse.   

[Piotr]

No good law would suggest you've been harmed by someone else's speech. And because he said socialist ideas how does that mean he's going to vote socialist? Or that society will vote socialist? It's illogical, no one here has a time machine or a crystal ball (that I'm aware of). Potential future crimes cannot enforced with punishment, or else the law is junk and at the whims of whatever maniacal villain would impose such a law.

Any good law has to protect the rights of the minorities as well. The Golden Rule and Silver Rule produce their own kind of villains. I cannot reasonably believe you've been harmed Piotr, just merely using iMtG to squelch the critics. We know socialism is .poo., it's a force of evil and serves no purpose but to strip the humanity from everyone. But someone who is not in a position to harm you (somewhere on the internet), I cannot view you as a victim of a crime, having someone express opinions behind a vile of secrecy, and ask you to read something/watch a movie constitutes harm?

You've the rights to enforce your property rights, saying iMtG law gives you the right to fight socialism makes the law appear to be a farse.

It pisses me off to a point of banning when people spread socialist lies on my property. Take it or leave. EOT.

PS. I updated the Commentary to clarify where I stand. Let me know if you're still ok with iMtG Law.

[Gorzo]

I have a slight problem with that. There's a big difference between a lie and an ignorant falsehood or simply being wrong. Granted, neither are really excusable, but a lie is given with intent.

"The world is flat." If this were said now, it would be a lie. We know the world is spherical. By saying it is flat, I would be intentionally saying a false statement. That would be a lie. Hundreds of years ago, almost everyone in Europe believed this statement was a fact. Were they all wrong? Yes. Were they all spreading a falsehood? Yes. Was what they were saying harmful? Yes, the belief slowed trade and exploration considerably. Was it a lie? No, they had no intention to deceive, say falsehood, harm, or be untruthful in any way.

Does that make the ignorance of it acceptable? Of course not. But how can the two merit the same label and punishment and be accused of the same crime? That is not logical, nor is it just.

[Dudecore]

I do not agree with Piotr's conclusion based on the premise. I do not see compelling evidence of how free speech is harming another individual because you "would not want that to be done to you". Anything can be said to harm you at that point, anything that you don't agree with of course.

If you were honest with that statement, then all theists should be banned from this forum as well. Seeing as you won't do that (being you are one) - iMtG Law is a correction of great ideas that are enforced as you see fit. Not the intended purpose of the golden rule.

[Gorzo]

My biggest issue is the notion of simply being wrong about something being considered a 'crime,' and therefore a punishable offense.

Punishing someone for simply being incorrect or misinformed is not an option I will accept even being on the table. If someone tried to punish my 2 year old some day for saying "the cow says oink!" they will need a proctologist to remove my shoe from that person's ass.

[Mlerner12]

My biggest issue is the notion of simply being wrong about something being considered a 'crime,' and therefore a punishable offense.

Punishing someone for simply being incorrect or misinformed is not an option I will accept even being on the table. If someone tried to punish my 2 year old some day for saying "the cow says oink!" they will need a proctologist to remove my shoe from that person's ass.

👆👍👍👍👍. SO MANY TIMES.