You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: It has come to my attention that I need to explain things a little more...and this is better!
Hey, @baah.
You answered @lucylin with a similar response, so I'll be interested to see what the answer is. In my case, I guess I'm more interested in knowing if you see the concerns expressed here as major issues, and if so, what should be done about them.
Just as an aside, code seems to always be considered non-ethical in nature. It is what it is. So maybe a bad choice of words, but it seemed to fit what was being driven at.
Because a gun or a law isn't ethical, only acts are ethical. Enforcing a law becomes an ethical position, but a law is no more ethical or unethical, it's only words after all. Code, applications, aren't ethical.
He literary went from "it's not fair that better equipment nets more fish" to "thou shall kill because you're bigger" without missing a beat and no one has said anything.
He, like you, claims that without hard coded ethics this place is inherently encouraging unethical behavior (despite never explaining what behavior is unethical) and claiming that hard coded ethics are against authoritarians as if laws, oaths of office or anything like that has not been tried by millennia and been demonstrated not any better than the people who enforce laws, just so on here, nobody will be stopped from acting unscrupulous simply because there's a code preventing it, as if law has ever prevented theft and murder.
It's so ridiculous that were I to ask you or him, exactly what is the ethical issue, all you can do is talk about how it's not fair (equity, not morality).
Posted using Partiko Android
Hey, @baah.
Okay. So in agreeing with him that there are fundamental flaws to the system, I guess I'm also being lumped into what his solution might be, even though, really, I was trying to understand what his solution was by stating, or restating what I thought it was and then asking if such was the case.
For the record, I don't think I really know how to solve the issues he brings up (which I guess have yet to be clearly defined), mostly because there really isn't a one size fits all solution that enough people are going to like, and for precisely the same reasons you state: just because a law exists, doesn't mean the words, and I would add, even with some enforcement, will stop what it's meant to stop, or cause what it's meant to help to actually happen.
I figured out a long time ago that you really can't legislate morality. It doesn't work for religion, and it doesn't work for governments. The people are either willing to behave certain ways, or they're not. Laws might deter some because they don't want to suffer the consequences, but there are many who that doesn't seem to be that big of an issue.
And if they do decide to change their behavior, it's more apt to be other influences and circumstances than it is the law and the consequences of them. Laws can be changed, and whether they're enforced or not can be changed, too.
So, yes, actions do speak louder than words, and ethically, what you do is more important than just words.
In reality, I think there's already hard coded ethics, and they are already allowing/permitting/encouraging certain behaviors. The absence of law (which isn't entirely true here) is still a moral code, and instead of specifying what may or may not be allowed, it's saying everything is just fine unless enough people with enough power can stop it and desire to do so.
My main interest here was to concur with lucylin about identifying what I believe to be problems—whether we want to use the words ethical, moral or something else to describe them—and instead of just keep talking about them, come up with ways to solve them that can be agreeable for as many people as possible.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is one answer. That's evident in this conversation we're having. Mainly because we don't seem to be at a point of agreeing on whether or not problems exist, which was the question I asked you, and then what to do about them if there are problems.
The first thing is what is the ethical, moral or wrong conduct that both you and him seem to understand?
If there's no ethical issue, what is the issue?
I asked him in his previous post, after pointing out that he seemingly had no ethical dilemma but an obvious equitable dilemma, what would be the solution. He said that he had no interest in discussing that.
Go read through the thread and see for yourself. He has never been an intellectual in my view, despite his nauseating attempts to indicate otherwise, and like other people have pointed out in that thread, he had a equitable issue. He never responded to that, as he never responded to my comments.
What is the fundamental flaw with the system? You seem convinced that we don't agree about problems as if you, him, or anyone else actually defined a problem, or made sense from head to tail as to what the problem was. How can we disagree over something that I haven't made any position of?
Posted using Partiko Android
You keep mentioning 'equitable' and 'fairness', when I never do.
it makes you look disingenuous and stoopid.
Conflation is not pretty when people see it for what it is.
Your lack of ability to understand what an ethic is , and how property rights are fundamentally essential to enact ethics, only reminds me the depth of your mental illness and your post modernistic delusions.
You can get better, John, just work at at..
I wasn't the only one that pointed out all you have is an issue of fairness. BTW, if it's not mentioned, what is the graphic of the fisherman about...
Posted using Partiko Android
My understanding is not the issue here, your understanding is. You never pointed out exactly what is the ethical problem. Who's property rights are violated?
Posted using Partiko Android
https:// steemit.com/@lucylin/a-life-of-ethics-and-steemit-lets-get-fundamental-philosophy-part-5
The first comment to my comment.
Posted using Partiko Android
You make it seem as if you cannot write a whole library on one thing without explicitly naming the thing itself. You made numerous indications that all you have is an issue of fairness, yet you seem to think that because you never explicitly said you had an issue of fairness that means you weren't talking about what is unfair.
You seem to have absolutely no problem with "looking stupid", as I pointed out above, and as I mentioned previously in your initial thread about this topic of "ethics and steem", you don't have to mention it once, that doesn't mean you did not talk directly about it.
Posted using Partiko Android
Ethical behavior is not based on fairness.
Ethical behavior is base on property rights.
Do you really not understand that?
You really need to brush up philosophical concepts.
Because you talk in a way to avoid definition (postmodernist mental illness) and give the illusion of intelligence, doesn't mean that I do (you are projecting your own way of acting, onto me.)
Seriously just how old are you?
Why are you lecturing me on ethics when you think that language or code is ethical by its own? You had an analogy of fishermen competing/working to catch fish, implying clearly the same rhetoric from your steem ethics philosophy post about 2000 words not earning as much as 5 words and then from that analogy consistent and reflective of how the reward pool functions you asserted without missing a beat or any kind of logic that "you can kill whomever you want because your bigger". I'm not the only one that pointed out all you have is a dilemma about equity, another person was Surprised that you denied what was obvious.
You can keep repeating that ethics are based on property rights as if there was anything in anything I said that was counter to that. You can also keep saying that you never "mentioned" equity and deny the obvious implications of whining about 2000 words not earning as much as 5 or that "it's not free market" as if catching fish from the ocean does not give you ownership over the catch.
Which property rights are violated or who's consent is violated for it to be an ethical issue? Again, you refuse to answer the basic question regarding your nonsensical absurdity of "nobody owns the ocean therefore it's not ethical to own the catch", but you're not fooling me and those who are keen on what ethics are. Code is not any more moral or ethical than any other tool. Only action is moral or ethical, and all action has an author, not only do you not have anything to point to as who's consent or property rights were violated, you don't have anyone to point the finger at for your alleged ethical issue to blame for it.
Posted using Partiko Android
Looks like this conversation has been moving along without it me. :)
Well, the one fundamental flaw I understood was being written about and that I was agreeing with is that we don't really own what we use to upvote people with. It comes from the communal reward pool, and even with that, we only allocate what we control based on our vests. It's not like me going to the store and purchasing bread with money from my wallet. It's more like an unlimited expense account that is throttled down based on my vests.
How I see that as fundamentally flawed is that we're suppose to be trying to build up STEEM, but really, the only actual use of it is in things like bidbots, maybe purchasing STEEM Monster cards or the like and investing. The actual use of STEEM isn't available for creators and curators, unless, apparently, when the price is so bad, we get liquid STEEM depending on what SBD is doing.
I suppose I could just keep my STEEM liquid and spend time transferring amounts directly to people's wallets. Fairly time consuming, though, because it's not really how the upvoting system is designed.
Those of us involved in the creation of things aren't really trafficking in STEEM, which seems odd to me, since the social media platform is the largest and still the main draw, but funny how STEEM Monsters, Drugwars, Magic Dice, and maybe others actually do.
I'm not speaking for lucylin here. These are things I'm thinking about when I read what he wrote.
The ethical part comes in with what people do with the system. Is it ethical or moral to flag people just because you can, or to remove reward funds simply because they're in the crossfire? Is it ethical, as lucylin pointed out, to take away someone's account because they happened to do something wrong with their password? Since the code allows it, by code alone, the answers would be yes, but most of us don't live like that.
Sure, until payout, nothing belongs to us (which I believe another issue lucylin had), and yes, people can flag, but since there's nothing governing or preventing anyone from misuse, abuse, etc. (in fact, none of that is even clearly defined), they're pretty much free to do what they want, even if it hurts others. I suppose we could argue over whether or not anyone is hurt if what they don't own is flagged away, but based on most people's reactions, I would say that many would say that it's at least wrong to do when it's either flagging to flag, or flagging when the beef is with someone else or something else entirely.
I'm not convinced of anything as far as you're concerned. I was trying to provide uncertainty with my choice of words. I still don't know if you see any problems or not, other than I don't seem to be precise enough in what I'm saying. :)
Oh, and I don't know who's an intellectual or not. I don't think of myself as one, but I do like to think about things, question them, and figure things out.
Isn't it ironic that this posts begins by talking about how people don’t understand words, so more or less on a premise of their lack of ability, and you and others swiftly agreed to what otherwise is undefined, unexplained, and despite the pictures, has no indication of ethics, and here you are suggesting that neither ethical or moral is specific enough to describe the problem you and others agreed to.
I said that if I were to ask you or him what exactly is the ethical issue, it would only be a matter of equity/equality/fairness, which is exactly the only indication one can take from this nonsensical post, where he illustrates how a net catches more fish.
Despite the "this is logically consistent" rhetoric, the other irony is that nobody bated an eye when he went from talking about fishing, to talking about killing. All that logical consistency, only to state some utter nonsense, and it worked, who was the wiser to recognize the false preface?
Posted using Partiko Android
I was talking about pure logic, not fishing or killing.
Are you really that intellectually dim?
I don't think you are, which just makes you disingenuous
I would say manipulative, buy while you might think you are clever - you are no where close to being good at manipulation. ( I was born into a family of experts of the fuckers).
Remember how I reeled you in as exercise in manipulation? - I told you i was gonna do it, before I did it - and then you fell for anyway?? lolol
....how old are you, btw? I thinking you must be under 20?
I wasn't talking about fishing but how you went from an analogy focused on competition to the strongest get away with murder.
Posted using Partiko Android
What's the analogy about? Huh? You had an analogy about the reward pool being akin to fishing in the ocean (nobody owns either and best equipment usually nets most fish) to talking about might is right- I can kill you because I'm stronger. What is manipulative about pointing out that without missing a beat you basically prefaced an non sequitur with a logical consistent argument, and then went to conclude that the non sequitur is somehow true or applicable. The irony of calling me manipulative.
Posted using Partiko Android
I asked you numerous times who's property rights are violated or who's consent is violated and all you want to do is ask me an non sequitur about my age while calling me mentally ill because I questioned your claim about banking, now you call me manipulative. The hypocrisy is strong with you.
Posted using Partiko Android
Seems you're still angry at your family, don't take it out on me.
Posted using Partiko Android
You literally went from talking about fairness, equitable, as the analogy was about competition between two typical fishermen (ergo fairness) to talking about killing one another without anything to tie the former into the later. You denied again and again that you never talked about fairness even though in your initial post regarding this topic you mentioned that "2000 words don't make as much as 5" and that "steem is not a meritocracy (wholly concerned with Fairness) to talking about how it's not free market (more fairness). You are so lost in the sauce that it's beyond funny, it's sad, pathetic actually.
Posted using Partiko Android