PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Your ethical standpoint

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Your ethical standpoint
Author Message
Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:22 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I haven't read all the posts simply because of the amount but I'd just like to say it's ridiculous to think you have the right to make someones decision for them because you THINK it MAY be detrimental to them in some way...you don't know what would happen to them either way...just because you think you're right you can't enforce your morals on someone else...we're all born with the same minds..how you use them should be your decision and yours alone....Also, i read somthing by joet about stopping your friend from doing drugs....how do you know that wouldn't be detrimental to him in the long run...mabye if you didn't influence him he would've tried them and learned a lesson (he might've chosen to never do it again after that) but since he didn't ( and mabye still wanted to because he didn't that time) mabye next time your not around to "help" him and he tries them in a worse situation than he was in the 1st time (or tries an even worse drug) because he'd never learned that lesson....you can't know what is the better decision for someone in the "long run"
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:00 am

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Elliptic wrote:
The act of telepathic suggestion is, in most cases, de facto immoral because it infringes on the sentience of other rational beings.

(...)

In the past, (long before I met Adam, for those wondering), I referred to telepathic suggestion on an extreme scale as "mindrape." It is essentially that - to telepathically alter someone's actions or opinions is ultimately to rape them - to steal that very thing which makes them a sentient being. In most cases, it is morally equivalent to murder.

I was so happy thinking I could get smokers NOT to smoke where it's forbidden (I hate that, because I have throat problems and a few asthmatic friends who have been real hurt by this stuff). I specially hate it when they smoke in schools and hospitals (in theory it's forbidden, but...) Damn.

Is it immoral to use whatever power you have to stop someone doing what's wrong?

Anyway, you cannot suggest successfully to someone who's determined, can you? If a girl is in love with another man, you cannot "suggest" her to come and have sex with you, right? Do people work like pressing buttons? Even with your suggestions, they still have their own free will, or don't they? I mean, if you "suggested" me to jump from a 10th floor, and I didn't want to, my conscious mind would defeat the suggestion, wouldn't it? Any other answer is too scary to think about... But I really want to know. Can you really force people to do things they wouldn't do in normal circumstances?
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:02 am

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Peebrain wrote:
Mad_Hatter wrote:
The line is drawn at making people do things that you wouldn't want somebody else making you do.


I wouldn't want anyone to force me to do anything. I am a conscious being, and I have an inherent right to make decisions for myself. If I choose to be loud in a library, then that is my decision. If you want me to be quiet... then ask me.

~Sean

It is difficult for some people to ask the one who's breaking the rules to respect them. It is taken for granted that if you don't respect the rules, you may as well not respect the person who tells you on that. So most shy or weak people would find it easier to use TP.

On the point of being a conscious being, I agree with you. 95% of the time, TPS would be wrong, even if for something so petty as passing you the remote control.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:13 am

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Peebrain wrote:


It's a perfect example. How is forcing someone to make a decision "going an extra mile" for them? People make stupid decisions all the time, including myself. That doesn't give someone else the right to make the decision for me. I have the right to make bad decisions,

Sorry, but what if the "bad decission" affects other people in a negative way? Sorry, but the narcs kill and rape many people in Colombia each year. If I get someone away from drugs, I'm taking money from the smugglers. The smugglers in my country have the pretty habit of burning the most verdant part of it whenever they want the police to be busy, so they can carry the cocaine and hatch safely home.

I'm not being judgemental, I just want your opinion on this, Peebrain. If a person is going to make a bad decision that I KNOW will hurt many, many other people... is it right to stop them, or should we let them make the "bad" decission? I don't mean anything like eating at Wendy's: high cholesterol and fat is their problem. I went on an eating spree once and got weight, got bored of it, lost weight, and learned from it all. So, if someone wants to do something that is only harmful to them (say, like going out with the wrong boy or girl, that's something that only affects them, or smoking if they do it where they can, or drinking if they don't drive, you know, things that will only harm the choosing person), I agree that they should be free to choose, and may even profit from their choices.

But, if it harms someone else, directly or indirectly?
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:34 am

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Elliptic wrote:


With Paul, I won't get into the relative ambiguity of drug use - I don't think we should imprison people for it, so I certainly don't think we should brainwash them not to do it.

Ahem, as someone who lives in a country whose forests are repeatedly burnt by the narcs, I'd pretty much ask people to try drugs where they are legal. I don't mind if you take drugs, but if you give money to people who burn my forests, I get pretty pissed off.

EDITED due to warnings. All the better, since the remaining stuff is all more in accordance to my beliefs.

Elliptic wrote:

Paternalism is not a good thing. Others have no right to dictate how we live our lives


Sorry, but the vast majority of people dictates how others live their lives. You are free to choose as long as you don't harm others. But if you do harm others, everyone else pretty much agrees in sending you to a trial, and to jail, if necessary. I didn't like Joe's stance because he judged on his own. I don't much like Judge Dredd's policies. But the "people should have conscious choices" stuff doesn't solve the whole problem. If I get to know about someone going to rape another person, you can bet I'll try to stop them, any means possible, ranging from TP (which I can't use) to a baseball bat. Paternalism is a quality of civilized societies. Any other is the strongest's law.

Elliptic wrote:
You have no right to decide what is good or bad for someone else - you have no right to decide what others should or should not do.

If I read an article about a 13 year old Colombian girl raped and killed by cocaine-user-funded guerilla, cannot I choose that using cocaine is damn wrong?

But I suppose you are right, Elliptic. You all are focusing on the fact that a person must be able to make THEIR own decissions, as long as they don't affect negatively anyone else. On that point, you are right. No one has a right to suggest any other person not to eat chocolate or watch TV six hours a day. Problem comes when a person's choices affect (and in horrible ways) other people. Then what? I'm trying not to be judgemental, I'm asking. I suppose I'm being judgemental because the smuggler bastards have burn another few thousands of square acres this summer, and I'm pretty agains people financing them. But, despite I being biased in this topic, I really want to know other people's opinion on that. Is there a limit to the bad choices you can do? Is there some way where it's immoral to let a person go on with their choices?
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:19 am

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

Natsufan wrote:


Want to try drugs? If I were you, I'd go to Amsterdam. They'll be good quality, they are legal, health-revised, and you can see some museums.


The other points you make have been somewhat adressed in previous posts, but I'm afraid this is pushing the 'no drugs' law and is likely to get the topic locked. From Peebrain's rules in the discussion forum:

"How to be Responsible:
1. Do not advocate substance abuse."

Smile
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:21 am

Apollo

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1589

Natsufan wrote:
Elliptic wrote:


With Paul, I won't get into the relative ambiguity of drug use - I don't think we should imprison people for it, so I certainly don't think we should brainwash them not to do it.

Ahem, as someone who lives in a country whose forests are repeatedly burnt by the narcs, I'd pretty much ask people to try drugs where they are legal. I don't mind if you take drugs, but if you give money to people who burn my forests, I get pretty pissed off.

Want to try drugs? If I were you, I'd go to Amsterdam. They'll be good quality, they are legal, health-revised, and you can see some museums.

I'm not as much against drugs as against financing narcoterrorists. Because, you see, the drug affects you, but the smuggler affects me, and when some family has to leave all their property because of threats and flee to another country, they have a right to be pissed off at however who does drugs.


Obviously you have not read the rules. Please do not talk about Drugs any more or this topic might get locked.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:05 pm

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Fine, I'm editing that post. To leave things clear: I mentioned the possibility of use because someone said that you had no right to meddle with that stuff. And as I've met many victims of narcs, I very much think I have a reason to meddle with dorks who like financing kidnappers, rapists, and killers because they can't have enough fun with a playstation.

Urgh.

So, If you want to edit your posts as well, it's better for me. I'm all against use.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:11 pm

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Woodpecker wrote:
Natsufan wrote:


Want to try drugs? If I were you, I'd go to Amsterdam. They'll be good quality, they are legal, health-revised, and you can see some museums.


The other points you make have been somewhat adressed in previous posts, but I'm afraid this is pushing the 'no drugs' law and is likely to get the topic locked. From Peebrain's rules in the discussion forum:

"How to be Responsible:
1. Do not advocate substance abuse."

Smile

I did NOT advocate substance abuse. I made that sentence only to be somewhat in agreement with anti-paternalistic people who think people have a right to make stupid choices. That sentence was meant to say that, if you're going to do stupid choices, you should have to do it where it's legal, and not supporting illegal organizations.

And, sorry, I've read the whole post and the other points I made have NOT somewhat been addressed in previous posts. Freedom of choice has, but no one has answered me about the morals of stopping people from doing what is indirectly harmful to others.

I find it pretty annoying that no one seems to have read my posts fully, but have quoted the only two lines that could give the exact opposite impression of what I was trying to say.

And still didn't get answers for my questions.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:33 pm

batoonike

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 4

In my opinion, controlling people´s minds using psionics isn´t less ethical, than controlling them using advertising, (censoring) media or laws. Controlling is controlling, one method is just a bit more effective and more difficult to detect by the victims than the others.
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:21 am

bleedsincretic

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 20

I've used it accidentally before I knew what I was doing - told someone to subcnsiouslty stop what he was doing and go lie down. And was surprised when for a while, he would do exactly what I was telling him to. It freaked me out, honestly. Made me feel all responsible and the like... but now I use it all the time on slaves [I'm a dominatrix - it's not immoral if they want it - I have people asking me to hypnotize them all the time.]. And a couple times at clubs just for the fuck of it - this guy kept following me around and staring at me, he was asking for it. I told him to kneel and he started to go down and then looked confused and walked away. It was funny. But it is strange the amount of power and control that is possible. A little too tempting.
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:30 am

bleedsincretic

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 20

Natsufan wrote:
Elliptic wrote:
The act of telepathic suggestion is, in most cases, de facto immoral because it infringes on the sentience of other rational beings.

(...)

In the past, (long before I met Adam, for those wondering), I referred to telepathic suggestion on an extreme scale as "mindrape." It is essentially that - to telepathically alter someone's actions or opinions is ultimately to rape them - to steal that very thing which makes them a sentient being. In most cases, it is morally equivalent to murder.

I was so happy thinking I could get smokers NOT to smoke where it's forbidden (I hate that, because I have throat problems and a few asthmatic friends who have been real hurt by this stuff). I specially hate it when they smoke in schools and hospitals (in theory it's forbidden, but...) Damn.

Is it immoral to use whatever power you have to stop someone doing what's wrong?

Anyway, you cannot suggest successfully to someone who's determined, can you? If a girl is in love with another man, you cannot "suggest" her to come and have sex with you, right? Do people work like pressing buttons? Even with your suggestions, they still have their own free will, or don't they? I mean, if you "suggested" me to jump from a 10th floor, and I didn't want to, my conscious mind would defeat the suggestion, wouldn't it? Any other answer is too scary to think about... But I really want to know. Can you really force people to do things they wouldn't do in normal circumstances?


I went through something horrible with a crazy person that ended in me getting literally raped that might suggest no - because although it took months, I trained myself out of the crap he tried to put in my head - but it made me want to kill and raised my rage level to a very high degree. People - especially people who are crazy and on drugs - should be shot if they try to inflict this on another human being. I was in a bad place and had no clue what was going on at the time.

Now I have a hard time reacting to any kind of psi shit going on without attacking it, unless I know the person it's coming from. If I'm uncertain or whatever -- it truly sucks ass.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:30 pm

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

Thanks for answering, bleedsincretic... But what you say is scary... Extremely scary... How can it be possible? I mean, can people attack your mind that way? It's horrible to think about...

Are all psions weaker to those kind of attacks? Maybe attackers search for psions? Because I don't know anyone who isn't a psion who has had such an experience... Just wondering why. Maybe non-psions come to think they wanted to do what they did... But, just wonder if psions develop some sort of sensibility that make them weaker to such attacks.

Thanks again for answering. I'm very curious (albeit scared) about this topic.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:04 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

I believe that we can use telepathic suggestion on whoever and however many times we want. If people don't like it they can learn to sheild.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:32 am

bleedsincretic

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 20

Natsufan wrote:
Thanks for answering, bleedsincretic... But what you say is scary... Extremely scary... How can it be possible? I mean, can people attack your mind that way? It's horrible to think about...

Are all psions weaker to those kind of attacks? Maybe attackers search for psions? Because I don't know anyone who isn't a psion who has had such an experience... Just wondering why. Maybe non-psions come to think they wanted to do what they did... But, just wonder if psions develop some sort of sensibility that make them weaker to such attacks.

Thanks again for answering. I'm very curious (albeit scared) about this topic.


Psions pick up on psychic energy more than the average person... so yes, we are more vulnerable - especially if we don't know what's going on or what we're doing. I've always been aware of psi and etc. but had to go through some crap. if you're aware, you can defend yourself - if you're not aware, you don't perceive anything as a threat.
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint