Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Archaic
You know, I'd probably just ignore that assuming the person has a wall of ignorance too think to be breached. ^^;;;

Interestingly enough it was someones detailed (over 10 page) response to that same presentation that "broke through" my wall of ignorance on the matter... I sort of stopped caring about that particular debate, so it's something of a draw, but I'm sure you understand how hard it is to achieve even that in this matter


And about the Gennies... even you realize it can't be justified, as nice as the minerals could be... so let's just focus on getting some massive tech output to research some of the later (less problematic) mineral buildings

[GeneralTacticus]

*BUMP*, for the third time.

[Archaic]

Thing is, I'm not all too sure that they can't be justified. The inherient problem is that they're taken as being humans with restrictions built into their thought processes. But what about if one considered them as being robots of a kind? Yes, their makeup is organic, not mechanical, though that means squat all really. It's only our preconceptions of the term that limits a robot to being something mechanical. But if we expand it to something artificial......these are certainly that. It's not like they're bred in the normal sense of the term.

[GeneralTacticus]

True enough. You could argue that given that they wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't create them, it's not really wrong to build parameters into them... after all, we do that already with presentient algorithms.

[Cedayon]

Those arguments could be made, yes... and we could have all sorts of massive debates over whether the subjects are our "property" because we made them, or whether they're "robots" or "humans", perhaps even get into the singularity-PB minefield of whether they have souls and what that would mean...

but let's not

[Maniac]

I presume we won't build the Cloning Vats either then?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Maniac
I presume we won't build the Cloning Vats either then?

Ah yes, I had that coming, didn't I...

In the case of the Cloning Vats its one of those things I would abhor RL, but grant one of the single most game-breaking-open advantages in all of SMAC... They don't cause any drones, though, so apparently the people don't mind them... I would likely abstain from any debate on whether to build them or not, simply because I don't want to be a jerk about something as critically important as the CVs.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Maniac
I presume we won't build the Cloning Vats either then?

Cloning Valts are used to clone separated organs that are used to maintain and prolongate life, decreasing drastically (almost suppressing) the number of deaths, thus increasing the net demographic flow.

[Maniac]

That's a totally different explanation than the game gives. In that case I could claim genejack factories are factories with workers who have genetically upgrades muscles, but have similar cognitive skills.

[GeneralTacticus]

Cloning Valts are used to clone separated organs that are used to maintain and prolongate life, decreasing drastically (almost suppressing) the number of deaths, thus increasing the net demographic flow.

Nope. They produce people, not organs. We wouldn't be seeing a pop-boom if they simply extended life, especially given that the LV would have been already developed by this time.

[Pandemoniak]

"We should take only the greatest minds, the finest soldiers, the most faithful servants, multiply them by thousandsfolds and release them in ??? for a new era of glory"
Colonel Santiago Corazon,
The Councel of War.

Okay, thats quite hard to defend indeed...

[GeneralTacticus]

Although, as with retroviral engineering, Santiago's use of the Vats is just one use to which they can be put. Weapons aren't immoral because some people use them to kill innocents.

[Lemmy]

You could argue that weapons are immoral because their only use is to harm/kill people.

[GeneralTacticus]

Not really. They can also be used for hunting (well, not really here... but still), and, of course, they can be used for self-defence.

[Pandemoniak]

I wont argue for ages, but to me, weapons are immoral because their only purpose is murder, may it be hunting -- while there is agriculture and breeding cattles -- moreover hunting is done with no weapons on Centauri -- or self defence, since what are you gonna defend of, if no one has weapons ?

[GeneralTacticus]

moreover hunting is done with no weapons on Centauri --

I acknowledged that.

or self defence, since what are you gonna defend of, if no one has weapons ?

It's entirely possible to kill without weapons. Does the term 'unarmed combat' mean anything to you? Besides, virtually anything can be used as a weapon if the wielder chooses to do so; should we outlaw table legs because they can be used as clubs, or kitchen knives because you can stab people with them? Or rocks, since you bash people over the head with them?

[Pandemoniak]

No, I was saying that the construction of objects whose only purpose is to kill is immoral, I wasnt even talking of prohibite them. And your examples are excellent examples : a table leg, a rock or even a very big kitchen knife can be used as a weapon, but it is very hard to kill someone with it. You'll have to stab someone several times in critical organs to kill someone with a knife (white weapons ?), while you just have to pull the trigger with a gun.
Weapons, objects specially designed to kill, are immoral. Objects that can be used to kill but are not designed to are not immoral.

And when you talk about unarmed combat, thats almost the same -- just there are methods and not objects : an unarmed combat method whose only purpose is to kill is immoral ; while an unarmed combat method which can kill but is not specifically designed to isnt immoral. Judo, Tae-Kwan-Doo, Karate, etc... arent immoral ; Ken's (in the anime) technique of vital points to conduct intern hemmoragies is immoral.

[GeneralTacticus]

No, I was saying that the construction of objects whose only purpose is to kill is immoral, I wasnt even talking of prohibite them.

That would mean it's perfectly moral to construct guns, given that they can also be used for sport.

And your examples are excellent examples : a table leg, a rock or even a very big kitchen knife can be used as a weapon, but it is very hard to kill someone with it. You'll have to stab someone several times in critical organs to kill someone with a knife (white weapons ?),

Or simply cut their throat.

Weapons, objects specially designed to kill, are immoral. Objects that can be used to kill but are not designed to are not immoral.

And how do you make the distinction?

And when you talk about unarmed combat, thats almost the same -- just there are methods and not objects : an unarmed combat method whose only purpose is to kill is immoral ; while an unarmed combat method which can kill but is not specifically designed to isnt immoral. Judo, Tae-Kwan-Doo, Karate, etc... arent immoral ; Ken's (in the anime) technique of vital points to conduct intern hemmoragies is immoral.

Objects and methods aren't close to the same thing. And if you're going to draw a distinction between lethal and non-lethal methods, then do you also consider things like tear gas, pepper spray, and for that matter bludgeons (which aren't specifcally lethal), or even torture devices (being non-lethal is part of the point) to be entirely moral?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


That would mean it's perfectly moral to construct guns, given that they can also be used for sport.

Im sure you dont ignore sports guns and combat guns are totally different objects.

Or simply cut their throat.

Cut someone's throat is much more difficult than you can imagine and that you can see in movies. The trachea is very resistant, and in case you cut through it, the extern hemoragy will take a long time to kill, while a misplaced bullet will take a long time also, it is far more difficult to cure the internal hemorragies and infections it causes.
Anyway the point remains the same : its harder to kill someone with something that hasnt been designed to kill (an improvised weapon, called a weapon by its utilisation rather than by its being) than with something that has been designed for (a weapon).
This is why in a trial, people who commited murder with knives are always more punished than those who commited it with a gun : it needs to be really a psycho with a will to kill to murder someone with an improvised weapon ; while it only needs a moment of deep anger to kill someone with a weapon.

And how do you make the distinction?

I dont really see a difficulty to separate objects designed to kill and not designed to kill. Maybe if you would quote me examples I would see the difficulty, but to me, it seems easy to separate the two kinds of objects : designed to kill / not designed to kill.

Objects and methods aren't close to the same thing.

No, indeed, but in this case I think we can extend the idea from the object to the method -- since, in this case, the method (martial arts, combat skills, etc...) can be assimilated to an object.

And if you're going to draw a distinction between lethal and non-lethal methods, then do you also consider things like tear gas, pepper spray, and for that matter bludgeons (which aren't specifcally lethal), or even torture devices (being non-lethal is part of the point) to be entirely moral?

You're rising an interesting point here, and I should change the idea into :
Objects ( or methods used as objects) specifically designed to kill* are immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) not specifically designed to kill* but that can be used to arent immoral in theirself, but when used to kill*, their use is immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) specifically designed to not kill* arent necessarly immoral, and their use isnt necessarly immoral ;

To apply to the case of torture and non lethal methods of which you talk, I think its enough to consider that this three lines apply for any action that is to be considered immoral.
ie:Objects ( or methods used as objects) specifically designed to inflict pain are immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) not specifically designed to inflict pain but that can be used to arent immoral in theirself, but when used to inflict pain, their use is immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) specifically designed to not inflict pain arent necessarly immoral, and their use isnt necessarly immoral ;

* or any other immoral action

[GeneralTacticus]

Im sure you dont ignore sports guns and combat guns are totally different objects.

Yes, they are, however both can be used for both purposes even if they are not as effective at it as one that was made for it, and in some cases may be more effective at it. A sniper rifle, for example, would be superb for target shooting.

Cut someone's throat is much more difficult than you can imagine and that you can see in movies. The trachea is very resistant, and in case you cut through it, the extern hemoragy will take a long time to kill, while a misplaced bullet will take a long time also, it is far more difficult to cure the internal hemorragies and infections it causes.
Anyway the point remains the same : its harder to kill someone with something that hasnt been designed to kill (an improvised weapon, called a weapon by its utilisation rather than by its being) than with something that has been designed for (a weapon).
This is why in a trial, people who commited murder with knives are always more punished than those who commited it with a gun : it needs to be really a psycho with a will to kill to murder someone with an improvised weapon ; while it only needs a moment of deep anger to kill someone with a weapon.

The fact remains, however, that it is quite possible to kill without weapons, so your claim that no-one will have to defend against anything if there are no weapons to defend against has about as much validity as David Floyd's calims that no-one will be at risk from criminals with guns if guns are legal, as everyone will have a gun.

I dont really see a difficulty to separate objects designed to kill and not designed to kill. Maybe if you would quote me examples I would see the difficulty, but to me, it seems easy to separate the two kinds of objects : designed to kill / not designed to kill.

Okay... let's take a look at curare. It's a poison, designed to kill, and yet it can be sued as an anaesthetic (not sure if they sitll do, but I know it has been used as one). Do you consider this to be immoral?

No, indeed, but in this case I think we can extend the idea from the object to the method -- since, in this case, the method (martial arts, combat skills, etc...) can be assimilated to an object.

...? How can a method be compared to an object? And object is a thing, a method is an idea.

You're rising an interesting point here, and I should change the idea into :
Objects ( or methods used as objects) specifically designed to kill* are immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) not specifically designed to kill* but that can be used to arent immoral in theirself, but when used to kill*, their use is immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) specifically designed to not kill* arent necessarly immoral, and their use isnt necessarly immoral ;

To apply to the case of torture and non lethal methods of which you talk, I think its enough to consider that this three lines apply for any action that is to be considered immoral.
ie:Objects ( or methods used as objects) specifically designed to inflict pain are immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) not specifically designed to inflict pain but that can be used to arent immoral in theirself, but when used to inflict pain, their use is immoral ;
objects (or methods used as objects) specifically designed to not inflict pain arent necessarly immoral, and their use isnt necessarly immoral ;

* or any other immoral action

Fair enough, but I would argue that an object is never immoral; it's use can be immoral, but the object itself is not. The German death camps, for example, were immoral when they were used to madd murder Jews and other 'undesirables', but is it immoral for them to be kept in existence so people will be able to see them?

[Maniac]

This discussion is ridiculous.
Pandemoniak's morals say weapons are immoral, GeneralTacticus' morals say they aren't necessarily. That's both fine. No one has closing arguments to prove the other is wrong. Your opinion is purely subjective. So what the hell are you really trying to reach with this discussion??

[Cedayon]

There is an answer to the question "Are objects crafted for the exclusive purpose of doing harm necessarily immoral?" (I *think* that's what they're debating, or at least one of them is)

That answer most likely won't be conclusively shown in the midst of contention and strife, however.

I think they just argue with each other for the sake of arguing with each other, any possibility of sorting out answers to the questions is a secondary motivation.

[Lemmy]

So what the hell are you really trying to reach with this discussion??

Trying to keep GT or Archaic from BUMP-ing the thread?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Trying to keep GT or Archaic from BUMP-ing the thread?

An honorable and just goal... how entirely out of character, Lemmy

[Lemmy]

Hey, it's not my goal...i'm just answering Maniac's question

Besides, i don't discuss, as a politician i'm well trained to avoid any discussion.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Besides, i don't discuss, as a politician i'm well trained to avoid any discussion.

Similar to my training to avoid discussing anything of importance in a tone that could remotely be considered serious

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Yes, they are, however both can be used for both purposes even if they are not as effective at it as one that was made for it, and in some cases may be more effective at it. A sniper rifle, for example, would be superb for target shooting.

Indeed, but the point is elsewhere. A sport gun is not designed to murder human beings but animals. In this condition, we can discuss whteher it is moral or not to kill animals, but thats something else. All I say is that an object designed to do immoral acts is necessarly immoral. Lets go on with it.

The fact remains, however, that it is quite possible to kill without weapons, so your claim that no-one will have to defend against anything if there are no weapons to defend against has about as much validity as David Floyd's calims that no-one will be at risk from criminals with guns if guns are legal, as everyone will have a gun.

Same than before, lets stick to the topic : an object designed to do immoral acts is necessarly immoral

...? How can a method be compared to an object? And object is a thing, a method is an idea.

My bad, I should have precised that I was talking of object in the philosophical meaning (between object and subject, ie), else this discussion is simply irrelevant.

Okay... let's take a look at curare. It's a poison, designed to kill, and yet it can be sued as an anaesthetic (not sure if they sitll do, but I know it has been used as one). Do you consider this to be immoral?

Well curare itself is not an object. When took as a poison (taken in large dose), and thus took as an object designed to kill, it is still not specifically designed to kill. Took as an anaestetic (which is no longer used in modern medecine, we use synthesis anaesthesis, now), it is made an object designed to make sleep, which is not an immoral act.

Fair enough, but I would argue that an object is never immoral; it's use can be immoral, but the object itself is not. The German Nazi* death camps, for example, were immoral when they were used to madd murder Jews and other 'undesirables', but is it immoral for them to be kept in existence so people will be able to see them?

It is specifically because the object itself is immoral, that they are kept in existence. If you ever visited one, you knew the feeling you have, because you're inside something that has been designed for mass murders purpose only, while its actually just a museum. The immorality of something lays also in the object, not only in its use.

*I put Nazi instead of german just to clarify things, and because most of them were in Poland, and one was in France.

[Maniac]

Oh f*ck.

[GeneralTacticus]

Indeed, but the point is elsewhere. A sport gun is not designed to murder human beings but animals. In this condition, we can discuss whteher it is moral or not to kill animals, but thats something else. All I say is that an object designed to do immoral acts is necessarly immoral. Lets go on with it.

I would agree that an object which can only be used for immoral acts is immoral itself; enrve gas, for example, cannot be used for anything other than killing (and indisctriminate killing at that), so I consider it immoral. However, I do not consider weapons to be immoral because they can be used for moral purposes; and killing is not always immoral, as far as I'm concerned.

Same than before, lets stick to the topic : an object designed to do immoral acts is necessarly immoral

I would agree with you in the case of objects which can onyl be used to do immoral acts.

Well curare itself is not an object. When took as a poison (taken in large dose), and thus took as an object designed to kill, it is still not specifically designed to kill. Took as an anaestetic (which is no longer used in modern medecine, we use synthesis anaesthesis, now), it is made an object designed to make sleep, which is not an immoral act.

Actually, it has been designed to kill (unless you draw a distinction between natural and human design, in which case things like nerve gas aren't designed to kill either); it's a poison devleoped by a plant as a defence mechanism.

It is specifically because the object itself is immoral, that they are kept in existence. If you ever visited one, you knew the feeling you have, because you're inside something that has been designed for mass murders purpose only, while its actually just a museum. The immorality of something lays also in the object, not only in its use.

I know why they are kept in existence, but why should the rason matter? If the object itself is immoral? How can it be moral to keep it in existence?

*I put Nazi instead of german just to clarify things, and because most of them were in Poland, and one was in France.

I know, but they were set and run by Germans (not all Germans, obviously).

EDIT: and I suggest we do as Manaic suggested earlier: agree that our morals say different things on this issue, and elave it at that.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Maniac
Oh f*ck.

I would have used different words, but our thoughts are the same.