So I tried searching for "We Play Civ"...

[MikeH]

a) The facts are self-evident.

What facts? We have some anecdotal evidence from an unreliable source (the internet, a forum, this forum). For all we know he might have made the whole thing up as a troll.

b) Privacy? WTF? You post something on a message board on the Internet and expect it will remain private? Do you have a different definition of that word than the usual one?

From what I can see he didn't post his name/address/personal information which you'd need to find his girlfriend.

c) From what I can see NOT informing her is either laziness (me) or cowardice (you and MikeH). If she exists then she's a real human being who deserves to know exactly what her boyfriend thinks of their relationship before she enters into a life-altering partnership with him.

If she exists, and she doesn't know, how could you know she wants to know just because you think she ought to?


Anyway the point is, people should be able to discuss personal issues here, get advice or whatever (no matter how dumb getting advice from Poly posters might be) without a threat hanging over them that if they talk about something KrazyHorse judges to morally wrong he'll go off and tell everyone they know about it.

As a counter example, how would you react if Ben decided Asher's work had a right to know his sexuality and threatened to tell them?

The situation is no different.

[Jon Miller]

Unfortunately, there are things that are objectively right and objectively wrong.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

From what I can see he didn't post his name/address/personal information which you'd need to find his girlfriend.

I think you're confusing privacy with anonymity

If she exists, and she doesn't know, how could you know she wants to know just because you think she ought to?

Indeed. Why should we ever assume that people want to know the truth? If I see kids shoplifting at a store maybe I should assume that the owner would rather not have his faith in humanity shattered.

Anyway the point is, people should be able to discuss personal issues here, get advice or whatever (no matter how dumb getting advice from Poly posters might be) without a threat hanging over them that if they talk about something KrazyHorse judges to morally wrong he'll go off and tell everyone they know about it.

a) What is this, the new priesthood?

b) Knowledge creates a moral imperative. If there is a remedy available to me then it is WRONG for me to ignore somebody else's misdeeds.

All I see in your response is a load of cowardice dressed up as respect for somebody else's "privacy". The fact that Frosty hasn't posted his name and address here (I haven't checked his profile, but let's assume he hasn't) has NOTHING to do with a right to privacy. All he has done by withholding such information is to put roadblocks in place to guard his ANONYMITY. If I put on a mask and run through the streets naked then I have no right to PRIVACY which would say that it's wrong for somebody else to attempt to determine and contact the family of the naked masked man.

Privacy is what you do in PRIVATE. Anonymity is what you seek when you do something in public, but don't want others to know who you are. There is an enormous difference.

[MikeH]

I notice you were too cowardly to respond to my counter example.

I don't give a **** about FrostyBoy's private life, that's his business. Whatever he's doing/done you threatening to use it against him here is wrong and that is under my purview.

[Ming]

Indeed. Why should we ever assume that people want to know the truth?

And do you REALLY know the truth here? He might be making everything up. Maybe he really loves his girl friend, and he's just yanking everybodies chain here... Maybe she doesn't exist... Maybe he's a 60 year old woman... The truth... HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Fix your own life before you start trying to help others that may not exist or don't need your kind of help

[KrazyHorse]

As a counter example, how would you react if Ben decided Asher's work had a right to know his sexuality and threatened to tell them?

This is supposed to be your counterexample?

a) Claiming that homosexuality is wrong (specifically, a wrong which should be remedied by informing Asher's employer?) is what fails in this example. Ben may be acting morally in his own mind. I'm sure that (to Godwinize) Hitler was as well. Morality is a universal quality, and in order to decide the rightness or wrongness of Ben's actions we have to judge his moral constructs, not merely whether he acts according to them. Thus your analogy (which is all it is) is not a counterexample in any meaningful sense of the word

b) I really wouldn't give a ****. If Ben kept calling over and over again it could probably be labeled harassment and punished from that perspective

[Lorizael]

Knowledge creates a moral imperative.

I could argue against this claim, but that's not necessary. What you think you know has to be verified in some way before you can call it knowledge.

[Lorizael]

Also, professing moral indignation and laziness at the same time makes you somewhat of an asshat.

[MikeH]

Claiming that marrying for practical reasons rather than love is wrong is pretty subjective. It's fairly common all over the world. It's quite a modern western conceit that love be the only prerequisite for marriage. Most long term married people say the initial 'love' develops into something much deeper over time, and even people who aren't in love at the start report that can grow (although in both cases it can be a failure.

It's rare that love alone triumphs over all obstacles to create a happy marriage.

[KrazyHorse]

If you want a better analogy you would probably want to go with a hypothetical like Asher joining the US military or donating blood or becoming a scoutmaster. In any of those cases the "wrong" of homosexuality (specifically, of evading restrictions against homosexuality) can be remedied by informing the other party. I don't know what wrong can be remedied by informing a regular employer of an employee homosexuality (even if we accept the premise that homosexuality is wrong).

[KrazyHorse]

I could argue against this claim, but that's not necessary. What you think you know has to be verified in some way before you can call it knowledge.

I've already been through this.

[MikeH]

See above. I don't accept that marrying for non-love reasons is wrong.

[Jon Miller]

If someone said they were a child abuser/etc, I would try to find out and inform authorities. This is the obvious right thing to do.

In this case I am lazy, likely it wouldn't do anything (women are known to ignore even friends saying a guy is no good, a random person online?), but it still doesn't change that what Frosty is claiming is wrong.

As for internet people lying, that just means it is harder for me to decide to do something. The theives in the street might be acting/etc, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do something.

On the other hand, someone maliciously trying to cause trouble for Asher by telling his bosses something that he was not misrepresenting to them would be objectively wrong.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Also, professing moral indignation and laziness at the same time makes you somewhat of an asshat.

The feeling of responsibility is diluted by the presence of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

[MikeH]

Anyway, that's it from me on this until tomorrow. Off to dinner with my non-cash cow fiancée.