A completely unbiased rebuttal to cheating.

[InCognito]

Your idea of morality and Kohlberg's idea of morality mean very little when applied across the entire gamut of humanity.

Acutally it means a lot. If a person is harming others because of his religion, he is only doing what he feels is best, and is not concerned with the welfare of other people. He is, however, concerned with how his religious peers perceive him. Classic level 3 and 4.

Science CAN classify and file. It may do so incorrectly at times. In the end, the basis of scientific exploration and the idea of coming to conclusions through logic and reasoning WORKS.

[VioletSkye]

On 2004-02-03 00:05, InCognito wrote:

Your idea of morality and Kohlberg's idea of morality mean very little when applied across the entire gamut of humanity.

Acutally it means a lot. If a person is harming others because of his religion, he is only doing what he feels is best, and is not concerned with the welfare of other people. He is, however, concerned with how his religious peers perceive him. Classic level 3 and 4.

Science CAN classify and file. It may do so incorrectly at times. In the end, the basis of scientific exploration and the idea of coming to conclusions through logic and reasoning WORKS.

It only means alot to you atm (it means nothing to me), and it only "works" for those who feel they need it. Not all of us care to live in a box. I have no desire to psycho-analyse my self and all my actions.

Someday you may realize that people aren't x and y. They are made up of lots of combinations of letters and numbers. I suppose science can "try" to classify things, but as I stated and as "YOU" stated it does so incorrectly at times. The very fact that you even refer to someone as a "classic" anything invalidates any argument you make in my eyes. If (as we both agreed) that classifications change and the current/popular consenses changes, then by default nothing is "classic" or "general".

I think you are failing to see that everything Kohhlberg says is speculative and subject to scrutiny and debate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2004-02-03 00:17 ]</font>

[InCognito]

Oh, it's subject to debate. That's exactly what we're doing right now.

However, time will prove again and again that no amount of debate will be able to crumble a solid scientific theory. As I see it, Kohlberg's stages of development have survived all of your arguments unscathed. Certainly you don't think you're the most scholarly person to ever challenge them? They've survived and have become the standard for a reason.

Refusing to acknowledge science and how the universe works does not stop it from working. Try as you may, you are constrained by the same set of rules that I am. The person with the knowledge and acceptance of such rules is the one who has a higher chance of attaining a decent moral/intellectual balance. You seem to be fighting this theory off as some impending doom. Why not read it and see if you can see it working the next time you're on PSO. Just to humor me?

If you honestly think it doesn't work after that, then fine. But do so with an open mind. Remember, this thread is not a personal attack.

[VioletSkye]

On 2004-02-03 00:21, InCognito wrote:
Oh, it's subject to debate. That's exactly what we're doing right now.

However, time will prove again and again that no amount of debate will be able to crumble a solid scientific theory.

Define "solid scientific theory." Years ago people thought the Earth was Flat for obvious reasons. Without the ability to truly "map" our planet, they didn't know any better but at the time it was surely deemed a "solid theory."

The reason scientific theories appear to hold true is because we generally accpet the most logical answer. That answer is subject to and often does change as we progress. Remember the saying the more something changes, the more it stays the same. Solid scientific theory is dynamic, not static. So old truths become false and new truths can and will be proven false in the future.

As I see it, Kohlberg's stages of development have survived all of your arguments unscathed. Certainly you don't think you're the most scholarly person to ever challenge them? They've survived and have become the standard for a reason.

In your mind, I suppose they have survived unscathed, however in my eyes, it still blatantly fails to address our religious, cultural, emotional, intellectual and spiritual differences. I could say that because everyone breaths air, that they are x. Its a fairly broad statement and means nothing by itself, which is how I feel about Kohlberg and his theories. They are general guidelines that he feels accurately depict our behaviour.

Refusing to acknowledge science and how the universe works does not stop it from working. Try as you may, you are constrained by the same set of rules that I am. The person with the knowledge and acceptance of such rules is the one who has a higher chance of attaining a decent moral/intellectual balance.

I do not refuse to acknowledge science as a means for understanding. The rules that you speak of however are merely current states of knowledge. Think back to a time before planes and relaize that throughtout long periods of humanity, we wouldhave never dreamed that man could fly. We had no wings, therefore the "laws" of gravity must certainly keep up earthbound.

You seem to be fighting this theory off as some impending doom. Why not read it and see if you can see it working the next time you're on PSO. Just to humor me?

Quite inaccurate. I don't see it as impending doom. I see it as just another opinion making the rounds. As I said, it is far too broad and too general to accurately depict humanity as a whole. I will however, apply the theory to my daily activities (including the board) for observation and get back to you

If you honestly think it doesn't work after that, then fine. But do so with an open mind. Remember, this thread is not a personal attack.

Exactly, in fact I rather enjoyed debating the subject with you, without the flaming and pettiness that often times accompanies this type of thing.

[Superguppie]

WOW, considering stuff I wrote earlier, I seem to be in (or at least close to) stage 6! And considering only 15% make it past 4, I have to revise my opinion about myself. I didn't think of myself as that special. It now seems I am.
Most of what is said, I already said, or at least thought. It is nice to see someone can actualy express it this well, and back it up with some scientific stuff. Although I have to admit I have no way of knowing how credible this Kohlberg is, I'll take InCognito's word for it.

It seems there's another topic for debate. It has been noted we've had only few lately. I enjoyed reading InCognito vs VioletSkye, and I think I'm with the first, mostly. However, I do have some remarks.

I don't think of cheaters as stuck in stage 4. Especialy the assholes among them. 4 is about living to Law and Order. The ToS is Law, and cheaters break it. So, cheaters haven't reached that.
As for the assholes: They often behave like stage 1, with the punnishement taken off. And then they tell ME to get a life, the infantiles.
Also, the "It's only a game" argument has been used to make a difference between someones in game and IRL stage. Like playing a game entitles one to be underdeveloped. To those that do that: Once you make it to 5 or 6 there is no difference. The welfare of others (5) in the game is just as important as it is IRL. The same goes for personal integrity (I think that's what 6 is about)
In game or IRL, there is no difference with regard to respect for others and yourself!

The "ST doesn't care" has been given a new dimension. As we all know the main market if Japan. In Japan there are a lot more people that at make it to stage 4/5 even at an early age, and it is more common for older people to play games. So, if the bulk of the audience is stage 4 or up, the ToS (= the law) is abided by mostly, just because the people playing have the moral development to do so. (And ST doesn't have to care, because their inteded market does that all by itself.) ADE (with all his bad behavior) seems to have gotten that far too, and was right from his stage. If only he hadn't gone about it so poorly.
And I can see why ST doesn't care about the non-Japanese markets: They're a minority of underdeveloped losers.

After reading the first post I got the idea that the only response to "get a life" is "Uhh, got one. You better get one too". I might try that sometime...

I like the reference to something with some credibility. But I'm afraid it is wasted, as the people that would benefit from it are the ones that won't read it. Still, good to see it.

InCognito seems to believe everything can be classified and filed. Although I am not religious myself, I do think that he might find it hard to classify and file god. The only classification I can come up with is a crappy one: A sometimes useful fiction.
(This is NOT an attack at any religion or god. Just an observation from an unbeliever to add to the debate. Anyone flaming me for this will trigger my IGNORE/ASSHOLE)

I also wondered about the development of the religious suicide bombers. I don't think they're stuck at 3/4. I think they could very well be at 5. If they are genuinely convinced that their act is in the best interest of others, they could do it, despite their high moral development.

[InCognito]

I'm not sure they're a 5. A 4 yes, but no 5. Five is the genuine care for others. They may care for the group they are loyal to, but negate their "five-ness" by bombing innocents. Five encompasses genuine care for all mankind.

Wow, I think I should equip a few more Good/Discussions

[Superguppie]

I can see the point in the 4/5 question. However, I know there are people that genuinely believe they are meditating for the good of all mankind, despite the fact that this meditation is a local group belief. Similarly I can believe that there are people that sincerely believe they are doing the world and all mankind a favor by doing an extreme form of damage. The fact that I don't share that belief is circumstancial.
I admit that some may actualy do it so they go straight to heaven (whatever that may be) and so clasify them below 4. But I do think it is possible that some actualy do it as 5s.

[Ness]

Completely unbiased rebuttal? Ha! It seems like yet another episode of When Elitist IGN Members Attack.

I stopped after I read number one because quite frankly, that was the saddest thing I had ever read. I think you need to get a life because it is just a game and realize that cheating in a game has nothing to do with morals. Although you claim to be different from ADE, you are just as bad as he is. First of all, you whole moral level chart is complete crap. Not only are you assuming that all people have the same moral standards as you do, but also forget that everyone does what they think is right 95% of the time, but what person A thinks is right and what person B thinks is right can be two totally different things.

The analogy you made was pretty faulty as well. First of all, there is a difference between playing a game differently than you are and destroying your stuff. The analogy you made implied that cheaters are going around deleting you files, which is not true. Also how does a cheater ruin an online game for you? Is it simply because they cheat, or is it because you can?t flaunt your rares like you would want to? I?ve been playing since DC ver1 and I can say with straight face that the only cheaters that affected me were malignant PK?ers (when I say malignant, I?m talking about the people who PK to steal you stuff) and they only came around once in a blue moon. In fact, I saw legits being assholes to cheaters more than cheaters being assholes to legits. I mean PKer?s would make their own games called PK wars or PK fests and there would occasionally be a legit in the lobby yelling about how those Pker?s Pk?ed him and stole his stuff when he entered their game. Hmm?. I wonder why. On Gamecube and Xbox, cheaters didn?t affect me one bit. I?m serious. As long as I was still able to get EXP, they could do whatever they wanted in my games. Most of the cheaters I?ve met were pretty nice and understanding people, which is more than I can say about most legits I?ve met. Many of the legits I?ve met had the same ?I?m morally superior to you? elitism that your showing, but to a lesser degree.

In conclusion, I don?t see how people can get so worked up over a videogame, which to me is sadder than getting all worked up about what people say to you on the internet, but I also don?t see why people would pay money just to use a messageboard so that might be it.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2004-02-03 04:13 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2004-02-03 04:14 ]</font>

[InCognito]

I stopped after I read number one because quite frankly, that was the saddest thing I had ever read.

LoL. This is hilarious. Had you read ONE more line past number one you would have seen this.

Unfortunately, anyone who is at that level probably just got angry at what I said, and stopped reading. So for you mature people that have continued on with me .......

Dude, it's not a personal attack. Don't get so angry. It's a logical, scientific rebuttal to an age-old argument.

Also, your saying a game isn't like something that a person builds violates the harm principle. It does so because you are deciding what is important and what is not.

Please try to keep it clean.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-03 04:19 ]</font>

[Ness]

Thank you for evading my points.

On 2004-02-03 04:17, InCognito wrote:

LoL. This is hilarious. Had you read ONE more line past number one you would have seen this.

I saw that and I scanned over the rest and didn't find anything interesting. I said that only only read #1 because that's the onyl one I really looked at.

Dude, it's not a personal attack. Don't get so angry. It's a logical, scientific rebuttal to an age-old argument.

Logcial? Scientific? All I saw was "holier than thou" preaching and poor anologies. I didn't tkae it personally, but when people start spouting trash I tend to get a little upset.

Also, your saying a game isn't like something that a person builds violates the harm principle. It does so because you are deciding what is important and what is not.

No, it's because destorying someone's stuff and cheating in a videogame are two totally different things.