Ethics Scenario

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Locked
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Chap wrote:Uh-huh. Great little religion you have there, bishop!

His participation here is free. He's at liberty to leave if he doesn't like the heat.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _truth dancer »

Hey GoodK,

I'm of the mindset that unless the information is to help or protect someone then it is best left alone.

I'm not a fan of gossip and feel too often people enjoy/promote the scandalous and tawdry.

So, a little bit of the golden rule along with my belief in non-violence (which is not just about the physical) would keep me from disclosing information that is only meant to harm.

~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_GoodK

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _GoodK »

Dr. Shades wrote:I think it depends, but before we can continue, it would help if we knew:

Church member or not, is he still an employee/director/whatever of the Mormon Gulag?



Yes, he is still an employee/director at the Mormon Gulag.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Could you please supply an example of the personal information about Mike Quinn that I've supposedly made public?


The "sad incident" you learned of via Paul Hanks?

Do you have an opinion regarding the actual scenario described in the OP? I think Chap makes a stellar point.

Jersey Girl wrote:
You have no proof


Not "proof" as in physical evidence, but I have about as good of proof as one can get about these things. I have two independent, reliable, inside sources (that don't even know each other) telling me the same thing. I also do have evidence that "Roy" has been remarried.

Jersey Girl wrote:And even if you did, I don't see how smearing the guy's character will help your cause.


I don't know how either, which is why I posed the question here and raised the point about LDS apologists smearing the character of guy's like Quinn. Then again, I don't see why I should feel obligated to sit on this information, either.
_GoodK

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _GoodK »

Daniel Peterson wrote:[Potentially slanderous/libelous material deleted]

Wow, DCP, I think you may have just outdone yourself. What has caused you to come so unglued, act so brash, resort to such tactics?

:biggrin:

For the record, I have never, ever, been to jail or a "psychiatric institution" (unless you consider the Mormon Gulag to be such a place) nor have I ever, ever been diagnosed with a mental illness of any kind.

I challenge the libelous bishop to support his patently untrue (and childish) outburst of horrible name calling. If such allegations are true, I would imagine some type of record to be available to the public.
Last edited by _GoodK on Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

I refuse to make this thread about GoodK's sordid [Potentially slanderous/libelous material deleted], so I will remain silent on the matter.

GoodK wrote:The "sad incident" you learned of via Paul Hanks?

I know nothing about that but what was publicly available. And you know it, too.

I was very circumspect. You're seeking ethical justification for publicly revealing something in order to blacken somebody's character.

Don't try to use me as a human shield for what you want to do. Either do it or don't do it. It has nothing at all to do with me.
_GoodK

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _GoodK »

Daniel Peterson wrote:His participation here is free. He's at liberty to leave if he doesn't like the heat.


What heat?

I thought you left because you couldn't take the heat.

Are you really inviting the storm that is about to hit you? Don't give someone like me more leverage unless you can handle the heat, Bishop.
Last edited by _GoodK on Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _solomarineris »

GoodK wrote:When I worked in finance, our legal/compliance department would send out monthly "ethics scenarios" via email posing hypothetical situations dealing with kickbacks, conflicts of interest, etc.

Since I have a real life ethics scenario troubling me at the moment, I thought I would seek the advice of this distinguished group. Before reading, I want you to know I am being 100% sincere. Continue.

I have been made aware of a rather embarrassing bit of personal information about a Mormon Gulag executive. First, a little

Background:

This person is a very tenured and high ranking staff member, and is also involved in one of the gulag's other sister program.

This person appeared on my "The Bad Ones" list long before I found this out.

The Scenario:

Let's just call this Gulag executive "Roy." Roy, his wife, and his children lived in Utah County were he was a bishop in his ward.

One day a woman came to his office, seeking the advice of her bishop for her marital problems. An affair transpired, they were caught, and Roy was excommunicated. His wife divorced him, and Roy has since remarried to his mistress. I received information a month ago from my best informant, another staff member, about Roy's excommunication. I then received the same information from another independent source that currently works with Roy.

--Considering that;
A. This is not a good person who has been abusive and cruel to children,
B. Apologists - like DCP and Bob Crockett, for example - take an active role in bringing to light the personal lives/skeletons of critics of the church (like Quinn),
C. This speaks to "Roy's" character and subsequently the leadership of the Mormon Gulag and its affiliates

Would you share this information publicly?

..


What you're alluding is pure BS and conjecture.
I did read some solid posts of yours, this one is crock.
If you want credibility name your sources & don't beat around the bush.
_GoodK

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _GoodK »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I refuse to make this thread about GoodK's [Potentially slanderous/libelous material deleted], so I will remain silent on the matter.


There is no sordid semi-criminal past to speak of, and you know it. If there was, I imagine there would be some type of public record available. I'm mildly amused at DCP's coming unhinged, he truly is a sad spectacle these days.

You know, I think this might be a ruse. I mention how DCP and his employees attack critics and bring their personal "skeletons" to light, and DCP comes along to cast his awfully large shadow over yet another critic.

This can't be happening.

DCP wrote:I know nothing about that but what was publicly available. And you know it, too.

I don't care to participate in yet another game of DCP's gonad-tickling semantics.

Anyway, here is a better example of the Mormon apologetic M.O than the Quinn incident. Thank you, DCP.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Don't try to use me as a human shield for what you want to do.

To be fair, I think if someone were looking for a human shield someone of your stature would be ideal.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _cinepro »

GoodK wrote:
Considering that;
A. This is not a good person who has been abusive and cruel to children,
B. Apologists - like DCP and Bob Crockett, for example - take an active role in bringing to light the personal lives/skeletons of critics of the church (like Quinn),
C. This speaks to "Roy's" character and subsequently the leadership of the Mormon Gulag and its affiliates

Would you share this information publicly?
..


What would be the point? Unless the Mormon Gulag has made specific claims that none of its leaders have cheated on their spouses and subsequently divorced and remarried, how is this relevant to his leadership?
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Ethics Scenario

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I guess I've sat on what I know long enough: [Potentially slanderous/libelous material deleted]

I think I've run the test long enough to illustrate the rampant double standard here.

So far as I'm aware, GoodK has no history whatsoever of mental illness. If he's had abusive relationships with women, I'm unaware of them. I know nothing of any periods of incarceration in jail on his part, nor of any time spent in mental institutions. I have no reason to believe that his opening post here is a complete or even partial lie, and I have nothing to say about his mental condition.

But it was most amusing indeed to see chap, who advised GoodK that he was free to falsely malign my character without any need to justify it and who implicitly faulted me for denying GoodK's casual and irrelevant libel, rebuke me when I (falsely) maligned GoodK's character.

This concludes the test. The results were exactly as predicted. My thanks to the participants.
Locked