Ethics Scenario

[_Jersey Girl]

No, I think you misunderstand. That "Roy" has been excommunicated is the point. And the fact that Roy is a director at the Mormon Gulag and was a bishop in Utah County.

So what? If he's no longer affiliated with the LDS church and remains a director at the facility...that proves what?


Quote:
What about his new wife?

The women who engaged in an affair with a married bishop with children?

You mean the woman who allegedly engaged in an affair with a married bishop with children? Yeah, her.

What about her?
What about the children involved?

[_truth dancer]

I posted an inflammatory falsehood about GoodK in order to see whether certain participants here favor irrelevant and inflammatory personal falsehoods against everybody or just about me.

I publicly withdrew the inflammatory falsehood about GoodK precisely forty minutes after first posting it, in precisely the same venue where it was posted and before the identical audience that first saw it. Moreover, I defended it (or, perhaps better, declined to defend it) in terms borrowed very exactly from chap.

So, yeah, I got it right. You seem to think it is appropriate and ethical to lie about someone to test others so long as you later let people know you told a lie.

Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks this is really strange?



~td~

[_marg]

Yes, Good K if this person is still working in the management of the place, then parents have a right to know as it's in the best interest of their kids.

[_GoodK]

So what?

I don't know. It speaks to the character of those that are in charge at the Mormon Gulag. You have to remember that this facility's foundation is the Mormon church. A requisite to completing their "program" is abiding by the commandments of this church. Roy is not a low level employee, he is one of the founding directors. Roy and Butters are good chums.

Yeah, her.

If your argument is that I should feel compassionate towards a woman who knowingly engaged in an extramarital affair with a purported man of god - who makes a healthy living "guiding troubled youth" - I don't think it is a good one.

What about the children involved?

The children involved clearly don't deserve to be punished for their father's actions.

I posted an inflammatory falsehood about GoodK in order to see whether certain participants here favor irrelevant and inflammatory personal falsehoods against everybody or just about me.

I publicly withdrew the inflammatory falsehood about GoodK precisely forty minutes after first posting it, in precisely the same venue where it was posted and before the identical audience that first saw it. Moreover, I defended it (or, perhaps better, declined to defend it) in terms borrowed very exactly from chap.

So, yeah, I got it right. You seem to think it is appropriate and ethical to lie about someone to test others so long as you later let people know you told a lie.

Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks this is really strange?



~td~

I'm surprised, but perhaps DCP has a headache or is having a bad day. It seemed rather brash, even for him, but then again I've been known to give him the benefit of the doubt to my detriment.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, yeah, I got it right. You seem to think it is appropriate and ethical to lie about someone to test others so long as you later let people know you told a lie.

Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks this is really strange?

As I predicted -- I guess the test has taken on a life of its own! -- the flagrant double standard here doesn't bother you a bit, and the utter irrelevancy of GoodK's casual claim that I unethically publish personal details about other people (which I've denied every time it's been broached) doesn't bother you even slightly. I remain in the cross hairs. All is right with the MDB world.

If you want to be dramatic and call it a lie, I guess you're technically correct. I don't, personally, see much wrong with a falsehood that is put forth, for a specific reason, to a very small and finite audience and then almost immediately acknowledged to be a falsehood to that very same very small and finite audience with an explanation of the reason that it was put forth.

In that sense, of course, many classic psychological experiments have involved lies, which makes the famous researchers who performed them liars, which discredits them and their experiments utterly. Consider the famous Milgram experiment at Yale, for example:

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

Based almost entirely on a lie!

[_GoodK]

Yes, Good K if this person is still working in the management of the place, then parents have a right to know as it's in the best interest of their kids.

That was my initial inclination, Marg.

The Mopologists certainly thought that a "sad incident" that happened in Mike Quinn's stake was relevant to his work. This seems like exactly the sordid detail they would want to know, if it were to be about a critic.

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't know. It speaks to the character of those that are in charge at the Mormon Gulag. You have to remember that this facility's foundation is the Mormon church. A requisite to completing their "program" is abiding by the commandments of this church. Roy is not a low level employee, he is one of the founding directors. Roy and Butters are good chums.

GoodK, first understand that I don't care what you choose to do with this in real life. I'm trying to help you sort it out.

In the above you say that it speaks to the character of those in charge of the facility and that is has a foundation in the Mormon Church.

According to you, the guy was excommunicated from the church. Think that through.

Isn't that proof that the facility DOESN'T limit itself to members placed in authority? Isn't that the opposite of what you're alleging when you say it has a foundation the Church?



Quote:
Yeah, her.

If your argument is that I should feel compassionate towards a woman who knowingly engaged in an extramarital affair with a purported man of god - who makes a healthy living "guiding troubled youth" - I don't think it is a good one.

Why don't you think it's a good one? Why do you make HER responsible for the actions of a man of god who makes a living guiding troubled youth? Do you know for a fact that they engaged in an affair?

HOW do you know? Because someone told you so?


Quote:
What about the children involved?

The children involved clearly don't deserve to be punished for their father's actions.

[/quote]

No, they don't.

What about his ex-wife? Did she do something to invite the scandal you'd like to disclose?

What you're suggesting is that it's okay to do harm in order to do good.

Is that right?

Isn't that what you think the MG is attempting to do with it's teen residents?

Are you going to function in the same way as those whom you accuse?

[_The Nehor]

So, yeah, I got it right. You seem to think it is appropriate and ethical to lie about someone to test others so long as you later let people know you told a lie.

Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks this is really strange?



~td~

It's common practice on this board to lie to manipulate others. Scratch admitted to doing it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Mopologists certainly thought that a "sad incident" that happened in Mike Quinn's stake was relevant to his work. This seems like exactly the sordid detail they would want to know, if it were to be about a critic.

In fact, at the semiannual conference of The Mopologists that year, the vote was 7851 to nothing to launch an advertising campaign proclaiming the "sad incident" to the world in minute detail (e.g., that it was an "incident," and that it was "sad"), in every venue known to us (namely, a brief mention in a message board post), on the grounds, as Mopologist Resolution MR-1907458 expressly said, that it "is relevant to his work."

The campaign was a corporate effort. All of The Mopologists were involved in this mighty undertaking. All are guilty. Furthermore, this horrific crime should be trumpeted at every opportunity, lest it be forgotten -- The Mopologists thank you for inadvertently assisting in our cleverly fiendish publicity campaign! -- and it constitutes something of a blank check to legitimize all future unethical acts that anybody should wish to commit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's common practice on this board to lie to manipulate others. Scratch admitted to doing it.

But that was different. That was Scratch. And did he correct his lie immediately? Did he ever actually correct it at all? My guess is No. So that's alright.

Don't forget the MDB Double Standard (for which I've just provided experimental verification).