{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/17/2015 7:30:39 PM
14
-
That's for game content. "Online interactions not rated by ERSB"
-
True, online interactions may vary, they say. So anything can technically happen.
-
So, that gives the guy the right to be an asshole, then? Wonderful.
-
Natural human rights give people the right to be an asshole. If that's someone's personality, no one else has a right to tell them not to be themselves.
-
The same morality that derived natural human rights also prohibit the use of that right to inflict pain onto others as that is not your right. No one has the right to inflict pain onto another whether physical or emotional.
-
Actually, the whole inflicting pain scenario gets a bit washed out by the rest of the animal kingdom we exist in. At a certain point it needs to be determined whether someone is in legitimate pain or superficial. In this case, it's superficial.
-
You're a bit unclear. Are you trying to argue physical pain > emotional pain? There is such a thing called superficial pain and that is pain in the skin usually localized in one specific area with sharp burning sensation.
-
I'm saying emotional pain is quite a gray area. Lots of times emotional pain could be rooted in a persons own flaws and be triggered by outside sources. I guess you could basically put it as "it only hurts you if you let it". Of course that's not the end all be all answer though.
-
Edited by Knives: 6/17/2015 8:18:05 PMWhile the actual manifest of pain is relative to the victim and gray in definition, the morality standards are based on intentions. The intentional kicking of someone knowing that it will inflict some type of "distress" to the victim is a right that no one has. Whether the actual pain occurs or not does not matter.
-
Intent is based on perspective. I can make an observation with no intent to hurt anyone's feelings. If someone is then upset at my observation even though I had no intent on hurting them, does that still make it wrong?
-
Well, since we have a specific situation where the OP stated: [quote]My 11 year old brother came to me in tears just now. He had just beaten Skolas with two other guys and IMMEDIATELY got kicked right after Skolas went down. Then, this guy invited his friend to get the rewards, and started being a complete dick to my little brother for no reason. My brother said they [b]called him "really mean names[/b]," and I frankly don't want to think about what that could mean.[/quote] I believe the intention is pretty clear here. If you did not intend to hurt someone, you cannot be faulted for accidently doing so, however, the origin of pain is still of your actions and hence you hold a moral duty to recompense, which a often "sorry" is all that is required.
-
Again it comes back to perspective. Considering we're talking about an online game, where trash talk is abundant, it could've been harmless fun in the eyes of the people saying it.
-
This is where pure philosophy and reality meets. There is no way for any human beings to be omniscient with perfect information. Therefore, we'd have to make a judgment using logic and deduction. Do you really think these guys were just having "harmless fun" or were they carrying malicious intent? My logic and deduction tells me they were probably malicious. There is a reason why emotional distress law suits are so hard to win; the exact reason you have stated: you can't really prove perspectives.
-
Edited by Ianferno: 6/17/2015 7:43:28 PMQuit with the philosophical sh*t. The guy's personality infringed on this kid's gaming experience in a negative way. End of discussion.
