[Discussion] Longvin and the dishonesty debate

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-23 11:59pm

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I present you with Longvin, who is arguing that anything short of an outright lie cannot possibly be considered deceptive or dishonest (hence, he feels that concealing important information about a product before sale is ethical because caveat emptor is an ethical "get out of jail free" card for the seller, not a warning to the buyer):

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=89806

Please read through the whole thread. At one point he even claims that lying is "morally neutral". Does he deserve a title for this? Or more? Quite frankly, his position seems to be so completely immune to evidence or argument that I seriously wonder whether he's deliberately trolling.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-04-24 12:15am

He indeed seems to like the ethical system of 'whats good for me, is best' and clings onto the lie of omission to keep his bankrupt system afloat.

He also seems to either confuse and/or combine ethical and lawful. Whether he does it on purpose or out of ignorance, I don't know.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-04-24 04:00am

Not the first time he has resorted to an impenetrable wall of ignorance, lies, distortions, red herrings and strawmen. He's like a poor quality copy of Tharkun, and as such, I don't see any reason why he should be kept around a moment longer than is absolutely necessary.

If we're not banning him outright, then he should be titled something like "Lying Sack of Shit" or similar.

Edi

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-04-24 07:33am

R.U.Serious wrote:. Like I said, the main problem with arguing with you, is that you don't know or don't care about the definitions and concepts of the things you are arguing about.

R.U sums our boy up quite well, I think.
I remember arguing with him in some thread over a contention he had that certain methods used by the Nazi's in WW2, and the British during the Boar war {forced labour/concentation camps} was morally ethical in Iraq as a means of supressing the insurgency there. Only he thought it should be done on a nation wide, as in all of the population scale, IIRC.

He should be titled, Morally Bankrupt?, certainly. Given the manner of his 'debate style', in particular, but combined with his dubious ethics and morality, I wonder if he is worth while keeping at all, if all we will get is seven pages of what amounts to junk.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-24 10:07am

I should point out LongVin has flared up before; the day after Christmas AIDS thread comes to mind, and here's the thread Stuart Mackey referenced, I believe.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-04-24 10:34am

Surlethe wrote:I should point out LongVin has flared up before; the day after Christmas AIDS thread comes to mind, and here's the thread Stuart Mackey referenced, I believe.

All that happened pretty early on in his career here too. He has a record of side-stepping questions for which providing answers would demonstrate the non-viability of his position, and attempting to lie to support it. Not to mention I've not ever seen him provide more than token evidence to back up his arguments.

In short, he's consistently and repeatedly advocated a morally repugnant view that cannot be logically sustained by anyone other than himself and similar "What's good for me and wealthy businessmen should be the ultimate goal of society. Fuck the rest of you useless fuckers" vultures. At least he should be slapped with a WTPF title. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reason to keep him around since he always resorts to the same dishonest debating tactics in an attempt to distract us away from his corrupt, irrational bullshit.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-04-24 10:34pm

But getting the best price is beneficial to me. Any action I take in any situation(situation below) can have a negative effect on another person. You have to decide whats in my best interests to do.

When a person can so casually say this and not see what is wrong with it?

Definitly at bare minimum a title, but is skirting a great deal of rule breaking with broken record tactics.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-04-25 08:10pm

"a certain point of veiw" only works for guys named kenobi as to why they had to cut of their best friend's legs, arms and leave them to be consumed by lava.

at least sartre and machevelli goes to the point that if your going to be dishonest at least be honest with your self.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-04-25 09:44pm

Something like "Ethically Questionable" might be good, or something else that alerts people to his shortcomings. WTPF doesn't really explain why, and it usually tends to be used for racist and sexist trolls.

Possible titles:

Dishonest
Ethically Questionable
Morally Bankrupt

Simple and descriptive.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-25 10:40pm

I have received the following suggestion from a board member via private message:

I would like to suggest the title 'Morally Bankrupt Assole.

So he can be the MBA he so desparately wants to be

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-04-26 12:45pm

Not too huge to add, but a fun bit nonetheless

Darth Fanboy wrote:REgarding: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=90036

I think it is worth noting that he has bragged openly about purchasing "Another Hope"

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=89990

LongVin wrote:I am so ordering that to say I have a illegal book.

LongVin wrote:It arrived! I haven't started reading it yet but it has arrived and I am staring at it now as it sits on my desk.
I would think that the open admission pf purchasing copyright-infringing materials (especially material of obviously shit quality, heh) would speak negatively of him regarding his fate.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-04-26 02:39pm

"another hope"?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-04-26 04:00pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:"another hope"?

Some shitball fanfic someone was peddleing on amazon.com, hence the illegal book part.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-04-26 04:12pm

damn who tries and sells fanfic?

well maybe hawking my original shit but not fanfic....

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-04-26 04:19pm

Hereis the thread about it.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-26 08:52pm

I think I should present LongVin's latest response in the thread, elicited after a short series of Socratic questions, as clarification of some consequences of his ethical system:

LongVin wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Okay; let's generalize this, then; suppose you were alive, as you are now, back in 1930. If you die then, the Holocaust will be prevented; if you choose to live, Hitler will go through with the Holocaust. Do you choose to die?
In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

Also if in this scenario I had all the divination of knowing the future I would be apprehension to change the course of history. Though the holacaust being a tragic and unfortunate event it has had a profound effect on the politics of the later half of the 20th century.