Wave Hoax Tricks Gullible iPhone Users Into Microwaving Their Phones

[Kieve]

I was just going to let it drop, honestly, but this bit bears correcting.

Because they did? Spin it however you like, the cold, hard (and burned/melted) fact is, they put their own phone in the microwave. They pushed the button.
The end result may not have been what they anticipated, but it was entirely their own choice to do so. Again, that isn't really a debatable point unless you also want to take argument with things like "fate" and "destiny" (or karma, as another user suggested).

SO WHAT?!!

Ya, it's a undeniable fact; it's also an irrelevant fact. That's what I'm saying. If I slipped poison into someone's drink while they weren't looking and they then proceeded to drink it, they would also be doing so of their free will. But that doesn't mean they're committing suicide, they're not choosing to die, I'm still the killer.

It's like I'm talking to an alien here or something. The fact that they were acting of their own free will is completely trivial to the discussion because the only decision they made was to try and charge their phone using the cool new Wave feature. Knowledge that the phone would be destroyed was not a factor in their thinking. Can we please put that to rest now?

My planet of origin has nothing to do with it. Whether you realize it or not, what you're arguing for is making ignorance an excuse to absolve someone of responsibility for their actions. It's not irrelevant at all - in fact, just the opposite:
Being ignorant of the consequences does not absolve someone of responsibility for their actions.
See also:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
"I was just following orders."
"But Mommy, he told me to do it!"
... you get the idea.[footnote]And please, don't waste your time or mine trying to pick apart each quote - it's the principle at work here, not the semantics.[/footnote]

Now I grant you that no, it apparently did not occur to them that their phone would be damaged. But I will not accept the premise that "not knowing" somehow abdicates them of any fault in the act itself. Nor should you. That's the problem here, you want to paint them as helpless victims of a nasty prank, when their part in it was completely voluntary. This isn't the same as physically dropping a ball on their head, or putting a bucket of soapy water on the door jamb - they chose the action. I'm not dense, I simply refuse your assertion that they are somehow blameless just because they were misinformed.

 

[go-10]

I bet most of the people that said they microwave their phone are lying about it
I mean come on you really think a guy who's name is NigerianPrince microwaved his phone? Because if he did, we should have all answered his e-mails, we'd be rich!

 

[Agayek]

The person who drops the ball knows what will happen. Only if he was unaware of how gravity works would he be analogous to the person putting the phone in the microwave. You might as well blame the microwave while you're at it since it also acted without knowing that it was going to destroy the phone.

I'm gonna stay out of the rest of this, mostly because I can't be bothered to read all your posts, but I do feel the need to point something out:

Microwave ovens and their poor interactions with metals and plastics are common knowledge. It's not quite on the level of intuitive understanding as the existence of gravity, that much is true, but anyone who has the disposable income to afford a new iphone so soon after release is pretty much guaranteed to own or have owned a microwave at some point in their lives and, in turn, have been exposed to what they do to metals and plastics.

As such, it is not at all unreasonable for there to be an expectation that they did, in fact, know what was going to happen, but were gullible enough to believe it wouldn't.

 

[Olas]

I was just going to let it drop, honestly, but this bit bears correcting.

Because they did? Spin it however you like, the cold, hard (and burned/melted) fact is, they put their own phone in the microwave. They pushed the button.
The end result may not have been what they anticipated, but it was entirely their own choice to do so. Again, that isn't really a debatable point unless you also want to take argument with things like "fate" and "destiny" (or karma, as another user suggested).

SO WHAT?!!

Ya, it's a undeniable fact; it's also an irrelevant fact. That's what I'm saying. If I slipped poison into someone's drink while they weren't looking and they then proceeded to drink it, they would also be doing so of their free will. But that doesn't mean they're committing suicide, they're not choosing to die, I'm still the killer.

It's like I'm talking to an alien here or something. The fact that they were acting of their own free will is completely trivial to the discussion because the only decision they made was to try and charge their phone using the cool new Wave feature. Knowledge that the phone would be destroyed was not a factor in their thinking. Can we please put that to rest now?

My planet of origin has nothing to do with it. Whether you realize it or not, what you're arguing for is making ignorance an excuse to absolve someone of responsibility for their actions.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. How is that not self evident? 2 + 2 = 4, and ignorance of your actions absolves you of moral responsibility. Are you saying that if I poison someone's drink without their knowledge it's still their fault that they died?

It's not irrelevant at all - in fact, just the opposite:
Being ignorant of the consequences does not absolve someone of responsibility for their actions.
See also:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
"I was just following orders."
"But Mommy, he told me to do it!"

Only one of those quotes actually deals with ignorance, the second 2 both deal with decisions made under duress but not necessarily out of ignorance. The fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse is purely a matter of practicality for the legal system, not morality. It's virtually impossible to prove or disprove someone's knowledge of the law, and if ignorance was an excuse it would de-incentivize learning about the law.

Even with that in mind, it's still worth noting that "ignorance is no excuse" only applies to ignorance of what is legal and illegal, not ignorance of what the consequences of your actions would be. If someone can prove that they didn't know a gun was loaded when they accidentally shot someone dead, it would be legally defined as involuntary manslaughter and not murder. Thus even within the legal system there is a distinction between acting with knowledge and acting without knowledge.

... you get the idea. And please, don't waste your time or mine trying to pick apart each quote - it's the principle at work here, not the semantics.

Except there's no underlying principle behind the 3 quotes. One of them deals with ignorance of the law, the other 2 deal with actions carried out under duress. I don't even have to pick apart the second 2 because they have no bearing on the discussion.

Also, telling someone NOT to analyze your argument sounds an awful lot like trying to cover your ass because you know your argument is faulty.

Now I grant you that no, it apparently did not occur to them that their phone would be damaged.

Well no shit, I'm pretty sure that's a given that we've been working off of this whole time.

But I will not accept the premise that "not knowing" somehow abdicates them of any fault in the act itself. Nor should you. That's the problem here, you want to paint them as helpless victims of a nasty prank, when their part in it was completely voluntary. This isn't the same as physically dropping a ball on their head, or putting a bucket of soapy water on the door jamb - they chose the action.

Is the person who opens the door with the soapy bucket not CHOOSING to open the door? Is that not "voluntary" as well? By your extremely weird logic they're to blame for the bucket falling on their head, even though they didn't know about it.

I would LOVE to hear you explain how that's any different.

I'm not dense, I simply refuse your assertion that they are somehow blameless just because they were misinformed.

I ... I don't even have words. This makes no sense. I don't understand how you can possibly think that way. How, HOW is someone morally responsible for something they didn't even know would happen? It seems like basic common sense, yet you don't agree to it somehow.

 

[Kieve]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. How is that not self evident? 2 + 2 = 4, and ignorance of your actions absolves you of moral responsibility. Are you saying that if I poison someone's drink without their knowledge it's still their fault that they died?

No. Because in this example, you are acting directly in some manner towards your victim. As is the bowling ball example, or the bucket-on-door thing (which is why my previous post stated explicitly that they aren't the same, so I have no earthly clue why you're arguing as if they were). No direct action was involved in this hoax, except what the 'victim' themselves took.
Corrected example: You tell your victim, "Hey, try this glass of arsenic! Turns out humans are totally immune!"
Then, if the person actually is dumb enough to drink the arsenic, it's on them. Of course, you're still a horrible person for encouraging it.
I've already admitted the pranksters here aren't totally blameless, but I will not accept your assertion that the 'victims' are.

Now for the love of all you consider holy, would you please stop trying to invent flawed "analogies" to defend a flawed premise?

Even with that in mind, it's still worth noting that "ignorance is no excuse" only applies to ignorance of what is legal and illegal, not ignorance of what the consequences of your actions would be. If someone can prove that they didn't know a gun was loaded when they accidentally shot someone dead, it would be legally defined as involuntary manslaughter and not murder. Thus even within the legal system there is a distinction between acting with knowledge and acting without knowledge.

...And they are still held responsible and charged with the death of that person. Thank you.

Also, telling someone NOT to analyze your argument sounds an awful lot like trying to cover your ass because you know your argument is faulty.

I was aware of that in posting it. I just didn't feel like having to scroll through another one of your line-by-line post dissections. And yes, I'm guilty of the same, but I still find it getting very old.

I ... I don't even have words. This makes no sense. I don't understand how you can possibly think that way. How, HOW is someone morally responsible for something they didn't even know would happen? It seems like basic common sense, yet you don't agree to it somehow.

No, we are not getting hung up on semantics and nitty-gritty details. I'm done with that, because you'd rather pick apart things at the microscopic level than try to follow the concept I am conveying here:
No one is responsible for anything you choose to do, but you. No one.[footnote]Ruling out extremely silly examples like mind-control anyway.[/footnote]
What part of that are you failing to grasp? It doesn't make one iota of difference if you know what will happen or not, it is your action. If things turn out as you expect, so much the better. If they don't, you learn from it and proceed onward.

I'm not going to play with analogies. You're more interested in nitpicking them to death than following the logic presented. Trying to blame someone else for something you did isn't just wrong, it's wrong on a level that makes me question if you obey proper natural or physical laws like gravity yourself. Are you my ideological nemesis incarnate?

 

[Strazdas]

Fine, then they made a mistake. They screwed up. They weren't careful enough. It's still an error of the brain, not the heart. There's no immorality to be punished here, except from the people who willingly tried to make them destroy their phones. At most the victims deserved some light punishment to drill in the "lesson" people seem to see this as, like the horror of temporarily believing they'd broken their phones, or maybe a shock to their hand, or just the embarrassment they seem to have willingly brought on by posting this on the internet. They didn't deserve to have the phone destroyed.

morality is subjective. immorality punishment is a subject thats irrelevant here. a mistake of the brain leads to consequences. in this case the consequese was destruction of your own property. if i decide to jump off a building its also a mistake of the brain, yet you can hardly blame the builders for building the building. the same i would be to blame if i were to microwave my phone - i did it out of my own stupidity. there is no "Crime" here. only action and consequences. in this case the action was extremely ignorant, and thus consequences were undesirable.

So you're not saying the punishment is "appropriate" but that it's "fair". What exactly is the difference?

Appropriate describes what would be fitting punishment in order for a person to learn his lesson. Fair describes what would happen in proportion of actions taken. the two are not always the same. in this case a person could have learned with less consequences.

How do you know what's "contrary to everything he knows"?

More importantly, like I already said, not checking to see if it was legit was just more stupidity. It's not like these people were suspicious that is was fake, but then made the mental calculation that they should NOT research to find out if this suspicion is true. If they microwaved the phone without checking, it's obvious because they had no suspicion or doubt to begin with.

Either that or they didn't give a shit about their phones, in which case no harm done.

im sorry but if your knowledge base is so inverse that you think putting electronics in microwave is good idea i dont think you should be let out without somone watching you because your likely going to caus accudents. since these peopel got by in the real world just fine, their knowledge was not so inverse, hence contrary to what they know.

EVERYONE has suspicion about what they read. this is natural process. they chose to ignore such suspicion.

Fine, we don't have to call it bullying if that semantic distinction is important to you, although Wikipedia defines bullying as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others." and I would consider this using coercion to abuse someone.

Regardless, it's still wrong.

if i were to post an image on the internet that said: "jumping off the bridge may not kill you" and somone kileld himself jumping off a bridge i now coerced him into jumping off the bridge? sorry, but i find this ludicrous.

People on this thread talk about not microwaving electronics like it's a conversation every parent has with their kid or like it's part of school curriculum or something. Ya, we all use microwaves, to heat up food.

I dont know what education you went through, but our physics class in 6th grade, circa 2003. It wasnt indepth technical explanation, but enough to understand you shouldnt put your hands or metal objects into it.

I'm merely saying it's not as obvious as if they were told they should hit their phone with a hammer or stick it in a blender.

Yes it was. Blender is great example actually. both are electronic devices whos manual will clearly show that you should not put your phone inside them.

Ya, it's a undeniable fact; it's also an irrelevant fact. That's what I'm saying. If I slipped poison into someone's drink while they weren't looking and they then proceeded to drink it, they would also be doing so of their free will. But that doesn't mean they're committing suicide, they're not choosing to die, I'm still the killer.

this seems to imply these people were unaware they were putting their phones into a microwave. since that is evidently false, your analogy falls apart before it starts.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

I've found that iPhone/iOS users are something special. I deal with them at work everyday. Whatever tricks can be played off of their techno ignorance is fine by me.

Did you know you can fold up your iPhone and charge it in the Microwave?

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Those twitter names 'Nigerias Finest' and 'ipunchbabies'.

 

[Olas]

Fine, then they made a mistake. They screwed up. They weren't careful enough. It's still an error of the brain, not the heart. There's no immorality to be punished here, except from the people who willingly tried to make them destroy their phones. At most the victims deserved some light punishment to drill in the "lesson" people seem to see this as, like the horror of temporarily believing they'd broken their phones, or maybe a shock to their hand, or just the embarrassment they seem to have willingly brought on by posting this on the internet. They didn't deserve to have the phone destroyed.

morality is subjective. immorality punishment is a subject thats irrelevant here. a mistake of the brain leads to consequences. in this case the consequese was destruction of your own property. if i decide to jump off a building its also a mistake of the brain, yet you can hardly blame the builders for building the building.

The difference is that the builders of the building weren't trying to make people jump off. The instigators of this prank clearly were trying to make people microwave their phone.

If a person decides to jump off a building because of a mistake of the brain, then I'd say nobody's to blame, it's just a tragic accident.

And I wouldn't take joy from the dead person on the ground and say he DESERVED to die for being so stupid.

the same i would be to blame if i were to microwave my phone - i did it out of my own stupidity. there is no "Crime" here. only action and consequences. in this case the action was extremely ignorant, and thus consequences were undesirable.

Yet people in this thread are claiming the victims DESERVED this for being so stupid, that's what I was objecting to. I wouldn't say they deserved to lose their phone even if they acted entirely alone without any external motivation.

I would also say the people who created the prank bear guilt because they were trying to make someone wreck their phone. It doesn't even matter if anyone had fallen for it or not, the simple act of creating the image with that intention is morally reprehensible.

So you're not saying the punishment is "appropriate" but that it's "fair". What exactly is the difference?

Appropriate describes what would be fitting punishment in order for a person to learn his lesson. Fair describes what would happen in proportion of actions taken. the two are not always the same. in this case a person could have learned with less consequences.

Fair describes what would happen in proportion to the actions taken? What does that mean? Are you saying that the outcome of an action is always fair? Even if the person is unaware of what the outcome will be when acting?

I don't know dude, I believe sometimes people screw up, and the consequences are huge even though the mistake was minor, and I don't think that's fair. The phrase "life isn't fair" wouldn't exist otherwise.

im sorry but if your knowledge base is so inverse that you think putting electronics in microwave is good idea i dont think you should be let out without somone watching you because your likely going to caus accudents. since these peopel got by in the real world just fine, their knowledge was not so inverse, hence contrary to what they know.

EVERYONE has suspicion about what they read. this is natural process. they chose to ignore such suspicion.

That seems like an awfully presumptive blanket statement at the end there, can you support it at all?

So you're saying they suspected their phone would be destroyed, but didn't care enough to investigate? Then they obviously didn't care about their phone to begin with. And if they didn't care about their phone being destroyed, then this wasn't really a successful prank.

But okay, let's say (despite all logic) that they really did care, and yet still made the fully intentional decision to not investigate this suspicion that they had about their phone being destroyed. Their crime has shifted from ignorance to recklessness. Recklessness is worse than ignorance I'll grant you, but I still don't consider it a crime that justifies what happened here.

People who ride around on motorcycles are reckless, I still don't consider it appropriate or fair when one of them crashes and dies. It's sad, and unfortunate, but they could have been a great person that lots of people cared about, and they're only error was a miscalculation, or a lack of calculation.

Fine, we don't have to call it bullying if that semantic distinction is important to you, although Wikipedia defines bullying as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others." and I would consider this using coercion to abuse someone.

Regardless, it's still wrong.

if i were to post an image on the internet that said: "jumping off the bridge may not kill you" and somone kileld himself jumping off a bridge i now coerced him into jumping off the bridge? sorry, but i find this ludicrous.

If you started posting images telling people it's okay to jump off bridges, because you think some people would actually fall for it and kill themselves, I would say you're morally reprehensible regardless of whether someone falls for it because you are trying to get people killed.

If someone DID jump off the bridge because of it, I would say that you coerced them, yes.

People on this thread talk about not microwaving electronics like it's a conversation every parent has with their kid or like it's part of school curriculum or something. Ya, we all use microwaves, to heat up food.

I dont know what education you went through, but our physics class in 6th grade, circa 2003. It wasnt indepth technical explanation, but enough to understand you shouldnt put your hands or metal objects into it.

I went to public education in St. Louis County Missouri, we were never taught about what happens to things besides food in microwave ovens. I doubt our teachers would have considered that relevant subject matter. We learned a bit about the electromagnetic spectrum, including microwaves, but I don't remember anything about the effects of microwave radiation on metal. What I know about it I've learned from Youtube videos, not school.

So maybe I had a shitty education, my school was considered one of the better ones in my area, but that's not saying a ton considering how terrible some of those schools are.

I'm merely saying it's not as obvious as if they were told they should hit their phone with a hammer or stick it in a blender.

Yes it was. Blender is great example actually. both are electronic devices whos manual will clearly show that you should not put your phone inside them.

Really, I doubt the manual for any blender actually mentioned not putting smartphones in them specifically. That would be weird. More to the point, reading the manuals is no different than just looking it up online, both would be easy but also assume that you don't trust the image to begin with.

Also, most people know how blenders work, they don't use forces that are invisible to the naked eye, a rotating blade cuts things to pieces. Microwaves, by comparison, are much less apparent in how they work.

Finally, you're argument assumes the same rules would always apply to all devices, but maybe the new iPhone was built differently. For example, most phones AREN'T waterproof, yet waterproof phones have been built too. So maybe they thought this new iPhone was built with special materials to make it microwave resistant.

Ya, it's a undeniable fact; it's also an irrelevant fact. That's what I'm saying. If I slipped poison into someone's drink while they weren't looking and they then proceeded to drink it, they would also be doing so of their free will. But that doesn't mean they're committing suicide, they're not choosing to die, I'm still the killer.

this seems to imply these people were unaware they were putting their phones into a microwave. since that is evidently false, your analogy falls apart before it starts.

No, you're just misreading it, intentionally or unintentionally. The lack of knowledge isn't in whether they were putting the phone in the microwave, but in what the effects of doing that will be.

They didn't know putting the phone in the microwave would destroy it, in the same way that the person wouldn't know that drinking the drink would kill them.

Both are people taking an action without knowledge of what the outcome of that action will be. In both scenarios their decision is rational based on what they THINK will happen. Both are acting of their free will, but neither is choosing their fate.

 

[Strazdas]

The difference is that the builders of the building weren't trying to make people jump off. The instigators of this prank clearly were trying to make people microwave their phone.

just like instigators of this [http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/cat%20carrier.gif] were clearly trying to make people torture cats or perhaps there is a whole website dedicated to laughing at such ads [http://www.funnyfakeads.com/].

If a person decides to jump off a building because of a mistake of the brain, then I'd say nobody's to blame, it's just a tragic accident.

and yet you blame others when same kind of mistake of the brain makes him microwave his phone.

And I wouldn't take joy from the dead person on the ground and say he DESERVED to die for being so stupid.

Neither would i, nor were anyone in this thread. there is a difference between death and loosing an inessential device.

Yet people in this thread are claiming the victims DESERVED this for being so stupid, that's what I was objecting to. I wouldn't say they deserved to lose their phone even if they acted entirely alone without any external motivation.

"thats, like, your opinion, man."

people here have different opinions on what is appropriate punishment for this kind of stupidity. and thats fine - opinions are still allowed (as long as you dont post them on twitter, because then you get fired for things like "privacy is important")

If you started posting images telling people it's okay to jump off bridges, because you think some people would actually fall for it and kill themselves, I would say you're morally reprehensible regardless of whether someone falls for it because you are trying to get people killed.

If someone DID jump off the bridge because of it, I would say that you coerced them, yes.

well, then you would be wrong. Because if thats coercion, then every movie that depicts a hero coming off alive from an accidcent is.

I went to public education in St. Louis County Missouri, we were never taught about what happens to things besides food in microwave ovens. I doubt our teachers would have considered that relevant subject matter. We learned a bit about the electromagnetic spectrum, including microwaves, but I don't remember anything about the effects of microwave radiation on metal. What I know about it I've learned from Youtube videos, not school.

So maybe I had a shitty education, my school was considered one of the better ones in my area, but that's not saying a ton considering how terrible some of those schools are.

i wouldnt go around calling your education shitty or anything. different schools have differen curiculum. merely pointed out that in some schools it is indeed being taught.

No, you're just misreading it, intentionally or unintentionally. The lack of knowledge isn't in whether they were putting the phone in the microwave, but in what the effects of doing that will be.

They didn't know putting the phone in the microwave would destroy it, in the same way that the person wouldn't know that drinking the drink would kill them.

Both are people taking an action without knowledge of what the outcome of that action will be. In both scenarios their decision is rational based on what they THINK will happen. Both are acting of their free will, but neither is choosing their fate.

the difference here is that in your analogy a person has no way of knowing somone put poison in his drink, whereas in our microwave example anyone that even glimpsed the microwave manual (which you should read before using microwave, same is true for all electronics) would have prevented it. It is common sense not to put electronics into microwave. it is not common sense to test your drinks for poison every time you drink it. your comparing apples and oranges.

capcha: thunder storm.

so capcha now accurately knows my weather. i am afraid.

 

[Olas]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. How is that not self evident? 2 + 2 = 4, and ignorance of your actions absolves you of moral responsibility. Are you saying that if I poison someone's drink without their knowledge it's still their fault that they died?

No. Because in this example, you are acting directly in some manner towards your victim. As is the bowling ball example, or the bucket-on-door thing (which is why my previous post stated explicitly that they aren't the same, so I have no earthly clue why you're arguing as if they were).

No direct action was involved in this hoax, except what the 'victim' themselves took.

Well considering this is literally the first time you've mentioned any such distinction between a "direct" action and an "indirect" action, I feel I could be excused for not knowing this was your argument all along.

Not that I agree of course. First, your distinction between direct and indirect is arbitrary and made up. By standard definition all of these would be considered indirect (except the bowling ball one); from what I can tell your definition of direct action is when you set up the final consequence yourself, rather than take advantage of a naturally occurring one. It's a cherry picked definition that you're using to try and drive a wedge between these examples and the real life one.

Second, I don't see how this technical distinction makes any difference to the morality of the action either way. Regardless of whether it's "direct" or "indirect" you're still setting up a scenario where someone will unknowingly bring something negative upon themselves that they wouldn't have if you had just left them alone.

Corrected example: You tell your victim, "Hey, try this glass of arsenic! Turns out humans are totally immune!"
Then, if the person actually is dumb enough to drink the arsenic, it's on them. Of course, you're still a horrible person for encouraging it.

I've already admitted the pranksters here aren't totally blameless, but I will not accept your assertion that the 'victims' are.

Really? You think a person deserves to die because they don't know what arsenic is?

You sure you don't want to rethink that? Look, I fundamentally don't equate knowledge or intelligence with moral righteousness, but even you should find that insane. Otherwise I'm not sure I'd ever want to be around you.

Also, arsenic isn't a liquid.

Even with that in mind, it's still worth noting that "ignorance is no excuse" only applies to ignorance of what is legal and illegal, not ignorance of what the consequences of your actions would be. If someone can prove that they didn't know a gun was loaded when they accidentally shot someone dead, it would be legally defined as involuntary manslaughter and not murder. Thus even within the legal system there is a distinction between acting with knowledge and acting without knowledge.

...And they are still held responsible and charged with the death of that person. Thank you.

You think that murder and manslaughter are treated even remotely equally? No, people convicted of involuntary manslaughter receive a year or 2 in prison at most, and that's if it can be proven they were acting with reckless endangerment, usually in conjunction with another unlawful act a la drunk driving.

Actually, I did a little research and if the person wasn't acting out of willful endangerment or breaking the law in some other way, it's not even classified as manslaughter, its classified as homicide by misadvanture and isn't even punishable.

The Common Law of crimes distinguishes two types of accidental killings. They are accidental killings resulting from unlawful acts of violence not directed at the victim and accidental killings resulting from lawful acts of violence. The first type was punishable as manslaughter and the second type were excusable as homicide by misadventure.

So I hope that puts that argument to rest.

I ... I don't even have words. This makes no sense. I don't understand how you can possibly think that way. How, HOW is someone morally responsible for something they didn't even know would happen? It seems like basic common sense, yet you don't agree to it somehow.

No, we are not getting hung up on semantics and nitty-gritty details. I'm done with that, because you'd rather pick apart things at the microscopic level than try to follow the concept I am conveying here:
No one is responsible for anything you choose to do, but you. No one.[footnote]Ruling out extremely silly examples like mind-control anyway.[/footnote]

I wouldn't BE picking at semantics and nitty-gritty details if you weren't defending your incredibly broad blanket statements with semantics, logical oversights, and mis-directions that seem like a deliberate attempt to diffuse my rationalization.

And seriously, when was it ever a better idea to NOT look at a situation closely? What you're saying is just short of open admittance that your argument falls short under close scrutiny.

What part of that are you failing to grasp? It doesn't make one iota of difference if you know what will happen or not, it is your action. If things turn out as you expect, so much the better. If they don't, you learn from it and proceed onward.

Okay at your request I'm going to try to be very strait-forward and keep things simple.

I believe that moral value of someone's decisions is based on their intent. What someone's intent is says something about them as a person. What ends up occurring from their actions can be a matter of happenstance resulting from things outside of their control, and therefore doesn't speak to their moral value as a person. For this reason I believe intent is what carries the morality of a decision, not the results of it.

When we analyze this situation, we see that the person who microwaved their phone had the intent to charge it, not to destroy it. Therefore it doesn't make sense to treat them morally as if they had intended for it to get destroyed.

There is a group who's intent was for the phone to be destroyed however, and that's obviously the people who posted the images encouraging them to microwave it. So, regardless of direct physical involvement, since it was their intent for the phone to die, they are the guilty party. Even if nobody had fallen for the joke they would still be just as guilty because the fact that nobody fell for the prank is a matter of happenstance outside of their control, and doesn't affect what their original intent was.

Now, if you don't believe that the moral value of someone's decisions is based on personal intent, then I'm afraid that there's a philosophical chasm between us that would be nearly impossible to bridge, so we should probably just end the discussion.

I'm not going to play with analogies. You're more interested in nitpicking them to death than following the logic presented. Trying to blame someone else for something you did isn't just wrong, it's wrong on a level that makes me question if you obey proper natural or physical laws like gravity yourself. Are you my ideological nemesis incarnate?

Quite possibly. Although I can assure you I at least obey physical laws like gravity.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

I dont wanna go out on a limb here and say Apple-costumers are gullible people who think with their wallets before they think with their brain buuuut, it is very very tempting right now to say exactly that because this is hilarious.
Malicious yes, but still, incredibly hilarious.
True schadenfreude!

 

[KissingSunlight]

Okay at your request I'm going to try to be very strait-forward and keep things simple.

I believe that moral value of someone's decisions is based on their intent. What someone's intent is says something about them as a person. What ends up occurring from their actions can be a matter of happenstance resulting from things outside of their control, and therefore doesn't speak to their moral value as a person. For this reason I believe intent is what carries the morality of a decision, not the results of it.

When we analyze this situation, we see that the person who microwaved their phone had the intent to charge it, not to destroy it. Therefore it doesn't make sense to treat them morally as if they had intended for it to get destroyed.

There is a group who's intent was for the phone to be destroyed however, and that's obviously the people who posted the images encouraging them to microwave it. So, regardless of direct physical involvement, since it was their intent for the phone to die, they are the guilty party. Even if nobody had fallen for the joke they would still be just as guilty because the fact that nobody fell for the prank is a matter of happenstance outside of their control, and doesn't affect what their original intent was.

Now, if you don't believe that the moral value of someone's decisions is based on personal intent, then I'm afraid that there's a philosophical chasm between us that would be nearly impossible to bridge, so we should probably just end the discussion.

I respect your philosophy. However, people do have an obligation to think for themselves. When people demonstrate that they did not put any thoughts into their action. They deserve the consequences of their action.

 

[Olas]

The difference is that the builders of the building weren't trying to make people jump off. The instigators of this prank clearly were trying to make people microwave their phone.

just like instigators of this [http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/cat%20carrier.gif] were clearly trying to make people torture cats or perhaps there is a whole website dedicated to laughing at such ads [http://www.funnyfakeads.com/].

There are 2 main differences between the picture there, and [a href="http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/806/806868.jpg"]this[/a] one.

First, that picture was created for the intent of humor, not to try and trick anyone. I doubt the creators even considered it possible anyone would actually believe it. So they're off the hook.

Second, although you could argue it's still possible for someone to misinterpret it as advice, like with the microwave/blender point I made earlier, it's much more obvious to even an uneducated person that this isn't something that makes any sense to do.

I'm not saying different rules suddenly apply, if someone was moronic enough to do that to their cat I'd say they still aren't morally responsible, just stupid beyond all measure and not competent enough to own a cat.

If a person decides to jump off a building because of a mistake of the brain, then I'd say nobody's to blame, it's just a tragic accident.

and yet you blame others when same kind of mistake of the brain makes him microwave his phone.

No, you have it wrong. Like I said to you:

It doesn't even matter if anyone had fallen for it or not, the simple act of creating the image with that intention is morally reprehensible.

I believe they deserve just as much blame regardless of whether anyone actually microwaves their phone because they created the image for the express purpose of fooling people to. Their guilt is not tied to anyone's knowledge or intelligence.

And I wouldn't take joy from the dead person on the ground and say he DESERVED to die for being so stupid.

Neither would i, nor were anyone in this thread. there is a difference between death and loosing an inessential device.

You chose the example of a person jumping off a building, not me. If you don't consider it an appropriate analogy then why use it?

Yet people in this thread are claiming the victims DESERVED this for being so stupid, that's what I was objecting to. I wouldn't say they deserved to lose their phone even if they acted entirely alone without any external motivation.

"thats, like, your opinion, man."

people here have different opinions on what is appropriate punishment for this kind of stupidity. and thats fine - opinions are still allowed (as long as you dont post them on twitter, because then you get fired for things like "privacy is important")

I'm not saying it's a matter of deciding on the "appropriate punishment", though. I don't think they deserve to be punished at all. If they should receive any sort of negative consequence for their action, it would be purely to help enforce the lesson of not being careless with their phone, but it wouldn't be punishment, it would actually be for their own good.

If you started posting images telling people it's okay to jump off bridges, because you think some people would actually fall for it and kill themselves, I would say you're morally reprehensible regardless of whether someone falls for it because you are trying to get people killed.

If someone DID jump off the bridge because of it, I would say that you coerced them, yes.

well, then you would be wrong. Because if thats coercion, then every movie that depicts a hero coming off alive from an accidcent is.

I do believe movies have some responsibility to not promote or endorse dangerous or suicidal behavior. Of course making people do harmful things to themselves in real life is never the intent of these movies, so your analogy is once again flawed. But there is a reason why movies have ratings, why things like illegal drug use automatically trigger an R rating.

The goal of these systems is to make sure these movies are attended by people mature enough to see the images on screen for what they are and not try to emulate them. Ultimately though, the active part of this responsibility is left up to the parents, not the filmmakers.

I love The Incredibles, but it's a PG rated movie that does depict someone jumping off a building in a light that is morally ambiguous, and I think the creators should have reconsidered that scene. Scenes of people committing suicide in films can be a trigger for depressed and/or suicidal people in real life.

No, you're just misreading it, intentionally or unintentionally. The lack of knowledge isn't in whether they were putting the phone in the microwave, but in what the effects of doing that will be.

They didn't know putting the phone in the microwave would destroy it, in the same way that the person wouldn't know that drinking the drink would kill them.

Both are people taking an action without knowledge of what the outcome of that action will be. In both scenarios their decision is rational based on what they THINK will happen. Both are acting of their free will, but neither is choosing their fate.

the difference here is that in your analogy a person has no way of knowing somone put poison in his drink, whereas in our microwave example anyone that even glimpsed the microwave manual (which you should read before using microwave, same is true for all electronics) would have prevented it. It is common sense not to put electronics into microwave. it is not common sense to test your drinks for poison every time you drink it. your comparing apples and oranges.

We've been over this. I'm not saying these people weren't reckless and irresponsible, I'm just saying I consider recklessness and irresponsibility a form of stupidity or immaturity that should be discouraged, not a form of moral transgression that should be punished.

Like I told Kieve, the difference is intent. A person who acts recklessly doesn't intend to get hurt, they just have a naïve sensibility where they seem to believe the rules of probability don't apply to them.

You would have a stronger case if the person they accidentally hurt was someone else, because then one could call into question whether they were genuinely ignorant or just didn't care about the well-being of another, and the degree of intent would be ambiguous. But the fact that the victim is themselves means they clearly more unaware than uncaring.

And look, if they didn't care about destroying their phone, then that's fine and there's nothing to object to here.

 

[Strazdas]

First, that picture was created for the intent of humor, not to try and trick anyone. I doubt the creators even considered it possible anyone would actually believe it. So they're off the hook.

Ah, so if i tell somone to jump off a bridge as a joke and he does im off the hook. gotcha.

Second, although you could argue it's still possible for someone to misinterpret it as advice, like with the microwave/blender point I made earlier, it's much more obvious to even an uneducated person that this isn't something that makes any sense to do.

I used that picture BECAUSE it was much more obviuos. so obviuos even you understood its a joke whereas you failed to udnerstand the iPhone one being a joke. you just proved my point here that such pictures as a joke is not some "Evil".

It IS obviuos to even uneducated person that sticking metal in microwave is not something that makes any sense to do. Or at least it SHOULD be obviuos because thats basic education failure. As i said, i can understand a 6 year old not knowing what hes doing. a grown up should know better than to do something agianst everything he knows because he saw an image on the net.

I'm not saying different rules suddenly apply, if someone was moronic enough to do that to their cat I'd say they still aren't morally responsible, just stupid beyond all measure and not competent enough to own a cat.

so then, by that logic, these people are not competent enough to own a phone. Thus destruction of their phone solved this problem.

I'm not saying it's a matter of deciding on the "appropriate punishment", though. I don't think they deserve to be punished at all. If they should receive any sort of negative consequence for their action, it would be purely to help enforce the lesson of not being careless with their phone, but it wouldn't be punishment, it would actually be for their own good.

Fair enough, punishment is a wrong word to use here. What they got was a result if their stupid action, a consequence if you will.

I do believe movies have some responsibility to not promote or endorse dangerous or suicidal behavior.

And at this point i flip the table and leave the discussion.

The goal of these systems is to make sure these movies are attended by people mature enough to see the images on screen for what they are and not try to emulate them. Ultimately though, the active part of this responsibility is left up to the parents, not the filmmakers.

These systems were invented as a way to censor material from certain age groups, and while in US they are voluntary (though try telling that to blockbusters clerk) the rest of the world enforces them by law, thus effectively censoring movies.

I love The Incredibles, but it's a PG rated movie that does depict someone jumping off a building in a light that is morally ambiguous, and I think the creators should have reconsidered that scene. Scenes of people committing suicide in films can be a trigger for depressed and/or suicidal people in real life.

Did....did...did you just claim that The Incredibles will trigger people to suicide. i dont even know how to respond to this.

We've been over this. I'm not saying these people weren't reckless and irresponsible, I'm just saying I consider recklessness and irresponsibility a form of stupidity or immaturity that should be discouraged, not a form of moral transgression that should be punished.

the most popular form of discouragement in our law is material fines. Loosing material object would constitute as one.