What are you views on cheating?

[TheCotMan]

If you reply to this, see if you can do so without providing reasons such as: rightousness, supremecy, entitlement, or nationalistic propaganda. See if we can come up with reasons that would apply to both sides without respect to specific relig[removed] or poli[removed].

I see "justification" is a big part to identification of a cheater. Let's apply this to the extreme of life and death as found in battles and wars.

There are many cases where one military complies with rules that their enemies do not. When one side does not comply with the rules, are they cheating?

Just where do violations of "rules of engagement" become cheating? Are there circumstances where it is justified? What are they?

Is being out-manned and out-gunned a sufficient justification? (Consider how many revolutions succeeded when outnumbered and outgunned forces chose to "break rules.")

Were those who used gurilla warfare against old-style battelfield combat cheating?

What about attacking civillian targets? If a POW escapes from custody behind enemy lines, are they justified in attacking any targets of opportunity? Even civillian targets?

What about assassins? Poisoning? Snipers? Spies? What would be considered cheating in war? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? Genetic weapons? Nuclear weapons? Information gathering through torture?

Would you consider terrorism, cheating? Why, or why not? Can you think of times where terrorism is justified? Can it ever be justified?

[valkyrie]

If you reply to this, see if you can do so without providing reasons such as: rightousness, supremecy, entitlement, or nationalistic propaganda. See if we can come up with reasons that would apply to both sides without respect to specific relig[removed] or poli[removed].

*snipped for brevity* :-)

Would you consider terrorism, cheating? Why, or why not? Can you think of times where terrorism is justified? Can it ever be justified?

Please define the definition of "terrorism," then perhaps I can respond more appropriately.

[Siviak]

If you reply to this, see if you can do so without providing reasons such as: rightousness, supremecy, entitlement, or nationalistic propaganda. See if we can come up with reasons that would apply to both sides without respect to specific relig[removed] or poli[removed].

I see "justification" is a big part to identification of a cheater. Let's apply this to the extreme of life and death as found in battles and wars.

There are many cases where one military complies with rules that their enemies do not. When one side does not comply with the rules, are they cheating?

Just where do violations of "rules of engagement" become cheating? Are there circumstances where it is justified? What are they?

Is being out-manned and out-gunned a sufficient justification? (Consider how many revolutions succeeded when outnumbered and outgunned forces chose to "break rules.")

Were those who used gurilla warfare against old-style battelfield combat cheating?

What about attacking civillian targets? If a POW escapes from custody behind enemy lines, are they justified in attacking any targets of opportunity? Even civillian targets?

What about assassins? Poisoning? Snipers? Spies? What would be considered cheating in war? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? Genetic weapons? Nuclear weapons? Information gathering through torture?

Would you consider terrorism, cheating? Why, or why not? Can you think of times where terrorism is justified? Can it ever be justified?

uuummm..... pass

[TheCotMan]

Please define the definition of "terrorism," then perhaps I can respond more appropriately.

Ok. :-)
A covert and violent attack against non-military targets meant to generate fear or terror for the purpose of advancing one or more items in your agenda, or to harm the advancement of your enemies agenda.

uuummm..... pass

How about just the last part? Is Terrorism cheating?

[rot_link]

"All is fair in love and war"

I wonder where did the idea of a 'fair fight' came from? In reality, no military wants to fight fair...they want to win. If you didn't want to win, you wouldn't fight. No soldier should start with the possibility in their mind that losing is an option...only winning.

I don't think it is possible to 'cheat' in war/military engagements; all that can happen is that one party has a tighter reli[removed] control on their actions. War, by its very nature, is not a civilized engagement, so any attempt to place civilized 'rules' is an attempt in futility.

Just where do violations of "rules of engagement" become cheating? Are there circumstances where it is justified?

The purpose of war is to win, "Make the other poor bastard die for his coutry". If the desire to win is the purpose, then strength of that desire will dictate the extremity of their actions. The actions of a hired soldier will most likely not be the same as that of a person defending their home. The former will be more reserved, and the latter have no reserve. It is impossible to cheat at war...you can only violate the reli[removed] bounds you have placed on yourself. All if fair in war.

When one side engages in a guerilla operation, it only appears to be cheating (i.e. targeting civilian population, commanding officers, infrastructure, etc) because it violates some sensibility in the other side.

The whole point of war is the influence the varibles sufficently so that you will win. Nuclear weapons, improvised explosive devices, whatever. How you start the war dictates how you will try to influence the varibles. Unlimited resources...tactical nukes; limited resources...booby traps.

Would you consider terrorism, cheating? Why, or why not? Can you think of times where terrorism is justified? Can it ever be justified?

Terrorism (touchy subject) is not cheating in war. Guerilla warfare/terrorism, I think the two are synonyms. Breaking the fighting ability of your enemy by attacking the moral, rather than a purely military object...that is an integral part of a military campaign. The actions of a terrorist, are called terrorism precisely because those being terrorized will not engage in those type of attacks. War has taught us that you look for a weakness in your enemy, and attempt to exploit it for your own advantage. Isn't this exactly what a terrorist/guerilla does, only with unconventional means dictated by his abilities?

Sun Tzu and a host of other generals understood that war is hell. This is why the South lost the Civil War...they played 'by the rules'. There can be no rules in war, because the very nature of what it is defies civility and rules. The justification to use 'extreme' methods in war, is because you are in a war.

[astcell]

There are rules in all those examples, just different sets of rules. if you are a soldier in uniform you have the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10). Laws of war were created to prevent atrocities from occuring again (or try to). If you wear civilian clothes in a war you can be shot as a spy. That is an accepted rule.

More here: http://www.web-ak.com/waco/war/page/w_g.html

Now if one side makes a change, like it is okay to wear civilian clothes in a war, then all sides agree on that, then is it still cheating? if one side uses a white flag to surrender but in actuality is using it to entrap the enemy, are they cheating? YES, however the white flag will never work again, so in this case cheaters lose out as well. The rules are supposed to work both ways.

If the teach in a class found out that a C student cheated and got an A, is the teacher not cheating when he gives the person an F instead, should he not truthfully give him a C since that is what he is, or is the teacher now judge and jury in handing out the F? So the teacher is cheating...but can you cheat a cheater?

Good powerpoint show here: http://www.agd.state.tx.us/jag/Presentations/LOW82.ppt


If a terrorist has no rules, is that a rule? I think we will run in circles in no time. Some of the rules enable us to exist day to day. What if I wanted to drive across the road and 'cheated' by running a red light. The result of my cheating can be greater than what the law would hit me with.

[mikedc1760]

Well besides being incredibly silly (I mean, you didn't bother to check the answers with your free time?), I think we're mostly in agreement that intentions play a large part in determining whether or not something is considered cheating.

Oh, and I still like Ridirich's definition best: "Any person(s) that reach a goal unjustly by using work not their own". It is not all-encompassing, but it is pretty damn good.

Of course I checked them in my free time. I'm talking about when you skip an answer or putting a B instead of a D or vice versa when putting them on the paper

[valkyrie]

Ok. :-)
A covert and violent attack against non-military targets meant to generate fear or terror for the purpose of advancing one or more items in your agenda, or to harm the advancement of your enemies agenda.


How about just the last part? Is Terrorism cheating?

Thank you Cotman :-)

If the definition of terrorism is "A covert and violent attack against non-military targets meant to generate fear or terror for the purpose of advancing one or more items in your agenda, or to harm the advancement of your enemies agenda." Then I believe your question was already answered in part by Siviak. Terrorism is no more than a more grisly employment of social engineering, because it DOES indeed create a mental modality of your (the terrorist's) choosing. We may not LIKE it, it may not be RIGHT according to the mores and values of our particular community, but it isn't cheating. /me thinks of a certain bomb dropped on a certain city in Japan.

Is social engineering acceptable under the umbrella of war? Yes! The objective of war is to win, as noted by rot_link. Is it acceptable in everyday life? Yes, if the subject is gullible enough to believe the load of crap you are handing them, then...

So, in either case, it isn't "cheating" (as I understand cheating to be, as I don't think we agreed upon a definition of that either. :-) ) because one is employing the tools at hand to attain one's objective.

Now, if the rules are clearly defined, then there may be some issues. But even as AST pointed out ( the Geneva Convention) No one in state of war really asks the other side if they agree to the "rules." And most of the time people/communities/nations are on auto-pilot: "Oh, you know what I meant when I said that." Assumptions! Nothing clearly defined. Gaaaah!

As for other forms of "cheating," give me a definition and we can dialog off-line :-)
Thanks for a really cool thread!

Stay shiny...

[TheCotMan]

Thanks for a really cool thread!

For all of you that have said how this is a good thread, you have yourselves to thank for making it good, and this thread for making it an issue.

Here are some observations on the topic of cheating here:
1) Justification seems to be part of the picture
2) How an individual feels after being "caught" seems to contribute to identification, except for cases where 1) causes the individual to feel justified even if others view specific actions as cheating.
3) Issues of "fairness" seems related, but is also not a single qualifier that is always indicative of cheating.
4) Breaking rules for personal gain seem to be part of it, but this in battle/war may not be cheating, so breaking rules for personal gain may be sufficient in some cases but not all, and not necesary to identify cheating.
5) Bending the rules without breaking them seems to not be cheating, but related to hacking; exploitation is not necessarily cheating.

Did I miss anything? Is there anything more that we use or can use to identify what is cheating, and what is not?

[valkyrie]

For all of you that have said how this is a good thread, you have yourselves to thank for making it good, and this thread for making it an issue.

Here are some observations on the topic of cheating here:
1) Justification seems to be part of the picture
2) How an individual feels after being "caught" seems to contribute to identification, except for cases where 1) causes the individual to feel justified even if others view specific actions as cheating.
3) Issues of "fairness" seems related, but is also not a single qualifier that is always indicative of cheating.
4) Breaking rules for personal gain seem to be part of it, but this in battle/war may not be cheating, so breaking rules for personal gain may be sufficient in some cases but not all, and not necesary to identify cheating.
5) Bending the rules without breaking them seems to not be cheating, but related to hacking; exploitation is not necessarily cheating.

Did I miss anything? Is there anything more that we use or can use to identify what is cheating, and what is not?

Yes, you missed that the whole concept of cheating is highly subjective. :-)

[Ridirich]

A few simple questions to answer your question in reguards to warefare:

If you have sex with a prostitute and use her in every way you want, then don't pay her...was that rape or theft?

During proclaimed war with another country is there such a thing as terrorism?

In reality, what would you do to get home, to see your family again?

If you were in civilian territory do you honestly think THEY would let you walk away in "an enemy uniform" with no consiquences for it, like calling police/militairy and giving them your location?

Here is the most relivant question though: Do footmen in combat, modern or otherwise, have any sort of aimbot, shooting bullets that go around corners and hitting someone right in the face each shot?

[astcell]

Ridirich, would terrorism still exist without the 6 o'clock news?

[TheCotMan]

If you have sex with a prostitute and use her in every way you want, then don't pay her...was that rape or theft?

Both are independent in law, and can be treated separately. Depending on what laws are used, and where (country/state/city) both could apply as separate crimes.

During proclaimed war with another country is there such a thing as terrorism?

Using the defintion I provided: yes it can, but that does not mean it necessarily will.

In reality, what would you do to get home, to see your family again?

What if my family is dysfunctional? ;-)

Seriously, I understand this statement as mentioned by people who have gone to battle, or are close to those in the military.

I don't want to enter into discussion of the tools like this that are used to convince people to work within the scope of a military as many tap strong emotions and feelings that cause people to bypass rational thought.

I do not seek to devalue these tools, or condemn those who believe or use them to create a cohesive, functional, obedient, orderly and ultimately effective military. It is because they evoke so much passion and are such powerful motivators that I want to avoid discussing them on the forums.

If you were in civilian territory do you honestly think THEY would let you walk away in "an enemy uniform" with no consiquences for it, like calling police/militairy and giving them your location?

Not all terrorism requires the terrorist to get away. :-/

Here is the most relivant question though: Do footmen in combat, modern or otherwise, have any sort of aimbot, shooting bullets that go around corners and hitting someone right in the face each shot?

Would biological weapons, or future weapons that attack people based on regional genome (genetic attacks to aide in genocide) count?

[Ridirich]

Those are not carried by a groundpounder.

[TheCotMan]

Those are not carried by a groundpounder.

There are some early examples of biological warfare. Re-use of infected blankets, tainting of water supplies, spread of STD, and a few others. Some may not have been intentionally used, but were still used just the same.

Then there are issues of diseases "carried" by people who travel great distances. Diseases infecting a population with no multi-generation, evolutionary resistance have been carried by foot soldiers. Was the use intentional? I'd expect most of the time, no.

I think I understand your example though. Would a significant advantage in technology meet your requirements, or are you looking for something that is exactly what you describe?