Okay, so, here is the transcription had by a few of us in a far away land:
Revenir - Today at 10:07 PM
If you want to justify Teddy
Find a way to compare him to Ted from Bill and Ted
Kingsington - Today at 10:07 PM
Have never watched that
Revenir - Today at 10:07 PM
A fool’s errand, then
Teddy is doomed
Doomed to be hated
5eva
Kingsington - Today at 10:08 PM
Sucks to be him, having only me as the only one who believes in his goodness
Chordie - Today at 10:08 PM
Teddy = Waylon Park
Kingsington - Today at 10:09 PM
I mean I think that’s more Whistler
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:09 PM
Well, his interests has a Intellectual curiousity behind them. So I can validate the means as long as the results were intellectually satisfying.
Chordie - Today at 10:09 PM
oh tru
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:09 PM
And intellectually valuable.
Revenir - Today at 10:09 PM
Uhhhh that’s a slippery slope my dude
Kingsington - Today at 10:09 PM
The dark side of Thornmouth, hey Victorian?
Revenir - Today at 10:10 PM
Lots of scientific results have come from horrific, unethical experiments
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:10 PM
A lot of scientific breakthroughs as well.
Revenir - Today at 10:10 PM
I don’t think that justifies the means though
Like the people who did the tuskegee syphilis experiment were still garbage people
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:11 PM
That brings us to a morality argument.
Kingsington - Today at 10:11 PM
Yes please, let’s have one
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:11 PM
If a few die to protect the lives of many, is that a good thing?
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:16 PM
But as I was saying, Teddy was doing what his company instructed him to do and he was doing it for knowledge on adepts and their powers. We have no bearing on what kind of person he really was, whether he was reluctant or not to conduct his experiments. We can only judge his work ethic. And through the evidence he is a loyal worker, he values knowledge and will follow the interests of his company. We cannot judge him morally unless we know his willingness to conduct the aforementioned experiments.
Kingsington - Today at 10:18 PM
It seems like over time he’s become more amoral as he’s been forced to reconcile the terrible things he’s done. It’s something a person can come back from though. So I think that Teddy could potentially be redeemed to some degree if we manage to dismantle KS.
Revenir - Today at 10:18 PM
I’ve nearly approached Godwin’s law with this
ArcChild - Today at 10:19 PM
I would hire Teddy
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:20 PM
His loyalty would be very valuable.
ArcChild - Today at 10:21 PM
But I mean, was it worse than Hitler?
(I got you rev)
Revenir - Today at 10:21 PM
But really, that’s a silly argument. You can judge anyone for their actions. Just because someone does it under the guise of their job or their duty doesn’t mean it’s not something they did. I’m gonna go full Godwin on this, but like Germany in WWII, there were soldiers who did horrific things. There were scientists who did horrific experiments. And yes, they did it for their country, but that doesn’t excuse them. They have free will and they chose to do it, even knowing the obvious truth that killing people and experimenting on them was an evil thing to do.
Like I couldn’t go and murder someone and say because my job told me to do it, that it’s ok. I’m still going to jail. Does that make sense?
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:25 PM
But with Nazi Germany it was different. You disobey you could be going into the same camp you were guarding or join the prisoners in the gas chambers. If Teddy is a high level researcher then he has seen what happens when you disobey, when you go against the company. He could end up with his whole life turned upside down. So yea, if you murder for a living you’ll go to jail, but is jail worse than your boss shooting you?
Kingsington - Today at 10:25 PM
A lot of those people had families that would have been in danger if they hadn’t complied. It’s difficult to indict a group of people when each person’s extenuating circumstances are different.
Applying this to Teddy, then. We don’t know how he first got involved with KS. Maybe there is someone out there that Teddy’s trying to protect through his compliance.
Chordie - Today at 10:26 PM
VictorianFlorist “Did I just hear Mister Park say he wanted to volunteer for the Morphogenic Engine program? I believe I did”
Totally agree with this. No sense in throwing your own life away if you don’t stand to change anything
ArcChild - Today at 10:27 PM
See I couldn’t murder someone over someone telling me to do it, it’s risk versus reward (this sounds really bad tbh). The risk (or the negative) is I’m taking someone’s life, now that’s an infinitely large negative regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. But what’s my positive, am I doing it to secure my life and ones I loved, or am I doing it to acquire knowledge that may save thousands of people. I don’t think it’s correct to judge someone on their actions until you know the situation, their moral standards, or the risk and reward for the situation
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:27 PM
Look at us, mounties having an intestive moral debate.
Revenir - Today at 10:28 PM
I mean, that’s true to an extent, but you also have to remember that there’s more to disobedience then spitting in the face of your supervisor and saying you’re done.
Chordie - Today at 10:28 PM
That’s the point of whistleblowing, is it not?
Revenir - Today at 10:30 PM
Teddy, for example, didn’t have to “recruit” Portencia and Aether. We know from his logs that he actively found Portencia. He could have chosen to ignore her existence and pretend that he’d never found her. Then she would still be at home and her family would still be alive. He went beyond the call of duty when it comes to KS and, if he was truly a good person, he wouldn’t have done it. If you’re being threatened by someone, why would you ever do more than you’re asked for?
Chordie - Today at 10:30 PM
That’s a fair point Revenir
Kingsington - Today at 10:30 PM
Okay, I’ll concede that
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:31 PM
I did not know he sought Portencia on his own.
That makes him seem a little less, morally good.
ArcChild - Today at 10:31 PM
But then you get into the argument of what the actual risk was, what were the conditions?
We as he required to produce results?
Kingsington - Today at 10:32 PM
Portentia might still be alive, if Teddy hadn’t found her. However, he might have just tried to get her himself before some other KS employee discovered her for themselves. He couldn’t have forseen that they would kill her.
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:32 PM
But all we know is that he sought her on his own. Details are not there.
ArcChild - Today at 10:33 PM
Exactly, we can’t make any judgements of his character without actual details. All of this is just speculation and accusing a man of something in a situation we can’t and don’t understand
Revenir - Today at 10:33 PM
That doesn’t make any sense. If another KS employee found her, the result would have been the same. At the very least, if he’d left her alone, she would have had more time free. Also, they didn’t kill her.
Leigha - Today at 10:35 PM
Here’s my (extremely Balimoran) pov on Teddy. I don’t care. He’s a means to an end. There are innocent people losing their lives and he’s partially responsible for enormous amounts of suffering. If we can use whatever tiny bits of humanity he has left in him, we will. If not, so be it. I don’t care why he does what he does, he does it. And one way or another, it’s going to stop.
Kingsington - Today at 10:35 PM
Revenir Sorry, I meant “mentally destroy”
Revenir - Today at 10:37 PM
Leigha I agree to an extent, but this wouldn’t be a very good argument about morality if we left it at that
Leigha - Today at 10:38 PM
I’m not a terribly moral person, though. I’m a pragmatist. I don’t avoid the seven deadly sins because they’re sins. I avoid them because they’re deadly.
Revenir - Today at 10:38 PM
At any rate, I think I’ll leave it at this. I’m skeptical of attempts to redeem Teddy, but if you guys want to go full Team Teddy, by all means.
Kingsington - Today at 10:39 PM
The world’s a dark enough place without condemning people we barely know
ArcChild - Today at 10:39 PM
But how can we have a debate on morality of an individual in a situation that we do not understand? We have very few details and all I see is a lot of speculation coming out of everyone in most of their points…
Revenir - Today at 10:40 PM
We have the man’s logs, Arcs. And we have the direct testimony of Aether.
Leigha - Today at 10:40 PM
Oh no, I’m not saying go in there guns a blazin’, far, far from it. I’m saying I have absolutely no qualms about using and manipulating him, if we get the opportunity.
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:40 PM
Well Morality is subjective and taught.
I’m not full team Teddy, I’m just saying we don’t know the exact circumstances of his employment, and therefore cannot judge his morals.
Kingsington - Today at 10:42 PM
To be honest I wasn’t full Team Teddy until Revenir opposed it
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:42 PM
Someone likes an argument.
Kingsington - Today at 10:42 PM
A bit of Devil’s Advocate, yes
ArcChild - Today at 10:43 PM
When working for a company, scientific logs are not private, anyone above you has access to them and it would be rather stupid to put in anything that didn’t regard your research in there. As for aethers testimony, he was a patient, he also would be lacking a lot of information on the situation that teddy has on his hands
Kingsington - Today at 10:43 PM
Also, I’m a sucker for a redemption story. That’s why I originally thought he might be an okay guy
Leigha - Today at 10:43 PM
Okay, if we’re going to talk about morality, try this. Say he just abducted one of us, someone we know, someone we care about, say, Brendon. And put him in the chair. Repeatedly. Because he “has to”. How do you feel about him now.
ArcChild - Today at 10:43 PM
What’s his situation, what is driving him?
Kingsington - Today at 10:43 PM
Well, if it’s someone we care about, it can’t be Brendon
ArcChild - Today at 10:43 PM
(sorry Brendon)
Leigha - Today at 10:43 PM
Hahahahaa
I knew I shouldn’t have used him as an example.
Revenir - Today at 10:44 PM
Rip Bren
Kingsington - Today at 10:44 PM
Hopefully he doesn’t read this
ArcChild - Today at 10:44 PM
I need to be able to stand in someone’s shoes before I even think about judging their character, with exceptions of course.
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:45 PM
Most would be up in Arms. I see a man trying to gather data for his company, but I also see a friend who I am concerned about. I’m torn. But in the end we still don’t know what KS has on Teddy, if there is anything.
If there’s nothing, he’s a heartless monster.
ArcChild - Today at 10:45 PM
Or a very good scientist
Depends on how you look at it
Kingsington - Today at 10:46 PM
Arc, you’re scaring me
ArcChild - Today at 10:46 PM
#iamteddy
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:46 PM
That’s fair, Arc. I should have said that.
If there is something KS uses as, incentive, then he is a scared man being forced to do horrible things to protect himself, his wellbeing, his family, etc.
Kingsington - Today at 10:48 PM
I try to hate as little on the mooks as possible, as a general rule. Not enough is known of Teddy, period. However, we do know there’s a Big Bad out there that’s making all of this stuff possible. They’re the biggest to blame, and they’re who need to be targeted first. Afterwards, we can assign blame to the rest of KS.
ArcChild - Today at 10:49 PM
You can’t judge a man if you can’t stand in his shoes (I will keep repeating things like this until the end because this is something I firmly believe in)
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:50 PM
Well said Arc, well said.
Revenir - Today at 10:50 PM
I wouldn’t call Teddy a mook. He has nearly the highest privilege level, from what Whistler said.
He’s like that annoying boss you face before the final boss. Like Chernabog before Ansem
Kingsington - Today at 10:51 PM
I think that there’s a point where you have to judge a man without being able to stand in his shoes. That’s what our justice systems do all the time
ArcChild - Today at 10:51 PM
But the information from Whistler is potentially biased as well as just heresay evidence
Kingsington - Today at 10:51 PM
Again, Godwin’s law, but I think it’s safe to judge Hitler without having actually committed a genocide yourself
Revenir - Today at 10:52 PM
Arc, Whistler told us what 117-2 means, there’s really no way for that to be heresay.
117 is the ID number, and 2 is the privilege level.
Kingsington - Today at 10:52 PM
actually, that’s brings up something I was just curious about
Kingsington - Today at 10:53 PM
does that mean there are only like 3 levels
or does it count down towards 1
ArcChild - Today at 10:53 PM
Or does it count up to x
VictorianFlorist - Today at 10:53 PM
Is that scale being 1-10. 1 being highest, and 10 begin lowest, or the other way round?