Do You Think Mind Meld Is Invasion Of Privacy?
- Thread starter Paradon
- Start date
Can you imagine if we could do that today? A person could save alot of time and money at the "Shrink". Sorry if I just offended anyone.
It was indeed. But imagine how hard it is for people who are used to know what the other thinks and feels to change their habits and "merely" talk. That's like forcing us to communicate with signs instead of language, we'd constantly have the urge to speak.What Luwaxan Troi did was wrong! That was an invasion of privacy!
Is actually listening to people who are specifically talking to you an invasion of their privacy?
I'm guessing the answer is "No".
That said, unless the mind meld in question was initiated without one's consent or knowledge (if the latter is even possible), how could it possibly be construed as an invasion of their privacy?
I'm guessing the answer is "No".
That said, unless the mind meld in question was initiated without one's consent or knowledge (if the latter is even possible), how could it possibly be construed as an invasion of their privacy?
I think they should warn people about the side affects before merging their mind, and plus you never really know what it's like until you've undergo the procedure yourslef. that's the problem. They make it seem so casual...like there would no consequences. [chuckle]
You know, I was thinking about this very subject a couple of days ago.
How do you or I define, 'right to privacy'?
I define it as keeping things that are not in plain sight hidden, whether due to personal taboos, or freedom to not be required to express every belief of opinion one has, OR, it is also a right not to have personal properties or boundaries violated by someone else.
If so, a mind-meld could most certainly a violation of a right to privacy. A lot of people have made the argument that a mind-meld is only possible through consensus, like a hypnotist in real life.
However, by the 'Canon' we have seen instances both in TOS and the movies where a mind-meld was NOT consensual. One instance of this is the movie "The Undiscovered Country", where Spock was attempting to locate the conference from the Vulcan woman, to the point of inflicting pain. (Torture, by the way, but that's a philosophical discussion for another thread, but I digress)
A mind-meld, in and of itself, does not violate a 'right to privacy'. However, what if it's used in a non-consensual way? Then of course, it would be.
You know, a far better discussion would involve the following hypothesis: "Do the Betazoids ESP capabilites, although involuntary, would be considered a violation of a right to privacy?"
If you are wondering the difference, the Vulcan mind-meld is an active, voluntary stimuli; whereas Betazoids are a non-active, passive response. Does a Betazoid violate a persons right to privacy? Or since it is a passive trait of theirs, simply an involuntary, biological function they endure?
In my opinion, it really depends on the method and way it it used.
How do you or I define, 'right to privacy'?
I define it as keeping things that are not in plain sight hidden, whether due to personal taboos, or freedom to not be required to express every belief of opinion one has, OR, it is also a right not to have personal properties or boundaries violated by someone else.
If so, a mind-meld could most certainly a violation of a right to privacy. A lot of people have made the argument that a mind-meld is only possible through consensus, like a hypnotist in real life.
However, by the 'Canon' we have seen instances both in TOS and the movies where a mind-meld was NOT consensual. One instance of this is the movie "The Undiscovered Country", where Spock was attempting to locate the conference from the Vulcan woman, to the point of inflicting pain. (Torture, by the way, but that's a philosophical discussion for another thread, but I digress)
A mind-meld, in and of itself, does not violate a 'right to privacy'. However, what if it's used in a non-consensual way? Then of course, it would be.
You know, a far better discussion would involve the following hypothesis: "Do the Betazoids ESP capabilites, although involuntary, would be considered a violation of a right to privacy?"
If you are wondering the difference, the Vulcan mind-meld is an active, voluntary stimuli; whereas Betazoids are a non-active, passive response. Does a Betazoid violate a persons right to privacy? Or since it is a passive trait of theirs, simply an involuntary, biological function they endure?
In my opinion, it really depends on the method and way it it used.
