Opinions on lying in a youtube video

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Albert

NO! Of course not! Magic is all about entertaining people, not just deceiving and lying. Deceptions and lies are used to entertain in magic; however, if one's only motive in doing magic is just to lie and deceive people, no offense, but I would never ever accept that person as a magician. That's just pathetic and a waste of a life. The difference is minimal, but those are difference that change a person's entire perspective on things. Here's an analogy "It doesn't matter how much money you stole. It's the fact that you stole it that matters.".

Let me rephrase myself: "Magic is about faking abilities we don't have for the sake of entertainment. "
But I agree with you: those who don't use deception as entertainment usually use it to get money and are called con artists. Other use it to gather a group of followers and are usually called cult leaders. And those are unethical because they inflict harm unto others.
And that is where I draw my line between a good lie and a bad lie: if it harms other people.
But lying in a youtubevideo doesn't really harm anyone, does it? At least as long as you dont sell the trick.
That analogy I do not understand. Maybe what you meant is: "It doesn't matter how you got the money, ethically or not. It's the fact that you got the money that matters." Is it correct? If so, I agree with you. But we seems to have different viewpoints on what is "unethical"

What do you mean "it's not magic in that way which we tend to expect magic to be like"? Using terms like meta-magic to try and justify one's unethical action is not justifiable in my opinion. You ask 'why not broaden the definition of magic?' But, what's the definition? Unless that's cleared up, I can't say anything about that. No offense at all Rokk, but what you just said above really doesn't convince me at all. I don't care how crappy one's DLs are, or how terrible he palms a card; magic is magic. There are other categories of magic, but they branch off from the idea of magic as a whole..

Here is a suggestion of a definition of magic: "Entertainment by deception". Btw you should also give your definition.
Magic is a certain kind of entertainment. With this comes certain kind of things that are associated with magic (and some that is not). Like cards, coins, thimbles,etc. Also different methods that magicians use, like sleight of hand, misdirection, psychology, etc. And also for who the magic is performed, which is usually in front of laymen. And that is how we tend to expect magic to be like. But these things easily becomes clichés, certainly there are other things you can perform magic with, and certainly there are other methods that can be used other then those we usually use. As well as magic doesn't have to be performed for laymen. And that is what I mean by "broadening the art"; to perform new kinds of magic. I don't mean that we should broaden magic to involve unethical things.
And maybe meta-magic isn't a very good word (sounds a little pretentious, doesn't it? ). Maybe "Magicians fooler" is a better word? I dont know...

True, I'm no mindreader, but I don't think I'm too far off. Given that Tom explicitly described this as a new and advanced palming technique, what do you think he tried to accomplish? If he really just wanted to perform his new move like it really was magic, he wouldn't say something like "it's a new palming technique I made". Almost every magician wants to eventually contribute to the art and make their names known. What's the easiest way to do that? Lie your ass off. This lying is not for performing; it's for faking an invention that was never invented. What for? I'm sure the entertainment value was not the biggest factor. If that's the case, what do you think he wanted to accomplish?.

I don't think you are to far off either. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that he did it purely for entertainment. Would his lying still be unethical? If he tries to sell the technuiqe: undoubtly yes! If he sells it as a trick? Nah... Maybe. But as far as I know he hasn't tried to sell it.
What I think he wanted to accomplish? Supposing he is innocent it would be to fascinate magicians. Supposing he is guilty it would be to get admiration.
Btw by the definition of magic I have given above his trick IS just magic for anyone who was entertained by it.

Here's a perfect example. Do you ever perform for a spectator and say "Look! This move I'm using here is an advanced palming technique".

Yes I actually might do that! In the trick "Invisible palm" that is essentially what you are saying. That tricks works the same way as "Enigma": You try to convince the spectators you can do a real impossible move, you do an overly suspicous move and then you use a different method to achieve what the alleged move does. The only difference is that "invisible palm" is used on laymen but "Enigma" is used to fool magicians. That seems clear to me since no layman, I think, would be interested in a new palming technuiqe.

It was really interesting to discuss with you Albert, but we live in different time-zones and I have to go to bed. If I said anything that upset you I appologize. We just seem to have diametrically different viewpoints on some things. I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow.

tl;dr. Lying is only unethical if it harms people.

[Albert]

Originally Posted by Rokk

Let me rephrase myself: "Magic is about faking abilities we don't have for the sake of entertainment. "
But I agree with you: those who don't use deception as entertainment usually use it to get money and are called con artists. Other use it to gather a group of followers and are usually called cult leaders. And those are unethical because they inflict harm unto others.
And that is where I draw my line between a good lie and a bad lie: if it harms other people.
But lying in a youtubevideo doesn't really harm anyone, does it? At least as long as you dont sell the trick.
That analogy I do not understand. Maybe what you meant is: "It doesn't matter how you got the money, ethically or not. It's the fact that you got the money that matters." Is it correct? If so, I agree with you. But we seems to have different viewpoints on what is "unethical"

Yes, I do agree on what you said on the first half, about con artists and such. However, as I've said before, it's the motive that's important. Lying in a YouTube video usually doesn't hurt someone; however, that doesn't just related to when one is selling tricks.

You have to know the difference. Laymen/hecklers/(and often)magicians all watch the same trick. However, magicians think differently.
Laymen expect to be entertained. They are usually not concerned with the method until they see it happen and once their 10 seconds of initial thinking and logic can't figure it out, they will just enjoy the show.
Hecklers is another category of people, but irrelevant in this discussion, so I'll leave the details out.
Magicians have a different perspective. As la0o9 has said before, we want out fellow magicians to be truthful to us. A magician lying to a magician are okay in instance where they are a spectator. A magician lying (in a bad way; not a white lie)to a magician to hide the method is not right. A fellow magician should just say, "I can't tell you". It's not something we can explain; it's another part of the magician's code if you think about it. There's just a general understanding that fellow magicians shouldn't lie to another fellow magician. You can avoid the question or hide the method, but telling a completely different method when asked for it is just disrespectful. As I've said, what's written here doesn't convey half of what I want to say; it's something we just know inside.

Originally Posted by Rokk

Here is a suggestion of a definition of magic: "Entertainment by deception". Btw you should also give your definition.
Magic is a certain kind of entertainment. With this comes certain kind of things that are associated with magic (and some that is not). Like cards, coins, thimbles,etc. Also different methods that magicians use, like sleight of hand, misdirection, psychology, etc. And also for who the magic is performed, which is usually in front of laymen. And that is how we tend to expect magic to be like. But these things easily becomes clichés, certainly there are other things you can perform magic with, and certainly there are other methods that can be used other then those we usually use. As well as magic doesn't have to be performed for laymen. And that is what I mean by "broadening the art"; to perform new kinds of magic. I don't mean that we should broaden magic to involve unethical things.
And maybe meta-magic isn't a very good word (sounds a little pretentious, doesn't it? ). Maybe "Magicians fooler" is a better word? I dont know...

What you say is completely fine and agreeable
However, what I'm trying to say is something a little different. It certainly doesn't have to be performed for laymen. I guess one of the more final conclusions I can make is that depending on how ethical a person is, their views really differ. Mark, for example, will socially corner you and slowly kill you until you become a small rotten cherry that fungus starts growing out of it if a magician is untruthful about their method (maybe that's a little extremely xD) but that's because Mark believe strictly that one should not lie unless necessary, or more accurately, not lie unless absolutely required (I assume?). Maybe you have a less strict ethical approach, so that's why you think that lying is composed of in a broader sense, while I like to really narrow it down.

Originally Posted by Rokk

I don't think you are to far off either. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that he did it purely for entertainment. Would his lying still be unethical? If he tries to sell the technuiqe: undoubtly yes! If he sells it as a trick? Nah... Maybe. But as far as I know he hasn't tried to sell it.
What I think he wanted to accomplish? Supposing he is innocent it would be to fascinate magicians. Supposing he is guilty it would be to get admiration.
Btw by the definition of magic I have given above his trick IS just magic for anyone who was entertained by it.

If he did it purely for entertainment, then I have to say, his patter is just terrible... However I 95% know that that wasn't his motive and his motive was to make it seem like he created a fascinating new move. To spectators, everything looks the same, so they could care less about the specifics. To magicians, we want the honest to God truth about a move (not the secrets necessarily), especially since magicians are crazy about the history of it and credits. That's another part of ethics that are unique to magicians; they are (or should be) respectable to their fellow mates, unless one does something disrespectful. Think about it this way, the most famous magicians in the world got there through hard work and effort. Crappy fakers (like Criss Angel) got there with camera tricks and stooges. Criss probably got as much or more fame when he was still very active than, say, Ed Marlo from the public. I highly doubt that the consensus of the magic community respected him too much as Criss claims that he doesn't used camera tricks.

Originally Posted by Rokk

Yes I actually might do that! In the trick "Invisible palm" that is essentially what you are saying. That tricks works the same way as "Enigma": You try to convince the spectators you can do a real impossible move, you do an overly suspicous move and then you use a different method to achieve what the alleged move does. The only difference is that "invisible palm" is used on laymen but "Enigma" is used to fool magicians. That seems clear to me since no layman, I think, would be interested in a new palming technuiqe.

As I've said, magicians have a different point of view. I've already said so above, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. Whew~

Originally Posted by Rokk

It was really interesting to discuss with you Albert, but we live in different time-zones and I have to go to bed. If I said anything that upset you I appologize. We just seem to have diametrically different viewpoints on some things. I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow.

tl;dr. Lying is only unethical if it harms people.

Nah, I'm not upset. It just feels like I'm not getting my point across, so I'm getting frustrated with myself too xD

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Albert

It's not something we can explain; it's another part of the magician's code if you think about it. There's just a general understanding that fellow magicians shouldn't lie to another fellow magician.

It can be true that there is an unwritten law that says so, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with that law. It is your own decission if you want to obey that law and you will face the consequences of your decission.

Maybe you have a less strict ethical approach, so that's why you think that lying is composed of in a broader sense, while I like to really narrow it down.

Well, I think I am quite liberal about ethics so that's propably true. That might sound like I am some kind of douchebag that does whatever I want, but thats not true. It is more like I let other people do whatever they want to do as long as they don't hurt others with their actions.

If the lie is part of the patter meant to one-up himself to making it seem like he has an ability he does not, then that's a bad lie, although the spectators won't be able to tell most of the time.

This kind of behavior is quite similar to bragging or boasting. And while that sure can be an annoying behaviour, I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical. It is their decission if they want to try to annoy other people, as well as it is ultimatly the other peoples decission if they want to be annoyed by it.

Originally Posted by Mark

@Rokk, I think you forget or don't realize that marketing (and thus advertising) is much more than making money. To get known may as well be the biggest aspect of it. People who lie outside of performances wish to get known, and only once they are known (in the broadest sense of the word) they wish to sell products and services (performances and lectures). There really are no exceptions to this.

True. I have never thought about it that way...