welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

6/30/2013 Domestic Violence
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 852

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This kinda proves that Slick was a better man too, cause he at least tried to make the calls of "fake" real by going into the reality zone.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide, he was willing to destroy and scrap her for being teased that she wasn't real. This has nothing to do with sexuality. That's not love. I'm not even going to argue the object sexuality thing with you, or whether or not that's what he was actually experiencing or not. He scrapped and trashed her when she wasn't the product he wanted her to be. That. Isn't. Love.

Lich, if the people on the street knew what a fembot was, of course they had reason to view the relationship that way. We have been shown Botsy as an exception to this rule, but we have been shown the conveyor belts, the boxes, the remote controls. These punks KNOW what role fembots fill, they know what people buy them for. They're not exactly stretching themselves to make the assumption that it's not "twu wuv." It would have been nicer not to say anything, sure, but their view of the situation wasn't exactly off-base, because that's how this world uses fembots up to now.


Yeah lich, the people have the right to judge the man because he was with an fembot because of what the fembot does, just like christians have the right to judge gays because of their homosexuality, republicans have the right to judge mexicans because of their shirking of immigration laws.


Right, because doubting the sincerity of the love of someone who picks up a member of an entire class of person (since we've all established we're in agreement that she's a person, right?) which the society literally manufactures and brainwashes into being fancy sex-slaves, (or at least cuddle-buddies you can play Parcheesi with,) and distributes for no other purpose is totes just like dissing homosexuality.

Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?
If someone is brainwashed into being angry, are you claiming they aren't angry? That's nonsensical, of course they're angry if they feel angry. That's what it means to be angry, to feel you're angry.

The source of the emotion not being "real" doesn't matter, the emotion itself is still 'real' if it's being felt.

The only real question should be whether or not a robot can "feel," AKA if the robot is a p-zombie or not.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic


Last edited by Lich Mong on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:29 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
I'm going to try one more time, and then I'm going to give up:

Assuming the Robot is a p-zombie:
The people had no right to judge just because the guy was in a relationship with an unfeeling object. The guy's actions were amoral and he wasn't hurting anyone; he should have been left alone.

Assuming the Robot isn't a p-zombie (which I--personally--think is correct):
The people had no right to judge the relationship as disingenuous. They had no right to mock two sentence creates in love. If both the robot and the guy felt love, then that love was real by the very fact both felt it. (clearly, the guy did not, but the people on the street couldn't tell).

Also, the guy was a murdering-fucktard at the end.


She has a problem with the latter cause she was "programmed to love" thus it can't be love, which I don't agree with, cause there were people that loved each other even though they were arranged to marry at birth.


An arranged marriage does not mean "forced to love," any more than it means there can't be love within it. Arrangement does not preclude love, and of COURSE people can learn to love each other within an arranged marriage, but the marriage itself is not automatically love.

And it's not the same as being brainwashed or developing Stockholm syndrome. What part of the whole "ownership" problem are you not getting here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 852

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide, he was willing to destroy and scrap her for being teased that she wasn't real. This has nothing to do with sexuality. That's not love. I'm not even going to argue the object sexuality thing with you, or whether or not that's what he was actually experiencing or not. He scrapped and trashed her when she wasn't the product he wanted her to be. That. Isn't. Love.

Lich, if the people on the street knew what a fembot was, of course they had reason to view the relationship that way. We have been shown Botsy as an exception to this rule, but we have been shown the conveyor belts, the boxes, the remote controls. These punks KNOW what role fembots fill, they know what people buy them for. They're not exactly stretching themselves to make the assumption that it's not "twu wuv." It would have been nicer not to say anything, sure, but their view of the situation wasn't exactly off-base, because that's how this world uses fembots up to now.


Yeah lich, the people have the right to judge the man because he was with an fembot because of what the fembot does, just like christians have the right to judge gays because of their homosexuality, republicans have the right to judge mexicans because of their shirking of immigration laws.


Right, because doubting the sincerity of the love of someone who picks up a member of an entire class of person (since we've all established we're in agreement that she's a person, right?) which the society literally manufactures and brainwashes into being fancy sex-slaves, (or at least cuddle-buddies you can play Parcheesi with,) and distributes for no other purpose is totes just like dissing homosexuality.

Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?


Actually Rune, I have not one clue of your stance about the fembot in this comic. You have used that she is a person to prove your point, then used that she is just a robot to prove your point.

You can argue no you haven't, but you've said she cant experience love because she's programmed (leading me to believe you think she is just a robot), then say that he shouldn't broken her because she's a human being.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 852

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
I'm going to try one more time, and then I'm going to give up:

Assuming the Robot is a p-zombie:
The people had no right to judge just because the guy was in a relationship with an unfeeling object. The guy's actions were amoral and he wasn't hurting anyone; he should have been left alone.

Assuming the Robot isn't a p-zombie (which I--personally--think is correct):
The people had no right to judge the relationship as disingenuous. They had no right to mock two sentence creates in love. If both the robot and the guy felt love, then that love was real by the very fact both felt it. (clearly, the guy did not, but the people on the street couldn't tell).

Also, the guy was a murdering-fucktard at the end.


She has a problem with the latter cause she was "programmed to love" thus it can't be love, which I don't agree with, cause there were people that loved each other even though they were arranged to marry at birth.


An arranged marriage does not mean "forced to love," any more than it means there can't be love within it. Arrangement does not preclude love, and of COURSE people can learn to love each other within an arranged marriage, but the marriage itself is not automatically love.

And it's not the same as being brainwashed or developing Stockholm syndrome. What part of the whole "ownership" problem are you not getting here?


What part of "she's a massed produced commodity" are you not getting?
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Rune wrote:
Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?
If someone is brainwashed into being angry, are you claiming they aren't angry?
That's nonsensical, of course they're angry if they feel angry.

The source of the emotion not being "real" doesn't matter, the emotion itself is still 'real' if it's being felt.


The only real question should be whether or not a robot can "feel," AKA if the robot is a p-zombie or not.


By the extension of your logic, I could brainwash someone to love me, and then it would all be alright because it would be real love that I brainwashed into them.

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 852

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
And it's not the same as being brainwashed or developing Stockholm syndrome. What part of the whole "ownership" problem are you not getting here?


Rune wrote:
By the extension of your logic, I could brainwash someone to love me, and then it would all be alright because it would be real love that I brainwashed into them.


Explain how these are not cancelling each other out.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
By the extension of your logic, I could brainwash someone to love me, and then it would all be alright because it would be real love that I brainwashed into them.
Of course it would not be "alright" because brainwashing is immoral.

Are you disagreeing with the anger example? Are you going to claim a person brainwashed into being angry isn't angry?
Please answer my question.
Rune wrote:

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?
I wish YOU would....
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3246

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
This kinda proves that Slick was a better man too, cause he at least tried to make the calls of "fake" real by going into the reality zone.


Just as a nitpicky detail, it's AFAIK not at all clear whether or not people who don't live in the main characters' neighborhood know about The Reality Zone, so the guy might not have known that was an option.

Then again, for all we know, the guy does live in said neighborhood, so whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide, he was willing to destroy and scrap her for being teased that she wasn't real. This has nothing to do with sexuality. That's not love. I'm not even going to argue the object sexuality thing with you, or whether or not that's what he was actually experiencing or not. He scrapped and trashed her when she wasn't the product he wanted her to be. That. Isn't. Love.

Lich, if the people on the street knew what a fembot was, of course they had reason to view the relationship that way. We have been shown Botsy as an exception to this rule, but we have been shown the conveyor belts, the boxes, the remote controls. These punks KNOW what role fembots fill, they know what people buy them for. They're not exactly stretching themselves to make the assumption that it's not "twu wuv." It would have been nicer not to say anything, sure, but their view of the situation wasn't exactly off-base, because that's how this world uses fembots up to now.


Yeah lich, the people have the right to judge the man because he was with an fembot because of what the fembot does, just like christians have the right to judge gays because of their homosexuality, republicans have the right to judge mexicans because of their shirking of immigration laws.


Right, because doubting the sincerity of the love of someone who picks up a member of an entire class of person (since we've all established we're in agreement that she's a person, right?) which the society literally manufactures and brainwashes into being fancy sex-slaves, (or at least cuddle-buddies you can play Parcheesi with,) and distributes for no other purpose is totes just like dissing homosexuality.

Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?


Actually Rune, I have not one clue of your stance about the fembot in this comic. You have used that she is a person to prove your point, then used that she is just a robot to prove your point.

You can argue no you haven't, but you've said she cant experience love because she's programmed (leading me to believe you think she is just a robot), then say that he shouldn't broken her because she's a human being.


She's a person who has been programmed/brainwashed. That's not mutually exclusive. I did NOT EVER say that she can't experience love. I said that what has been programmed into her to mimic love for her owner is not love. That. Particular. Protocol. Period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
And it's not the same as being brainwashed or developing Stockholm syndrome. What part of the whole "ownership" problem are you not getting here?


Rune wrote:
By the extension of your logic, I could brainwash someone to love me, and then it would all be alright because it would be real love that I brainwashed into them.


Explain how these are not cancelling each other out.


The are. The latter is an extension of Lich's argument which I was responding to, and which I don't agree with. I was pointing out the ridiculous logical conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 852

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide, he was willing to destroy and scrap her for being teased that she wasn't real. This has nothing to do with sexuality. That's not love. I'm not even going to argue the object sexuality thing with you, or whether or not that's what he was actually experiencing or not. He scrapped and trashed her when she wasn't the product he wanted her to be. That. Isn't. Love.

Lich, if the people on the street knew what a fembot was, of course they had reason to view the relationship that way. We have been shown Botsy as an exception to this rule, but we have been shown the conveyor belts, the boxes, the remote controls. These punks KNOW what role fembots fill, they know what people buy them for. They're not exactly stretching themselves to make the assumption that it's not "twu wuv." It would have been nicer not to say anything, sure, but their view of the situation wasn't exactly off-base, because that's how this world uses fembots up to now.


Yeah lich, the people have the right to judge the man because he was with an fembot because of what the fembot does, just like christians have the right to judge gays because of their homosexuality, republicans have the right to judge mexicans because of their shirking of immigration laws.


Right, because doubting the sincerity of the love of someone who picks up a member of an entire class of person (since we've all established we're in agreement that she's a person, right?) which the society literally manufactures and brainwashes into being fancy sex-slaves, (or at least cuddle-buddies you can play Parcheesi with,) and distributes for no other purpose is totes just like dissing homosexuality.

Yes, I think they have every right to judge him for that. Or are you really going to start defending relationships with persons procured through brainwashing, purchase, and lack of choice?


Actually Rune, I have not one clue of your stance about the fembot in this comic. You have used that she is a person to prove your point, then used that she is just a robot to prove your point.

You can argue no you haven't, but you've said she cant experience love because she's programmed (leading me to believe you think she is just a robot), then say that he shouldn't broken her because she's a human being.


She's a person who has been programmed/brainwashed. That's not mutually exclusive. I did NOT EVER say that she can't experience love. I said that what has been programmed into her to mimic love for her owner is not love. That. Particular. Protocol. Period.


How do you know she was acting on THAT. Particular. Protocol. Period. when she was with him.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
She's a person who has been programmed/brainwashed. That's not mutually exclusive. I did NOT EVER say that she can't experience love. I said that what has been programmed into her to mimic love for her owner is not love. That. Particular. Protocol. Period.
So, you're saying that without any kind of programing at all(with a completely clean hard-dive), she could experience love?

Just sitting there, on.


But, if you give her any kind of programing, then she becomes a p-zombie?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic


Last edited by Lich Mong on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Rune wrote:
By the extension of your logic, I could brainwash someone to love me, and then it would all be alright because it would be real love that I brainwashed into them.
Of course it would not be "alright" because brainwashing is immoral.

Are you disagreeing with the anger example? Are you going to claim a person brainwashed into being angry isn't angry?
Please answer my question.
Rune wrote:

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?
I wish YOU would....


Why is it immoral to brainwash love if that love is then real? What is the difference between brainwashed love and love that develops on its own?

Of course there is a difference. And, while the feeling of brainwashed anger may be real, NO. The anger itself is not. It's a Pavlovian reaction that is not rooted in reality, that has no valid object nor resolution. And experiencing that kind of brainwashed emotion would be very, very unhealthy. It would be insane. The emotion would be meaningless. One could validate the experience of the emotion, and call the experience real, without putting the anger in the same category as emotions called up by real life circumstances and contexts. Now, if the person then gets angry about being brainwashed to be angry, (and boy would THAT be real) well, that's its own anger, isn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group