Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
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
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1025

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
How do you know she was acting on THAT. Particular. Protocol. Period. when she was with him.


Because, so far, we have been given one, single example of a fembot that has been able to go about her business in the world without that protocol directing her. She is the exception that proves the rule of the default. The "pleasure protocol" is factory default:



Unless we are shown something that specifically indicates that the default has been overridden, we can safely assume that the default is in operation.


Last edited by Rune on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
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?


Exactly, everything she is is reliant on her programming, if she doesn't have any programming, she just stands there, empty.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
How do you know she was acting on THAT. Particular. Protocol. Period. when she was with him.


Because, so far, we have been given one, single example of a fembot that has been able to go about her business in the world without that protocol directing her. She is the exception that proves the rule of the default. The "pleasure protocol" is factory default:



Unless we are shown something that specifically indicates that the default has been overridden, we can safely assume that the default is in operation.


Good Cliche Thinking there Rune, "Exception that proves the rule" is a logical fallacy.

Also she CAN'T be a person then, because if programming is the end all be all, then she can't experiences anything more that what her programming allows.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.


Last edited by Rothide on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
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?
Because when you brainwash someone you destroy their "self."

Killing someone to get someone else to love you is wrong.

Rune wrote:
And, while the feeling of brainwashed anger may be real, NO. The anger itself is not.
Then we're not going to agree on this matter.
I hold, based on my understanding of neuroscience, any felt emotion is real. It shows up as brain activity like any other version of the emotion.

Feel free to disagree. I'm done here.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 2882

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
I am saying there was no reason for the people on the street to assume they weren't experiencing 'real' love. There was no reason for the public to assume the robot's or the guy's emotions were disingenuous based solely on her being a robot.


Well, not trying to argue about anything, but it's safe to presume that the inhabitants of the Sinfestiverse, all of them just as much Tat's creations as the Fembots, "know" a lot more about Fembots than we readers do. After all, Fembots are part of their "reality," not ours. Their opinions of a "regular" fresh-out-of-the-package Fembot are more likely to be accurate than are ours.

It seems to me that the only reason to "buy a girlfriend" is because you're either unable to, or not interested in making the effort to (which is an entirely different thing), date actual women, not unlike how the only reason to pay to have sex for a prostitute is that you're unable to, or not interested in making the effort to, uh, convince somebody to have sex with you for free (at least, the particular kind of sex that you're paying to have with the prostitute). IMHO. And many people consider an inability to attract a woman as a sign of being a "loser," which is really quite too bad, but the attitude nonetheless exists. Slick used to regularly designate himself a "loser" for precisely this reason.

That doesn't justify what the guy did, I'm just sayin'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune, it says right in the comic that she has programing; she has modified factory settings.

She said they were changed, not erased.



Anyway, now I really am done.
Bye bye.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic


Last edited by Lich Mong on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1025

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
How do you know she was acting on THAT. Particular. Protocol. Period. when she was with him.


Because, so far, we have been given one, single example of a fembot that has been able to go about her business in the world without that protocol directing her. She is the exception that proves the rule of the default. The "pleasure protocol" is factory default:



Unless we are shown something that specifically indicates that the default has been overridden, we can safely assume that the default is in operation.


Good Cliche Thinking there Rune, "Exception that proves the rule" is a logical fallacy.


Dude, I am not using the fallacy just because I used the phrase. I'm not saying that there is a general rule that always applies except for this time just because. I'm saying that there is a default, and we have been shown the default being changed in one case, and unless we are shown the default being shown again, it is reasonable to assume that the default is in place. How difficult is that to grasp? You asked what my reason was to assume the protocol was in place. It's a pretty solid reason. What's your reason for assuming that the default was changed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 2882

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Because when you brainwash someone you destroy their "self."

Killing someone to get someone else to love you is wrong.


Kind of off-topic, that's exactly what The Devil did (except without the love part) to Pebbles's earlier self (the country girl who supposedly loved ponies and Jesus), but nobody seems to much care about that.

Within the strip, only Slick and Monique (and The Devil, of course...and God and Jesus and Buddha and The Dragon, I suppose) know this, but neither Slick nor Monique seem much concerned about it. I'm not sure Slick has even encountered Pebbles since her transformation (okay, they were once in the same store at the same time, but other than that, drawing a blank), but Monique has interacted with her more than once without so much as a moment's pause to consider any of that.

Just like nobody seems to entirely "get" the full extent of what's happened to Li'l E (whose earlier self accidentally brainwashed himself right out of existence). And Tat doesn't seem to care about either plot point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
Rune wrote:
Rothide wrote:
How do you know she was acting on THAT. Particular. Protocol. Period. when she was with him.


Because, so far, we have been given one, single example of a fembot that has been able to go about her business in the world without that protocol directing her. She is the exception that proves the rule of the default. The "pleasure protocol" is factory default:



Unless we are shown something that specifically indicates that the default has been overridden, we can safely assume that the default is in operation.


Good Cliche Thinking there Rune, "Exception that proves the rule" is a logical fallacy.


Dude, I am not using the fallacy just because I used the phrase. I'm not saying that there is a general rule that always applies except for this time just because. I'm saying that there is a default, and we have been shown the default being changed in one case, and unless we are shown the default being shown again, it is reasonable to assume that the default is in place. How difficult is that to grasp? You asked what my reason was to assume the protocol was in place. It's a pretty solid reason. What's your reason for assuming that the default was changed?


Then why do you have a problem with them being programmed to love a person and being owned. If they have a "default" personality that can only be changed by outside forces NOT under their control, then they are not persons, the fembot in the flashback is not an individual because she is not "A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." They are all the same when they come off the production line.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1025

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Rune wrote:
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?
Because when you brainwash someone you destroy their "self."

Killing someone to get someone else to love you is wrong.

Rune wrote:
And, while the feeling of brainwashed anger may be real, NO. The anger itself is not.
Then we're not going to agree on this matter.
I hold, based on my understanding of neuroscience, any felt emotion is real. It shows up as brain activity like any other version of the emotion.

Feel free to disagree. I'm done here.


It is not connected to external reality the same way. I'd love if you really were done, because this is ridiculous. Hallucinations and illusions can trigger that kind of brain activity. That doesn't mean that it's connected to reality in the same way as those emotions triggered by real things, or that one should make the same choices based on them, or establish the same relationships to things outside of themselves. They are not the same. Brainwashed love is not the same thing as real love, even if it does show up in the brain. It is false information, even if it is experienced as real, and the reality of experiencing the false information can be validated.

But it is not the same thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1025

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronald wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
Because when you brainwash someone you destroy their "self."

Killing someone to get someone else to love you is wrong.


Kind of off-topic, that's exactly what The Devil did (except without the love part) to Pebbles's earlier self (the country girl who supposedly loved ponies and Jesus), but nobody seems to much care about that.


I do hope that her old self does eventually come through more, and that we get to know more about her, and I have said as much before. There is some reason to believe that the BOMF doesn't completely overwrite someone, and just brings up a more buried side of them. This whole "what is self" question is kind of a theme right now, isn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
That doesn't mean that it's connected to reality in the same way as those emotions triggered by real things, or that one should make the same choices based on them, or establish the same relationships to things outside of themselves.

So, if I get scared because I thought I saw something, but there was nothing really there, then I'm not really scared? I can only be scared of real things, not things in a movie or something.

Ok, got it.
Bye.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
Rune wrote:
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?
Because when you brainwash someone you destroy their "self."

Killing someone to get someone else to love you is wrong.

Rune wrote:
And, while the feeling of brainwashed anger may be real, NO. The anger itself is not.
Then we're not going to agree on this matter.
I hold, based on my understanding of neuroscience, any felt emotion is real. It shows up as brain activity like any other version of the emotion.

Feel free to disagree. I'm done here.


It is not connected to external reality the same way. I'd love if you really were done, because this is ridiculous. Hallucinations and illusions can trigger that kind of brain activity. That doesn't mean that it's connected to reality in the same way as those emotions triggered by real things, or that one should make the same choices based on them, or establish the same relationships to things outside of themselves. They are not the same. Brainwashed love is not the same thing as real love, even if it does show up in the brain. It is false information, even if it is experienced as real, and the reality of experiencing the false information can be validated.

But it is not the same thing.


Biologically, mentally, everything that they experience is real to them, but to me this is not actually real.

Why do I believe this. BECAUSE FEELINGS.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 2882

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
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?


Not taking any sides on anything, but since nobody has any control over whether or not they fall in love or with whom, when the guy programmed the Fembot, he more or less did the same thing that -- heck, I don't know, human nature or God or whatever -- does to everybody who falls in love.

One can certainly argue that he had no moral "right" to do that, but per the Sinfestiverse's "rules," the Fembot was his property. He bought her, he owned her, no less than human nature or God or whatever "owns" us. He had the legal "right" to do whatever he wanted with her.

That is the premise which Tat has established for us and there's not really much we can do about it.

If human beings could "deprogram" themselves out of love, or get somebody else to do it for them, the world would be a much different place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rothide



Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I will admit this. Right now, I see the fembots as a comodity. Only under special circumstances or outside forces have any of these things shown any other emotion besides what they were programmed to do.

IF Tat ever makes a comic, where a fembot runs away from it's owner, or we have an inner monologue of one while it goes about it's programmed tasks that show they have emotions and other thoughts besides programmed ones, I will treat them as persons.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.
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 7 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