Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fembots

Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Jul 2013, 8:28 am

^^^ true, but delving that deeply into one's own crapulence has got to be truly soul-destroying. I don't think people should be allowed to do that anymore than they should be allowed to shoot heroin.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

03 Jul 2013, 11:21 am

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ true, but delving that deeply into one's own crapulence has got to be truly soul-destroying. I don't think people should be allowed to do that anymore than they should be allowed to shoot heroin.


Why shouldn't people be allowed to shoot heroin?

(I'm playing devil's advocate, sort of.)


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Jul 2013, 11:56 am

^^^ Well, I'd say it's because most of us live in societies where it is not acceptable to step over junkies dieing on the sidewalk. That's where most people who shoot dope eventually wind up. Most decent societies feel obliged to try and help these folks, and that's an unreasonable burden caused by a selfish, unreasonable act.

The smarter course is to simply prohibit people from shooting dope in the first place.

That's my theory, at any rate.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Tiranasta
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 278

03 Jul 2013, 12:07 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ true, but delving that deeply into one's own crapulence has got to be truly soul-destroying. I don't think people should be allowed to do that anymore than they should be allowed to shoot heroin.

Why? Pedophilia isn't (well, arguably shouldn't be, anyway) condemned because 'ew, sex with kids', it's condemned because children cannot truly consent. Consent becomes irrelevant in the case of non-sentient robots. It seems to me that a safe and non-harmful outlet for this and other socially unacceptable desires could be quite a good thing.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Jul 2013, 12:43 pm

Tiranasta wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ true, but delving that deeply into one's own crapulence has got to be truly soul-destroying. I don't think people should be allowed to do that anymore than they should be allowed to shoot heroin.

Why? Pedophilia isn't (well, arguably shouldn't be, anyway) condemned because 'ew, sex with kids', it's condemned because children cannot truly consent. Consent becomes irrelevant in the case of non-sentient robots. It seems to me that a safe and non-harmful outlet for this and other socially unacceptable desires could be quite a good thing.


Look, the taboo on sex with kids is a social construct. There are even a few very primitive tribal cultures where sex with kids is used as a form of birth control, BUT WE DON'T LIVE THERE. :roll:

Frankly, I think that indulging such deviant behavior is dangerous because I don't think that it would stop with robot sex. Because robot sex will still just be an elaborate form of masturbation and never as good as the real thing.

That's my take.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

03 Jul 2013, 1:20 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ Well, I'd say it's because most of us live in societies where it is not acceptable to step over junkies dieing on the sidewalk. That's where most people who shoot dope eventually wind up. Most decent societies feel obliged to try and help these folks, and that's an unreasonable burden caused by a selfish, unreasonable act.

The smarter course is to simply prohibit people from shooting dope in the first place.

That's my theory, at any rate.


Clean heroin is quite safe, although it's still extremely addictive and you can still overdose - but alcohol is nearly as dangerous and alcoholics have more antisocial behaviour (in terms of fighting - junkies just steal to fund the habit because it's expensive and it's expensive because it's illegal.) The reason junkies end up on the streets is because the habit is so damn expensive to maintain. Legalising heroin would actually mean no junkies on the street and instead getting their medical-grade smack from the pharmacy, either for free or for a low price because smack is quite cheap to produce really. The black market drives the prices up.

Though legalising it might cause some people to become junkies who wouldn't otherwise. I know I can be very stupid sometimes, for instance. Not stupid enough to acquire a heroin addiction given it's current status and dangers - but if it was legalised I honestly can't say because I've done a few stupid things in my past.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Jul 2013, 3:51 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ Well, I'd say it's because most of us live in societies where it is not acceptable to step over junkies dieing on the sidewalk. That's where most people who shoot dope eventually wind up. Most decent societies feel obliged to try and help these folks, and that's an unreasonable burden caused by a selfish, unreasonable act.

The smarter course is to simply prohibit people from shooting dope in the first place.

That's my theory, at any rate.


Clean heroin is quite safe, although it's still extremely addictive and you can still overdose - but alcohol is nearly as dangerous and alcoholics have more antisocial behaviour (in terms of fighting - junkies just steal to fund the habit because it's expensive and it's expensive because it's illegal.) The reason junkies end up on the streets is because the habit is so damn expensive to maintain. Legalising heroin would actually mean no junkies on the street and instead getting their medical-grade smack from the pharmacy, either for free or for a low price because smack is quite cheap to produce really. The black market drives the prices up.

Though legalising it might cause some people to become junkies who wouldn't otherwise. I know I can be very stupid sometimes, for instance. Not stupid enough to acquire a heroin addiction given it's current status and dangers - but if it was legalised I honestly can't say because I've done a few stupid things in my past.


Well, you make some interesting points...

I certainly won't defend alcohol, but I do question the wisdom of legalizing/deregulating opiates. I heard, just this morning, a news story about the rise in fatal overdoses among women who use/abuse (opiate based) painkillers... The stuff is dangerous, and I think the cost of legalization to society would still be simply too high.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Jul 2013, 7:20 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAuam8iiH3Q[/youtube]


Do you think they could let two fembots loose on each other!?!? :twisted:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

03 Jul 2013, 9:42 pm

Schneekugel wrote:
That doesnt come next, that is sadly always been going. Out of this view I think it would be an advantage, because at least goddamn kiddie-video industry, wouldnt need real little children "actors" anymore for their pervert videos.


Makes me think of the weapon from Philip K. Dick's story Second Variety. Little kid robots carrying teddybear bombs.

They'd be roaming around like little terminators waiting until a Pedo grabs them then BOOM!!



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

03 Jul 2013, 10:15 pm

I'll take one Motoko Kusanagi, thanks (original movie).

(Hey, I know she'll be able to shoot better than me.)



MindBlind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,341

04 Jul 2013, 4:28 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
However, I argue that even if the concept of the fembot spawned from initial desires to control women, so what?
It wouldn't distress you that those desires existed in the first place?


Not anymore than the desire to kill people (which most of us, at some point, do). I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's distressing. A thought is not the same as an action. I don't think people should get punished for something they haven't actually done.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

07 Aug 2013, 3:54 pm

Fnord wrote:
The Stepford Wives have their own website now.

From their FAQ:

Quote:
8. “Does the Stepford Organization have tenets the wives abide by?”

We are not a biblical group and don’t have any particular affiliations to any fringe religious groups. We are just a group of wives who share a common belief in staying at home and pleasing our husbands. Our Stepford men have framed three rules they hang by our kitchen window. They informed us these are the only four views we should have in life.

1. A wife may not injure her husband or, through inaction, allow her husband to come to harm or discomfort.

2. A wife must obey and serve any orders given to her by her husband, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A wife must protect her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

So who needs fembots?


I'm sure that site is just a joke.

I just finished watching The Stepford Wives (1975). YouTube actually has the whole movie:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuG8D8oUn_8[/youtube]

A Feminist fairy tale. The women are all transformed into fembots.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Aug 2013, 6:00 pm

[/quote]

foxfield wrote:
I think the invention of fembots would actually be a posiitive step forward in terms of human evolution.

Frankly, anyone who would prefer to have a relationship with a subservient robot than an actual conscious human being should really not be reproducing.

I'd actually very much prefer it if such people spent their energies getting it on with pieces of machinery. Its got to be better than them having real relationships with real human beings and, as a consequence, passing their idiotic genes on.

The overall result will be a human population that cares more and thinks more.

QFT
If that's what a man (or a woman, b/c there would probably be sexual androids as well) wants, better than he/she have a robot than that he/she tries to force his/her ideals on real people.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

07 Aug 2013, 6:58 pm

LKL wrote:
foxfield wrote:
I think the invention of fembots would actually be a posiitive step forward in terms of human evolution.

Frankly, anyone who would prefer to have a relationship with a subservient robot than an actual conscious human being should really not be reproducing.

I'd actually very much prefer it if such people spent their energies getting it on with pieces of machinery. Its got to be better than them having real relationships with real human beings and, as a consequence, passing their idiotic genes on.

The overall result will be a human population that cares more and thinks more.

QFT
If that's what a man (or a woman, b/c there would probably be sexual androids as well) wants, better than he/she have a robot than that he/she tries to force his/her ideals on real people.[/quote]

But then, some women will be complaining about them the way that some women complain about mail-order brides.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

07 Aug 2013, 8:26 pm

^ No because mail-order brides are actually...wait for it...human beings 8O


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

07 Aug 2013, 8:42 pm

[MRA nutjob] BUT GUYS, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT OPPOSE FEMBOTS ARE WOMEN SEEKING TO MAINTAIN THEIR SOCIAL CONTROL OVER BETA MALES VIA THEIR WITHHOLDING OF SEXUAL ACCESS. IF BETA MALES OBTAIN ACCESS TO CHEAP AND EASY p****, THEY'LL LOSE THE ONE THING GIVING THEM POWER. [/nutjob]