Random Thoughts

[Dukefrukem]

Nice work Mara.

and LOL @ David

[Spinal]

Used the Jimmy James method for Mara's original statement and got this:

Wow, when he was going to talk to someone like myself I always Shitai ice pick in the ear because it is quite sweet dumb your husband.

[Mara]

Wow, when he was going to talk to someone like myself I always Shitai ice pick in the ear because it is quite sweet dumb your husband.

This could work.

[MadMan]

Reads like either an unnecessarily obtuse academic paper or...



I always love me a NewsRadio reference.

Ate tonight at a local Japanese place. The food wasn't half bad, and it was at least worth the cost to eat at a new spot I hadn't been to before in this crappy city of mine.

[B-side]

No words for how amazing this is:

http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video...rName=Not+Sure

[Dukefrukem]

Going out for last min Christmas shopping this morning. ta ta

[Kurosawa Fan]

Going out for last min Christmas shopping this morning. ta ta

By responding to his "I Love You Guys" thread, I'm pretty sure we all just entered into a relationship with Duke. It's time to start thinking of ways to let him down easy.

[transmogrifier]

[B-side]

Wandering Bear cures vaginas.

[Dukefrukem]

By responding to his "I Love You Guys" thread, I'm pretty sure we all just entered into a relationship with Duke. It's time to start thinking of ways to let him down easy.

Well it was a RANDOM thought...

[Mara]

ME: You know who I need to unfriend on Facebook?

SISTER: [Crazy Woman]?

ME: Yeah. Does she Facebook stalk you, too?

SISTER: No, she just comments on every damn thing you do.




If my sister has noticed, this may have gotten out of hand.

[Dukefrukem]

First semester grades are in. 3.33 for me. Meh.

[Wryan]

So...when they develop sexbots to a sufficiently advanced degree, will they have "minor" editions for those so inclined? This will be a point of discussion, with the hysterical on one side and those more open to the idea on the other. One side would argue that it would surely only spur those so inclined to wanting the real thing more, and real incidents would spike. The other side would argue that it would create a safe and ostensibly legal release valve and curb their desire for the real thing, perhaps effecting a plummeting of real incidents. Keep in mind that at one time (and some possibly still do) conservatives suggested that non-heterosexuals should be "asexual" and should get their release through pornography and masturbation, etc., so they wouldn't engage (and thus "infect"/"pollute") the rest of the population. Would similar arguments be made?

Since the technology does not exist at this point to this degree, there is no research into either possibility, but What If the technology not only existed but also was shown to lead to an extreme decline in real incidents with real minors/children, or at least was shown to lead to a decline in desire for the real thing.

Would you support having minor sexbots? What parameters would have to be satisfied for you to support the notion? What if anyone so inclined can opt to buy such a bot...but only if they are placed on some kind of register/list? Would/Must such a list be made public or private? Given that this would necessarily have to be the future, I'm sure that, ahem, "supervision" would be more advanced at this time.

No, I'm not considering the soul-of-the-bot argument at this time.

EDIT: While I didn't offer my own position, I think the language I used gives enough of a hint as to what I would say.

[Mara]

A similar ethical dilemma has already been posed by one of the creepy sexbots that came out in the last year or so. It had personality "settings"-- including a "frigid" setting that would resist sex.

It was a rape-bot.

[Wryan]

A similar ethical dilemma has already been posed by one of the creepy sexbots that came out in the last year or so. It had personality "settings"-- including a "frigid" setting that would resist sex.

It was a rape-bot.

Does a machine have the right to consent in the way people do? I dunno, myself.

[Mara]

The whole idea of "supporting" such things is murky to me, and gets too hypothetical too fast (what laws? what tracking?)

But what would I think about a person who owned a sexbot? I would find him or her pathetic. A person who set their sexbot on "frigid"? Disturbing. A person who owned a minor sexbot? Sick, sick, sick, and I would try to never interact with that person again.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm astonished that sexbots are a real thing. I know I shouldn't be, but I am. Just looked them up, and they are some of the creepiest looking things I've ever seen. Disturbing.

[Mara]

Does a machine have the right to consent in the way people do? I dunno, myself.

It's not about the robot. It's about the person.

If a man hates his ex-wife and sculpts her likeness, and then chops it up, dismembers it, and buries it, he hasn't hurt his ex-wife. But he's still a rage-filled, creepy bastard.

[Grouchy]

It's not about the robot. It's about the person.

If a man hates his ex-wife and sculpts her likeness, and then chops it up, dismembers it, and buries it, he hasn't hurt his ex-wife. But he's still a rage-filled, creepy bastard.

That has nothing (or at least little) to do with Wryan's question, though.

[Wryan]

It's not about the robot. It's about the person.

I think that's part of the argument. Where's the violation? The only one is internal--for the person himself to have to deal with the knowledge of what kind of person he is, etc. There was a letter sent to Dan Savage many moons ago from a self-confessed pedophile who knew what he was and knew that he couldn't fix his urges yet was aware enough and strong enough to control himself; he never wanted to do anything to fulfill those urges yet could never fix them either.

Again, it's a big What If, but what if such technology was shown to strongly decrease real-life incidents? Your reaction to "sick, sick, sick" is how I feel most people would probably react knowing that, say, their neighbor purchased a sexbot minor...if such a list/register were made necessarily public.

[Mara]

That has nothing (or at least little) to do with Wryan's question, though.

I don't really have an answer to Wryan's question. The legality of it is too thorny and hypothetical for me. So I am addressing my own thoughts on the morality of the issue.

[Dukefrukem]

I like coffee.

[B-side]

http://imgur.com/gallery/j8jF0

[Dukefrukem]

http://imgur.com/gallery/j8jF0

:|

[Mara]

This won't seem related at all to anyone who isn't me, so I apologize over it, but a conversation with my roommate the other day astonished me at the time, and I've been getting angrier and angrier about it ever since. I've got a slow boil going now, and it's driving me nuts.

My roommate was complaining about being "punished" for making good choices. Basically, she's a month or two away from being homeless because she can't get a job and her government benefits are about to dry up and her services are being cut off. She says she's being "punished" for not having children out of wedlock because if she had kids, she would be eligible for all these housing and food and money services that she can't get now.

I said, "But, services go to families with kids because children need it. Children in dangerous situations, and in poverty situations, need to be protected."

And she said, "I don't have anyone to protect ME. Why aren't I protected?"

I'm a little unclear at what I said, some variation of "But you're an adult" and she looked a little offended.

When what I wanted to say was, YOU ARE A GROWN-ASS WOMAN. You do NOT need to be protected anymore. Learn to protect your own damn self. Stop insisting on being treated like a child!