|
Patrick Spens posted:That's a funny way of phrasing it, but I'll take a swing at it. Rape is unique in that it is a serious crime that the United States is completely incapable of prosecuting at an acceptable rate. Somewhere around 3 percent of rapes lead to jail time. Again, 32 out of 33 times someone is raped, their perpetrator never serves time. The State is unambiguously failing in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute rape, and in situations where the State is failing so obviously private action becomes much more acceptable. In addition, very few rapists only commit a single offence. Statistically speaking, the people Moonshadow has killed would have gone on to rape many other people. You know, the US tried doing it that way for a while. We'd wave off the evidentiary requirements for bringing charges and going to trial, because sex crimes were deemed uniquely difficult to prosecute. And when the accused wasn't convicted, or was deemed insufficiently punished, or the justice system was taking too long (or if, like the judge, you were involved in the system not delivering the outcome people had already ordained was to happen) then private action was acceptable. Had to stop the accused before they escalated their activities. Wonder why we stopped? Wonder what the problem with your idea is even if we ignore why we stopped?
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'm somewhat skeptical that being unable to read minds is what's preventing successful prosecution of sexual assault. Oh no, our system already has two big heaping scoopfuls of inherent misogyny, victim blaming, 'my friend x would never do that' and a social power structure that hampers plenty of prosecution of crimes, rape included. I only meant that unlike other crimes like theft or assault, there's usually physical evidence beyond just victim and witness statements. Rape kits can prove sex happened, but there's not a check box on those for 'consent given'. And most people don't have sex in public, so witnesses are not common. So sadly at least some rape is going to go unpunished, simply because 'he said, she said' isn't really the greatest evidence out there. We could be doing a lot better, that's all too clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
and I wasn't seriously advocating that it should be done in real life, mostly because there is little chance that it would lead to positive change. I was just making the point that when you are the victim of such a system, lashing out is an understandable reaction. Sure it's wrong, but i don't think that's a particularly interesting or insightful position to take (also calling something wrong doesn't actually convey any information at all beyond 'I don't like that')
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Like I said, I wasn't offering a generalized defense of all vigilantism everywhere. I was talking about situations where the State was unwilling or unable to punish serious crimes, which to put it mildly has not been the case with the United States and black people. The problem with that is that a lot of crimes may fall under that description. Recently in America there has been a greater focus on police killing civilians following the events at Ferguson. While not using Ferguson as a direct example, there are situations across the U.S. where police officers kill civilians unlawfully and are not prosecuted, or receive very lenient sentences relative to the crime they committed. Would you think that, going by your criteria for acceptable use of vigilantism which may include retributive murder, that killing a police officer would be justified? What defines a unique crime, and how can acts of vigilantism be limited only to situations where the guilt of the suspect is absolute, but the judicial system fails to deliver a guilty verdict? A big flaming stink posted:Sure it's wrong, but i don't think that's a particularly interesting or insightful position to take (also calling something wrong doesn't actually convey any information at all beyond 'I don't like that') Brought To You By fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:Without right or wrong as defined by some legal, moral and/or ethical code there cannot be any crime, just actions people take against each other. Even trying to debate whether or not Moonshadow is justified implies that she is operating on some level of "right". Uh, crime honestly has very little to do with right or wrong. It's literally the violation of the laws of a state entity. I mean sure maybe you could have the moral viewpoint that breaking laws in and of itself is wrong but that's stupid even for morality. And sure, Moonshadow is operating on some level of right. From her perspective, she's chipping away at a colossus of injustice, and what little she can do is, in some small way, contributing to what is "right." But that's it, just her take on "right." We can say she's wrong with respect to this or that, but just calling it flat out wrong gets us nowhere. She's wrong according to what, some fundamental aspect of the universe that just so happens to agree with my viewpoint? Where, honestly, does taking that stance get us? tl;dr: blah blah error theory blah blah e: vvvv jesus did richard joyce piss in your cornflakes or something? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Uh, crime honestly has very little to do with right or wrong. It's literally the violation of the laws of a state entity. The law upholds the values that a nation deems necessary for the physical, social and, yes, moral wellbeing of its citizens. (Disagree? Read, oh, any ten random Supreme Court decisions with opinions given. Or any court case about pornography censorship ever.) You can whine all you want about the gaps between the ideal of that goal and the reality of its execution, but that is the objective of the rule of law and the justice system, whatever moral philosophy you subscribe to. Then again, subscribing to moral nihilism means you're about as much worth listening to as the "you're not actually enjoying that painting, it's all just images being projected to your brain where your neural impulses and experiences interact to form your opinion, there's no meaning and nothing's real maaaaaan" guy at an art exhibit. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Then again, subscribing to moral nihilism means you're about as much worth listening to as the "you're not actually enjoying that painting, it's all just images being projected to your brain where your neural impulses and experiences interact to form your opinion, there's no meaning and nothing's real maaaaaan" guy at an art exhibit. So, entirely accurate but irritating?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Nihilists keep existing (and annoying the rest of us with their dreary blather) despite coming to the conclusion that all meaning and value in life are arbitrary and artificial. Somewhere along the way they still manage to extract practical, functional values and motivations out of their existence, no matter how subjective they may be. Similarly, whether the ultimate source of society's values are artificial or not, in any practical consideration, doesn't loving matter. Any philosophy that contributes nothing to real life, especially in the realm of crime and law, is about as useful as an rear end in a top hat on my shoulder. The only thing nihilism proves absolutely meaningless is itself. And dyed-in-the-wool nihilists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
You're a funny guy, McSpanky. I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Nihilists keep existing (and annoying the rest of us with their dreary blather) despite coming to the conclusion that all meaning and value in life are arbitrary and artificial. Somewhere along the way they still manage to extract practical, functional values and motivations out of their existence, no matter how subjective they may be. Similarly, whether the ultimate source of society's values are artificial or not, in any practical consideration, doesn't loving matter. Any philosophy that contributes nothing to real life, especially in the realm of crime and law, is about as useful as an rear end in a top hat on my shoulder. On the other hand, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with those kickin construction bots over there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:The people who announce they're nihilists, I suspect, are usually just people trying to find justification for their cynicism. That and they are always trying to cut off your Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Atmus posted:That and they are always trying to cut off your Johnson. And they hate it when you're making with ze funny shtuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:On the other hand, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with those kickin construction bots over there. Speaking of which, what's the deal with those little floating white cone thingies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:And they hate it when you're making with ze funny shtuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Speaking of which, what's the deal with those little floating white cone thingies? Sensor array or something maybe. Maybe those cones allow it to survey the entire site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:And they hate it when you're making with ze funny shtuff. Counterpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Rape: The webcomic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
New Page I'm beginning to think that Paladin needs to re-examine what she programs her robots to do. Would you like some Deadly Neurotixin?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:New Page Maybe she just thinks it's funny, like the assassin droid in the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic games calling people 'meatbag' because it's master thought it was funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I like to think the robot is doing it on purpose to gently caress with organics. Not even programmed to do it by Paladin, just sufficiently advanced that it can autonomously decide to mess with people in harmless ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:I like to think the robot is doing it on purpose to gently caress with organics. Not even programmed to do it by Paladin, just sufficiently advanced that it can autonomously decide to mess with people in harmless ways. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
I don't care how smart you are, using that design on your sign is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:6 of one, half dozen of the other. Nah the robot autonomously messing with people and getting away with it because of playing on people's expectations of a robot is way better 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I think the robots might be former Templar robots that have been re-purposed. They're friendly and harmless, but occasionally the old programming shines through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
The question on my mind at this point is why, if Paladin is such an obvious robotics prodigy, has she not been bumped off by whatever force wants to bump off anyone who's capable of changing the world? Seems bleeding edge robotics would qualify. Unless of course she's sold out to the powers-that-be. I suppose that would explain the police mechs we've seen occasionally in the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:I think the robots might be former Templar robots that have been re-purposed. They're friendly and harmless, but occasionally the old programming shines through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
That alt-text basically sums up my thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:The question on my mind at this point is why, if Paladin is such an obvious robotics prodigy, has she not been bumped off by whatever force wants to bump off anyone who's capable of changing the world? Seems bleeding edge robotics would qualify. Robots are pretty cool, but they're not on the level of unlimited free energy or singlehandedly eradicating illness. Whoever did this probably expect to benefit disproportionately from the advances she's making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I don't care how smart you are, using that design on your sign is loving stupid. That design is hilarious, but I'm not sure it's supposed to be. edit: Like I think I have laughed more today at ICARUS PUNCHES THE SUN than any other thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
As I said, the alt-text basically sums up my thoughts. Here at Excelsior, we believe in providing solutions for the problems of tomorrow, innovating new technologies for a changing world, and PUNCHING THE SUN!!! Live a little, people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:As I said, the alt-text basically sums up my thoughts. You're not supposed to punch the sun, you're supposed to praise it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:New Page Could this be it trying to make a joke considering Portal? Edit: Double checking the page it was poison not neurotoxin so never mind, guess that's what I get... still could be a bad attempt at humor. Stormgale fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Male Man posted:That design is hilarious, but I'm not sure it's supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head, there's a difference between a biodynamic who makes products people will want to buy, and who who makes it so nobody will ever need a certain product again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Robots are pretty cool, but they're not on the level of unlimited free energy or singlehandedly eradicating illness. Whoever did this probably expect to benefit disproportionately from the advances she's making. Forget killer robot tropes, workers that never complains about their job conditions, don't get paid and never have to go home or take time time off would still be a pretty big game-changer. You're right, they're not on the level of free energy or eliminating illness, but I'd put them on the next level down -- doing to manual laborers what the internal combustion engine did to the horse. Hell, their productivity would probably be measured similarly; "the new iSembler 5 features automatic assembly line calibration, triple-redundant internal damage sensors and -- we are proud to present -- the first confirmed efficiency rating of over 200 manhours!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Forget killer robot tropes, workers that never complains about their job conditions, don't get paid and never have to go home or take time time off would still be a pretty big game-changer. You're right, they're not on the level of free energy or eliminating illness, but I'd put them on the next level down -- doing to manual laborers what the internal combustion engine did to the horse. Hell, their productivity would probably be measured similarly; "the new iSembler 5 features automatic assembly line calibration, triple-redundant internal damage sensors and -- we are proud to present -- the first confirmed efficiency rating of over 200 manhours!" All depends how cheap the robots are to buy and maintain. Automation does a lot, but in a LOT of cases, particularly in the third world, it's still a hell of a lot cheaper to pay a disposable human workforce than to buy in automation, particularly if your infrastructure sucks. Cheap stuff comes from this sort of labour, and all the robots in the world don't make it better if there's not reliable power to run them, or roads to supply logistics when they break down. E: and even if there is, they're not doing anything other than replacing disposable human labour, which would seem counter to the behind-the-scenes discussion, which is about stopping the *demand* for that workforce, not stopping it being needed by fulfilling that demand a different way. The problem superpower would be, say, stuff creation out of nothingness. Not making robots to assemble it the way it is at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
The real world-changingness will come about when the robots can mine for raw materials, construct, and maintain themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Forget killer robot tropes, workers that never complains about their job conditions, don't get paid and never have to go home or take time time off would still be a pretty big game-changer. Robots do complain about their work conditions. The difference is that human workers call their complaints "strikes" or "protests" while robot workers call their complaints "errors" or "malfunctions". I remember this anecdote about a small factory owner, the workers complained about how the dust and smoke made them constantly sick and they wanted better ventilation with filters and stuff. That would have been expensive, though, so the boss preferred to invest even more money to replace most of the workforce with industrial robots. The machines didn't complain about the dust in the air. Instead, their fans got clogged, and they overheated, and their electronics fried, and they stopped working and better ventilation with filters had to be installed anyway. And don't believe for one minute that robots don't get paid. Sure, the robots themselves don't get paid, but they have operating and maintenance costs nonetheless, which can be quite high depending on the robot. And their software might need a yearly license fee... There would certainly be a hefty one for a Turing-capable AI like those displayed in the comic. You're still paying, just not the same person. Just look at computers. You may need less personnel to handle accounting and files now that it's greatly automated, but on the other hand you have an IT department and you're paying software fees to Microsoft or whatever to use those computers. And there's a budget for replacement parts and regular upgrades. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
 You post a quick easy analogy of a hypothetical to avoid a tedious drawn-out analysis and the first thing people do is tediously draw out an analysis. Gold stars for you for correctly observing that thermodynamics, mechanical breakdowns and computer problems would still need to be addressed for a robotic workforce. You've displayed just as much vision as a man riding a horse watching a sputtering turn-of-the-last-century car roll by as he goes "hah, these auto-mobiles will never take the place of my trusty steed!"Now to hopefully bring this discussion back to the comic, Rand Brittain posted:Just off the top of my head, there's a difference between a biodynamic who makes products people will want to buy, and who who makes it so nobody will ever need a certain product again. MikeJF posted:The real world-changingness will come about when the robots can mine for raw materials, construct, and maintain themselves. I agree with these lines of reasoning, which in my mind leads to "What's Excelsior got up their sleeve?" Somehow I don't think the door greeter is the most advanced piece of technology in their catalog. Could it be possible that someone else learned of the biodynamic assassinations and intentionally played their hand low to stay under the radar? Eagerly awaiting the next pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 17:03
|
|