Kevin's Watch

Emotional Leper wrote:Are we going to start locking people up because of their genes, then?

No, we're going to continue locking people up because of their actions.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Emotional Leper wrote:Are we going to start locking people up because of their genes, then?

No, we're going to continue locking people up because of their actions.

--A

and a majority here will continue to advocate for those people locked up; despite their actions.

sgt.null wrote:

Avatar wrote:

Emotional Leper wrote:Are we going to start locking people up because of their genes, then?

No, we're going to continue locking people up because of their actions.

--A

and a majority here will continue to advocate for those people locked up; despite their actions.

It's kinder to both the incarcerated for life and to the society that does the incarceration to kill instead of confine for life.

Holy cow. now there is a poser --

do we give pedophiles child robots to assuage their perversions? Do we make beatable/rapable robot spouses for those degenerates to act out their problems? Is this OK?

Is this different than the video games therapy I have heard of where they allow violent people to beat up and kill realistic avatars ?


I gotta think about this....

iQuestor wrote:Holy cow. now there is a poser --

do we give pedophiles child robots to assuage their perversions? Do we make beatable/rapable robot spouses for those degenerates to act out their problems? Is this OK?

Is this different than the video games therapy I have heard of where they allow violent people to beat up and kill realistic avatars ?


I gotta think about this....

It won't work for rape. Rape isn't about sexual gratification. It's about dominance and power -- having it by taking it away from someone else.

Emotional Leper wrote: It won't work for rape. Rape isn't about sexual gratification. It's about dominance and power -- having it by taking it away from someone else.

Well, that's a theory that I believe should be tested. So far, we don't know if a "real enough" simulation would be enough to satisfy a rapist, because we haven't had a real enough simulation. I assume that a rapist fantasizes about rape while masturbating. And I assume that they achieve orgasm despite the fact that there's no real woman involved. I further posit that sexual acts are themselves enactments of fantasies. It doesn't need to be real--in fact, we go to great expense to "dress it up" with lingerie and hand cuffs. We disguise the reality in many ways (often because the reality is too animal for people to be comfortable with). Fantasy plays a huge role in sex, whether the woman is fantasizing that this guy really loves her, or if she is fantasizing about her husband being her brother. Or if the rapist is fantasizing that he actually has power over another human when all he is really doing is brutalizing her. It's already fantasy-laden. The reality aspect is merely the enablement of the action. At least that's my hypothesis. All I'm saying is that we'll soon have the chance to test it and see who is right.

EL, I think we agree on the basics here. We're in the minority of arguing that this might be a safe outlet for urges which can't be helped. I, too, don't think we should lock people up for a genetic defect. However, serial murderers might have a genetic defect, and they should be locked up. Anyone who commits a crime should be locked up--whether they can help it or not. But like you, I think it is too simple to just ask people to refrain from primal urges. I think that repressing sexual urges leads to many of the problems people have with sex. This robot thing might be the solution, and work better than jail. We simply don't know because we haven't yet been able to study this question sufficiently.

With that said, I'd like to address the people on the other side of this fence. Why has it become accepted that homosexuality may be genetically caused, but other forms of "deviant" sex are not? [I don't mean any insult to any gays out there. What I mean by "deviant" is a deviation from the biological norm. I'm not making a value judgment, just stating a reproductive fact.] I don't think that pedophiles should be granted the same level of acceptance as homosexuals. Children can't consent. But the root cause may be just as genetic in both cases. And if so, then EL makes a good point. It doesn't help the victim to lock up the pedophile after he has molested the victim. We do need punishment. But more than anything, we need prevention. Punishment doesn't erase the emotional scars a child carries for life. Talk of rehabilitation implies that the pedophile is the victim, here--as if they are the ones most in need of help.

Loremaster wrote: It doesn't stop the ideation; it encourages it. It would be only a matter of time before said pedophile gets bored with his toy and wants the real thing.

Again, that's a hypothesis which hasn't been tested. We have no right to try to stop "ideations." And a pedophile doesn't need anything to encourage this ideation besides the existence of children. You can't stop them from fantasizing. And if they are going to escalate from fantasy to reality, they don't need a robot middle man to make this transition. While you can't stop their fantasies, you can give them an alternate outlet for their fantasies so that their only choices aren't either a) fantasy or b) reality. The reason they seek out real children now is because there is no alternative to their fantasies. Who is to say that a robot indistinguishable from reality wouldn't be enough? We simply don't know. That conclusion is made in the absence of a testable alternate hypothesis. It's begging the question.

Loremaster wrote: Instead of wasting money on robot kiddies and beatable robot women for criminals, we should focus on instructing them on how to have healthy, sexual lives.

We don't have to waste money on this. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. Just look at video games (Grand Theft Auto, for example).

The idea that we can instruct a child molester or a rapist on how to have a healthy sex life is like trying to instruct a homosexual how to be heterosexual. [Again, I'm not saying homosexuality is anything like pedophilia or rape--I'm just saying that maybe they are both equally genetic.] If pedophilia and rape are genetic, then rehabilitating them is impossible.

On the other hand, even if we can rehabilitate them, we can't do so until we know whom to rehabilitate. And we don't know that until they get caught committing a crime. That's much too late, in my opinion. And that's just for the ones we catch. I'd rather have a solution which prevents the crime in the first place.

malik: there is no way to know who is a rapist and who isn't. and even if you find a genetic marker, the aclu would be on you if you tried to punish people who had yet to commit a crime. we could simply lock up all rapists for life, no parole. at least they won't recommit.

Well Lads and Ladies the link below should clear up any questions you might have on the current subject. Enjoy.


www.spikedhumor.com/articles/121284/Fut ... Robot.html

Malik23 wrote:On the other hand, even if we can rehabilitate them, we can't do so until we know whom to rehabilitate. And we don't know that until they get caught committing a crime. That's much too late, in my opinion. And that's just for the ones we catch. I'd rather have a solution which prevents the crime in the first place.

I can agree with that.

Excellent post Malik.

Good link Tom.

I guess I get this, but its hard for me to envision a man raping a robot shaped to sound look and feel like a frightened young boy, or a man beating a woman-robot, and not be profoundly disturbed. I admit, better a machine than a human. I think we have a lot of re-search and soul-search to do.... Its just -- disturbing.

I give up. It's not worth it. Goodbye, Hegemony.

Cail wrote:Excellent post Malik.

Agreed.

--A

iQuestor wrote:I guess I get this, but its hard for me to envision a man raping a robot shaped to sound look and feel like a frightened young boy, or a man beating a woman-robot, and not be profoundly disturbed. I admit, better a machine than a human. I think we have a lot of re-search and soul-search to do.... Its just -- disturbing.

You're right, it's sick. I don't like to think of it, either. Maybe genetic engineering could eliminate this problem altogether. But then we get into even trickier issues. When we can simply edit out behaviors which make us feel uncomfortable, we're going to have a host of other ethical questions. What if a homosexual, for instance, wants to have their gayness removed, too? And then an industry develops to genetically alter gay people. Wouldn't the rest of the gay community feel betrayed? A whole new brand of implicit condemnation. People could tell homosexuals that we don't need to legalize gay marriage because it would no longer be out of their control. Hell, if we have government healthcare at that point, then legislators could require that genetic screening and alteration be mandatory for things like obesity, criminal predisposition, or something which is generally accepted now like homosexuality. Once you open that door to the idea, "we can fix people," then it becomes a responsibility of those in power to "fix" us. And that scares me more than robot rape.

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

EL, don't leave! The more sides we have, the better the discussion.

I totally agree. Especially the bit about the ethics of genetic "improvement."

--A