|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Oct 9, 2014 4:06:50 GMT
I really hope that sometime soon Bud busts in heroically to save his girl, all muscled and stuff while fanfare is playing. Nah, Bud's style would be to waltz in and become bros with the ship. Then start a bowling night. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 9, 2014 4:37:05 GMT
I really hope that sometime soon Bud busts in heroically to save his girl, all muscled and stuff while fanfare is playing. Exoskeletal creatures don't tend to be very good at "all muscled". Considering Bud's relative size, the "and stuff" wouldn't be very much stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Oct 9, 2014 5:24:24 GMT
I really hope that sometime soon Bud busts in heroically to save his girl, all muscled and stuff while fanfare is playing. Exoskeletal creatures don't tend to be very good at "all muscled". Considering Bud's relative size, the "and stuff" wouldn't be very much stuff. Lack of muscles aside, we know what he looks like in the physical world. We also know what he looks like in the ether, and how that differs from the physical world. ... They're currently in Zimmingham  |
|
|
|
Post by N.Tashley on Oct 9, 2014 13:27:57 GMT
I continue to be frightened by the responses in this thread.
If anyone is going to claim that the ship is not ordering people around, I really don't know what to say. "Make me flesh" is an order. When he was told no, he responded with violence and threats. He is so clearly in control that it feels ridiculous to even have to argue this point.
I don't understand giving him the benefit of the doubt, when there is no doubt. He has already harmed people.
He crippled people in a way that visibly pained them.
He took people somewhere against their will.
He took people hostage to get them to do what he wants.
You keep saying ends are good, but are they? What are his ends?
No one has to love you, know one has to notice you. You don't have a right to someone's affections.
He says he wants Lindsey to notice him, but is that really enough for him? We don't know and his behavior does not foretell good things.
The ship has only behaved badly, I see no reason to assume he has "good" reasons for his actions.
I will once again repeat, abuse is not "confused love". It is not "inexperienced love". It is not "well meaning". It is abuse.
The person may not know how to love someone, they may only know abuse, but this doesn't make it less abuse. It's still just as abusive.
And the ignorance defense doesn't make sense either. He has eyes and ears all over the ship and there are plenty of happy couples. Year after year he looks at all these kids having fun, he knows that they are not having fun. He has plenty of models.
You cannot "presume" he got to know Lindsey. If she is swimming next to him, how did she talk to him? The ship is not telepathic and Lindsey doesn't have her speech box.
His "love" is based on swimming next to her once a year.
You do not abuse someone because you are inexperienced, that is frankly disgusting too say or even imply. "Inexperience" does not lead you to kidnap people and force them to do your bidding.
If you are defending or excusing the ship's behavior, you are defending and excusing abuse. It's really that simple. This is so clearly abuse, I cannot believe I even have to be saying these things.
Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse.
Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse.
I don't know how to say this to make it reach people.
The ship is being abusive. His behavior is wrong. Period.
There is no but.
There is no however.
It is not romantic.
It is not excusable.
There are no good ends.
And I avoided gender for a reason, if a woman abuses a man it is abuse. Same as if she abuses a woman, a gender-queer, anyone. If Lindsey were male and the boat were female, I would be saying the exacts same things, just switch around the pronouns.
And wolves and sheep have nothing to do with this. They are not my source for ethics, and they shouldn't be yours.
It doesn't matter if the robots can't understand any other morality system.
And based of the loving relationship between robot and shadow, I can't believe that.
Ignorance doesn't lessen their harm.
The robot is harming humans. Human ethics apply. If t were just robots acting on robots, it would be a different story. But it isn't. The ship is directly involving people.
And on the topic of BDSM, it is in no way shape or form abuse.
50 Shades of Grey claims to portray BDSM, but what it actually portrays is sexual assault and abuse. The idealization of it as a love story is exactly what I meant when I said our culture excuses and defends abuse.
BDSM is about consent. It is about trust, pleasure, play, and closeness. It is about understanding another person's needs, along with your own. Abuse is none of those things.
I've experienced abuse and BDSM. The two could not be anymore different. There is not a grey line between the two. There are abusers and their advocates who will claim such, but they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by crater on Oct 9, 2014 13:47:57 GMT
anyone who doesn't support the ship is cis scum
|
|
|
|
Post by CoyoteReborn on Oct 9, 2014 15:17:41 GMT
All of you mortals agree that the ship's actions are wrong. N.Tashley is arguing that they stem from an abusive attitude of the ship towards Lindsey. Daedalus, sapientcoffee and a few others are arguing that we don't really have nearly enough information to conclusively judge the Ship's motive. And davidm's arguing something confusing about BDSM. Somehow, this all got taken way out of proportion - you're all exchanging heated words over a webcomic, not real life. Why can't you just agree "ship baaaad" instead of trying to stretch your puny little human minds? Even I can't match the level of chaos on forum arguments. Jeez. You know it's bad when I'm trying to act as a peacekeeper. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Oct 9, 2014 15:34:06 GMT
I continue to be frightened by the responses in this thread. If anyone is going to claim that the ship is not ordering people around, I really don't know what to say. "Make me flesh" is an order. When he was told no, he responded with violence and threats. He is so clearly in control that it feels ridiculous to even have to argue this point. I don't understand giving him the benefit of the doubt, when there is no doubt. He has already harmed people. He crippled people in a way that visibly pained them. He took people somewhere against their will. He took people hostage to get them to do what he wants. You keep saying ends are good, but are they? What are his ends? No one has to love you, know one has to notice you. You don't have a right to someone's affections. He says he wants Lindsey to notice him, but is that really enough for him? We don't know and his behavior does not foretell good things. The ship has only behaved badly, I see no reason to assume he has "good" reasons for his actions. I will once again repeat, abuse is not "confused love". It is not "inexperienced love". It is not "well meaning". It is abuse. The person may not know how to love someone, they may only know abuse, but this doesn't make it less abuse. It's still just as abusive. And the ignorance defense doesn't make sense either. He has eyes and ears all over the ship and there are plenty of happy couples. Year after year he looks at all these kids having fun, he knows that they are not having fun. He has plenty of models. You cannot "presume" he got to know Lindsey. If she is swimming next to him, how did she talk to him? The ship is not telepathic and Lindsey doesn't have her speech box. His "love" is based on swimming next to her once a year. You do not abuse someone because you are inexperienced, that is frankly disgusting too say or even imply. "Inexperience" does not lead you to kidnap people and force them to do your bidding. If you are defending or excusing the ship's behavior, you are defending and excusing abuse. It's really that simple. This is so clearly abuse, I cannot believe I even have to be saying these things. Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse. Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse. I don't know how to say this to make it reach people. The ship is being abusive. His behavior is wrong. Period. There is no but. There is no however. It is not romantic. It is not excusable. There are no good ends. And I avoided gender for a reason, if a woman abuses a man it is abuse. Same as if she abuses a woman, a gender-queer, anyone. If Lindsey were male and the boat were female, I would be saying the exacts same things, just switch around the pronouns. And wolves and sheep have nothing to do with this. They are not my source for ethics, and they shouldn't be yours. It doesn't matter if the robots can't understand any other morality system. And based of the loving relationship between robot and shadow, I can't believe that. Ignorance doesn't lessen their harm. The robot is harming humans. Human ethics apply. If t were just robots acting on robots, it would be a different story. But it isn't. The ship is directly involving people. And on the topic of BDSM, it is in no way shape or form abuse. 50 Shades of Grey claims to portray BDSM, but what it actually portrays is sexual assault and abuse. The idealization of it as a love story is exactly what I meant when I said our culture excuses and defends abuse. BDSM is about consent. It is about trust, pleasure, play, and closeness. It is about understanding another person's needs, along with your own. Abuse is none of those things. I've experienced abuse and BDSM. The two could not be anymore different. There is not a grey line between the two. There are abusers and their advocates who will claim such, but they are wrong. "I've experienced abuse and BDSM." - People have died doing BSDM, clearly not every case is same. Your logic is like saying no abuse can occur in marriage because my marriage has no abuse. It is like the guy who says communism, capitalism, etc can never do harm because he has a specialised definition of such that by definition can't be harmful, and any other case such as USSR was not communism. The definition of BSDM has bondage, sadism, discipline or domination, masochism. Obvious that someone else actions can fit all those 4 words with abusive actions, just as someone can be abusive in a marriage. Having a priest at time of marriage vows say you always love your mate, never hurt them does not magically make every marriage abuse free, similar with other activities like BSDM. Saying 50 shades of grey is not BSDM is like saying USSR is not communism, Chris Brown was not "true married". Many different mainstream media stories describe 50 shades of grey in glowing terms with words like "spice up marriage". (google "50 shades of grey spice up marriage") Examples using similar circular logic as your definition of BSDM: Marriage is about consent. It is about trust, pleasure, play, and closeness. It is about understanding another person's needs, along with your own. Abuse is none of those things. Communism is about consent. It is about trust, sharing, and closeness. It is about understanding another person's needs, along with your own. Abuse is none of those things. Renard did "evil", he killed someone, he tried to kill Annie. Now he is a "good guy" in the comic. We can't say end of ship, that doesn't mean what ship is doing is good, any more than what Renard was doing was good. By your definition of abuse, Annie is an abuser, she put people in harms way and risked their lives... we often cut some slack for 5 year old or 10 year old kids. Ship might be similar to kid in mental processes. Would you advocate throwing a 5 year old kid or 10 year old kid on jail for many years for throwing a big rock at his brother that might have killed him? Many forest creatures would likely take being in jail for months as much more abuse/suffering then getting beaten by a cane, especially if separated from their own kind. I know from personal experience with real life animals. I had a sheep who had trouble giving birth. She was separated with her lambs, I had to help raise her kids in barn, she was clearly depressed for weeks (and her kids would have starved without my help every day). One day she got out of barn, it was warmer day finally in middle of winter, she butted heads with other sheep (which if you see them do it would look like physical violence), and she was immediately happy and suddenly able to care for her lambs... she immediately nursed them, suddenly ate hungrily, etc. Personal experience: Sheep butting heads, sometimes several in same click gang up on a single foe, sometimes they hit from the side, they can hit very hard. Dogs fighting to be alpha dog... much worse, at times owner is afraid they will kill each other... they probably won't. Nature shows: Wolves in wild fighting in own pack to be alpha dog... much more savage than most domestic dogs. 3 main characters of forest are wolf, coyote and fox, they are *much* more aggressive to their peers than almost any type of domestic animal. Renard suffered in court jail compared to likely "fun" to fight a worthy foe in savage way that might lead to injury or death. There have been documented cases where you take a person who is "native", lives off land, never been in our modern society, and you stick them in a jail and they suffer to an extreme (to point of edge of insanity)... same people on regular basis shrug off bruises from rough life living off land, kicked by animals, etc... a bruise is no big deal for them. Not everyone feels the same about what "abuse" means. To the native guy being beaten by a cane 20 times would not be torture, he can go home and look after family, get back to life. (To native guy we are abusive because we use jails to punish wrongdoing) (I had former young adult "room mates" who lived upstairs who regularly had fun doing things I would consider abusing myself and no fun... eg run snowmobile at high speeds and seriously hurt leg, drunk and fell from tree and unconscious rushed to hospital, smartest/nicest guy of group died in avalanche snowmobiling. While I don't agree with situation the kids are facing in this story, to degree they are probably viewing it as exciting adventure right now... kids pay money to go on roller coasters, haunted houses, scary movies, racing on dirt bikes, etc...) |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Oct 9, 2014 16:01:13 GMT
davidm: you appear to have said the same thing a couple times, in identical posts? I am confused. I am also confused and bothered by the contents of your posts but that would start a whole other argument... I'm also with CoyoteReborn* - let's drop this topic  *(now there's a sentence you don't see often)
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Oct 9, 2014 16:06:43 GMT
davidm: you appear to have said the same thing a couple times, in identical posts? I am confused. a "/quote" was in wrong spot in my post, which I fixed. If I have double entry somewhere, I can delete if I know about it. Update: Finally my blind eyes spotted my other post, somehow in hitting back key and attempts to improve I accidentally posted twice, thanks for pointing out and sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Oct 9, 2014 16:10:18 GMT
I continue to be frightened by the responses in this thread.
If anyone is going to claim that the ship is not ordering people around, I really don't know what to say. "Make me flesh" is an order. When he was told no, he responded with violence and threats. He is so clearly in control that it feels ridiculous to even have to argue this point.
I don't understand giving him the benefit of the doubt, when there is no doubt. He has already harmed people.
He crippled people in a way that visibly pained them.
He took people somewhere against their will.
He took people hostage to get them to do what he wants.
You keep saying ends are good, but are they? What are his ends?
No one has to love you, know one has to notice you. You don't have a right to someone's affections.
He says he wants Lindsey to notice him, but is that really enough for him? We don't know and his behavior does not foretell good things.
The ship has only behaved badly, I see no reason to assume he has "good" reasons for his actions.
I will once again repeat, abuse is not "confused love". It is not "inexperienced love". It is not "well meaning". It is abuse.
The person may not know how to love someone, they may only know abuse, but this doesn't make it less abuse. It's still just as abusive.
And the ignorance defense doesn't make sense either. He has eyes and ears all over the ship and there are plenty of happy couples. Year after year he looks at all these kids having fun, he knows that they are not having fun. He has plenty of models.
You cannot "presume" he got to know Lindsey. If she is swimming next to him, how did she talk to him? The ship is not telepathic and Lindsey doesn't have her speech box.
His "love" is based on swimming next to her once a year.
You do not abuse someone because you are inexperienced, that is frankly disgusting too say or even imply. "Inexperience" does not lead you to kidnap people and force them to do your bidding.
If you are defending or excusing the ship's behavior, you are defending and excusing abuse. It's really that simple. This is so clearly abuse, I cannot believe I even have to be saying these things.
Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse.
Please stop trying to defend and excuse abuse.
I don't know how to say this to make it reach people.
The ship is being abusive. His behavior is wrong. Period.
There is no but.
There is no however.
It is not romantic.
It is not excusable.
There are no good ends.
And I avoided gender for a reason, if a woman abuses a man it is abuse. Same as if she abuses a woman, a gender-queer, anyone. If Lindsey were male and the boat were female, I would be saying the exacts same things, just switch around the pronouns.
And wolves and sheep have nothing to do with this. They are not my source for ethics, and they shouldn't be yours.
It doesn't matter if the robots can't understand any other morality system.
And based of the loving relationship between robot and shadow, I can't believe that.
Ignorance doesn't lessen their harm.
The robot is harming humans. Human ethics apply. If t were just robots acting on robots, it would be a different story. But it isn't. The ship is directly involving people.
And on the topic of BDSM, it is in no way shape or form abuse.
50 Shades of Grey claims to portray BDSM, but what it actually portrays is sexual assault and abuse. The idealization of it as a love story is exactly what I meant when I said our culture excuses and defends abuse.
BDSM is about consent. It is about trust, pleasure, play, and closeness. It is about understanding another person's needs, along with your own. Abuse is none of those things.
I've experienced abuse and BDSM. The two could not be anymore different. There is not a grey line between the two. There are abusers and their advocates who will claim such, but they are wrong. All of you mortals agree that the ship's actions are wrong. N.Tashley is arguing that they stem from an abusive attitude of the ship towards Lindsey. Daedalus, sapientcoffee and a few others are arguing that we don't really have nearly enough information to conclusively judge the Ship's motive. And davidm's arguing something about BDSM. Somehow, this all got taken way out of proportion. Why can't you just agree "ship baaaad" instead of trying to stretch your puny minds? Even I can't match the level of chaos on forum arguments. Jeez. You know it's bad when I'm acting as a peacekeeper. Perhaps N.Tashley is taking Coyote's role, to make up for Coyote taking the voice of reason. She does have a Coyote avatar... I'm kidding. Please don't burn me. |
|
|
|
Post by N.Tashley on Oct 9, 2014 18:51:53 GMT
I don't appreciate being told I'm taking things out of proportion, when people are saying abuse is "romantic, in a way" and there are "good ends".
Motives have nothing to do with whether or not something abuse. If you shoot someone dead, you've killed someone, regardless of if it was self defense or murder. You don't need the motive to definitively say, "You killed someone".
Like I said earlier, recognizing abuse is a life or death matter. It's not an "agree to disagree" thing.
People die because people make excuses instead of stepping in to stop abuse. This is a fictionalized portrayal, but the attitudes are extremely real.
And if attitudes don't change people will continue to die.
This is not a joke, this is not make believe, this is the reality of the world we live in.
An abuser can love their victim, many do. And many victims love their abuser. Because they are not two dimensional cut-outs, they are full, fleshy, people. Abusers are not unfeeling monsters with no redeeming qualities and that's part of what makes it hard. An abuser can be an extremely likable person, fun to be with, this doesn't mean they are not an abuser.
P.S.
Find me a knowledgeable source on BDSM which calls 50 Shades of Grey an accurate portrayal of BDSM. The BDSM community overwhelming hates it. Yes people use it to spice up their marriage, and people used lead in makeup, people can be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Oct 9, 2014 18:53:43 GMT
Ye Gods. This topic. So, many moons ago I volunteered answering a 24/7 crisis hotline for an organization that provided support services to survivors of domestic violence with a particular focus on the GLBT, Kink, and Poly communities. To become a volunteer with them I had to complete 60+ hours of training on how to screen for abusive behaviors, how to differentiate abuse from safe, sane, consensual kink, how to recognize the patterns of control, etc... After reading through this thread I have a couple of things to say: N.Tashley, I am so sorry you went through what you went through. I hope that this discussion wasn't too triggery for you. davidm, I cannot even begin to express how utterly creepy and disturbing I've found your posts in this thread. Your insistence on conflating animal behavior with human ethics and arguing cultural relativism as a possible justification for abusive behavior is terrifying. One of the wonderful things about human beings is that we are not totally driven by instinct. We are capable of learning and making intentional changes in our behavior both at the individual level and at the societal level. Is the ship being abusive? Certainly, it's behaviors towards the students demonstrate a willingness to put it's own desires above everyone else's - consequences be damned - and show a severe lack of empathy. Whether that stems from a desire to achieve it's own goals at any cost or through EXTREME lack of understanding about the effect it's actions are having on those around it remains to be seen. Regardless of what the driving force behind the ship's actions are the way it is executing it's plan is pretty sinister and doesn't bode well for how it will react if it perceives that others are getting in the way of it's desires. Some links to resources about abuse: www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htmjanedoe.org/tnlr.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Oct 9, 2014 19:09:35 GMT
davidm, I cannot even begin to express how utterly creepy and disturbing I've found your posts in this thread. I could claim same about you. I have seen a life destroyed by a false accusation of abuse, the girl recanted day of trial (admitted she lied to deflect from her own rebel teen actions and , by then the father of 4 kids was bi polar, had all his customers told by police he was suspected of abuse, etc, was close to suicide. His life never really seemed to fully recover, he started as happily married father of 4 in successful business, he ended up years later wife left him for someone else, lost his money to a conman, died at relatively early age) Does that mean you assist in false accusations that harm others... or would that be jumping to conclusions? You do label someone you barely know in strong negative terms here without real evidence, I did not say beating other people up was ok. I said that "some people" would not really suffer from that but would suffer from jail... I am not claiming same about you. ... Having a "60 hour course" from one perspective does not make one imo "better than others". I could have a 60 hour course from a different source, and come to different conclusions. Example: vast majority of arrests for rape do not result in convictions, eg 90% statistic in one study. Someone could draw false conclusion from that statistic that almost all rape claims are false, just as others draw false conclusions from different stat the other way. A child with no course can come to different conclusions as well and sometimes the childs perspective is better than either adults... the emperors new clothes. (Or Annies perspective might be better than both the Courts and the Forests at times) Science experiments are best done "double blind" for a reason, normally lots of bias throws results. Eg the same people who are sure that drugs should be legalised because it does not reduce consumption and boosts organised crime feel that automatic guns should be kept illegal because it does reduce consumption and doesn't help organised crime that much, and reverse is also often true. (Watched a guy go over studies to make argument, not seeming to realise how he was obviously twisting the evidence with his bias) In same way some people adjust their version of "abuse" depending on who is suffering and how, eg look at how many people are no big deal with Boyence's sister beating up her fiance (google videos "beyonce sister elevator") "he likely deserved it", yet without question Chris Brown is evil. Try to find calls for Boyence's sister to do jail time for assault, lose job, be labelled an abuser, etc... can you find any? How were her actions different, more ok than Chris Brown? Why the difference in reaction? A lady manager at work who was going for power against the business owner at busy christmas season... "I'll bankrupt you if I don't get what I want" once grabbed me (I was computer IT guy... not under her in staffing but answering to owner directly), and physically and angrily threw me out of building in big show. I was completely non violent, calm, because risky to be anything else... if roles were reversed she would have pressed charges for assault. I talked to owner, he said avoid her now and we all know she is gone when christmas is over. (not worth risk in his opinion to fire her earlier, all orders must be out to customers by christmas eve or bankrupt and he loses everything including his house) IMO people are different and what they consider torture is different. For me personally being falsely accused of rape and having 50% chance of spending 10 years in jail and being hated by former friends would be many times worse than either a) being raped, or b) being beat up. (I would not want any of the above). Raped or beat up I likely can recover from main damage in a month and while scars I still can look after all my responsibilities with support from friends. If I was ever accused of rape/assault, I would lose at least months if not years of my life and some friends. Everything I own now would be lost if I spent years in jail. (All my 40+ animals would be dead, my house gone, my mom dead of old age, etc if in jail for 10 years because falsely accused, not know my nephews), Just as a female would be careful walking alone in dark at night, as a result there is tendency to avoid any risk of ever allowing situation where someone can falsely accuse me, world grows a little colder/less interactions with others as result. (I know that sort of thing does happen because I also from the horses mouth had a different teen girl explain to me how she falsely accused her mom when she was in her later opinion messed up "to gain freedom". She was also once apparently raped when drunk/passed out, which is also not ok.) IMO if you can't be flexible enough to try and see other perspectives, and not jump to conclusions that others are creepy/evil, condoning violence, etc if you don't agree with them, then risk you may act in way that harms others later... people sometimes fight wars, etc over things that are often just shifts of perspective and not really any different... people get violent on streets with each other, in politics today there are right wing and left wing groups in western countries who fear other side is playing tyrant and getting ready for violence to stop the other sides violence... ... A good argument is against the logic of other person's argument and avoids ad hominen "X is evil, dumb, bully, heartless, creepy". Google "Carl Sagans baloney detector kit", also gives other good info about trying to be open minded and reducing own bias. Our world has often very polarised politics because both sides use this (short insult of some sort) as main argument against other choice in political leader. (I personally fear history will repeat and many of our western societies will become more violent over competing political forces, as western countries go further in debt towards bankruptcy, more polarised, etc... tends to happen once ever 3 generations) |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Oct 9, 2014 19:51:04 GMT
Somehow, this all got taken way out of proportion - you're all exchanging heated words over a webcomic, not real life. Most heated argument I've ever seen on the internet was about shoes on/off inside a house. Followed by .999(repeating) = 1. Internet is crazy times. Nature shows: Wolves in wild fighting in own pack to be alpha dog... Saw this a few days ago and thought it was neat: scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/08/23/no-more-alpha-male/ |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Oct 9, 2014 20:02:11 GMT
...how was this ever in debate? |
|
|
|
Post by artezzatrigger on Oct 9, 2014 20:04:03 GMT
Why can't you just agree "ship baaaad" instead of trying to stretch your puny little human minds? Seconding this motion. This is the kind of discussion that continues to escalate until someone goes too far. Most heated argument I've ever seen on the internet was about shoes on/off inside a house. Followed by .999(repeating) = 1. Internet is crazy times. The first one makes sense, but I can't even begin to imagine how that second argument started. What kind of comment does someone have to make to begin an argument over something that specific? |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Oct 9, 2014 20:20:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Oct 9, 2014 20:30:54 GMT
AHHHHHH IT BURNS MY EYES The thing people can never get about calculus is that 'infinitely close' IS 'equals'. There's no difference. Meh. Discuss. (heh heh) |
|
birds
New Member
Smitface ruined the sim
Posts: 30 
|
Post by birds on Oct 9, 2014 21:56:17 GMT
OWOWOWOWOOWOWOW NEW ROMANTIC TRIANGLE COMMING UP YAYYY
|
|
birds
New Member
Smitface ruined the sim
Posts: 30
|
Post by birds on Oct 9, 2014 22:23:57 GMT
ok i'll explain my thoughts clearly so people here don't start hating me. the whale's just madly in love and Lindsey is married so nothing's going to actually happen between them, it's just curiosity to how things turn out. Besides i think Lindsey has a very strong personality and will soften himand tell him her real fellings. or not because it's Tom writing the story and not me,i guess. he's just too desperate because she doesn't love him that he has drew upon desperate resources to get his objective. different points of view, i suppose. things are getting exciting and i want to see how it all turns out in the end, just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 9, 2014 22:31:16 GMT
Oh, she'll see you, alright: the big target of aggression you've turned yourself into for kidnapping the students :< Yes, as I've mentioned before (and so have others) the ship really does seem to have overlooked that possibility. Maybe it assumed Lindsey wouldn't find out, or misjudged her as being shallow enough that she'd forget all about her charges (and presumably Bud - who, come to think of it, hasn't been mentioned in this chapter at all) upon seeing the ship in its new form. Or maybe it doesn't even realize that what it's done would be perceived by Lindsey as kidnapping. As I've mentioned in other threads, the ship/Seraph scheme makes most sense if the schemers don't realize how dangerous Zimmy's powers are (would the ship want to go through with this plan if it thought that exposure to Zimmy's world would kill it or drive it so mad that it forgot all about its desire for Lindsey?), so they don't realize that they're endangering the students. (This raises the question I've raised in past threads about how they made that critical research failure, but since we've no new information on that, I won't say anything further on it.) As for the actions in the dance room - since it sent the children (except for Kat, Paz, and Zimmy) out of the room rather than tying them up or placing them under guard in a corner - and didn't even bother sending any robots out to patrol the rest of the ship and watch over them throughout - it might not have seen those as kidnapping, either. Though I can't help wondering if (or the Seraphs) had even thought ahead to what to do about all those witnesses who might report this to the Court (and who, in a way, already have). Maybe the ship's wits were too besotted with lust to consider the next part - especially if it's already overlooked that Lindsey is the chaperone of the very children it's interfering with. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Oct 10, 2014 0:38:31 GMT
N.Tashley's first post said about 90% of the things I was going to say, so good job to her! Expressed what I was trying to say in the last thread much better than I could have (tho not about the BDSM. I'm of the opinion that it's generally a bad idea). Welcome to the forum N.Tashley! Hope to discuss less serious things with you in the future. While thinking about these robot's idea and capacity of love, I remember Robot realizing his love for Shadow. And what we've seen of their interactions indicate a much healthier relationship, as Robot has constantly proven that he tries to do things in Shadow's best interest and safety (like helping him escape when the S1s attacked them on the roof). Either being around Kat and Annie has showed him what real love is like, or at some point during the many times he was reassembled, something was changed. (Assuming all the robots inherited this obsessive "love" of Diego's.) This is an interesting theory! Someone accidentally reversed the polarity of his relationo-emotional chip, perhaps?  Though I do think it's probably more likely that he just saw it in Annie and Kat, I like this hypothesis... |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 10, 2014 3:00:30 GMT
You keep saying ends are good, but are they? What are his ends? I don't appreciate being told I'm taking things out of proportion, when people are saying abuse is "romantic, in a way" and there are "good ends". I haven't noticed anyone saying that abuse is romantic. There is some argument over precisely what constitutes abuse, but that isn't the same thing. Similarly, I haven't noticed anyone saying that the ship's ends are "good". Just that they are "not evil" (there is an area between good and evil - actions or intentions with no discernible moral consequence). Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I was the first one to say the ship's ends are not evil, and I immediately followed that by pointing out that the ship is using evil means. Hardly a whitewash job. When lambasting people for what they say, please pick something someone actually said. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Oct 10, 2014 4:36:10 GMT
I haven't noticed anyone saying that abuse is romantic. There is some argument over precisely what constitutes abuse, but that isn't the same thing. Similarly, I haven't noticed anyone saying that the ship's ends are "good". Just that they are "not evil" (there is an area between good and evil - actions or intentions with no discernible moral consequence). Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I was the first one to say the ship's ends are not evil, and I immediately followed that by pointing out that the ship is using evil means. Hardly a whitewash job. When lambasting people for what they say, please pick something someone actually said. To be fair, I said both of these things at some point...sort of. First:
I said in one of my first posts on this thread that the Ship's 'ends were good, but its means were bad'. I later clarified that I mean that his ends were 'not evil', which is much truer than the flippant, rhetorical way I stated the first one. The first was a misstatement, and I apologize.
Second:
I also said that the Ship's love towards Lindsey romantic in a way. I stand by that - but I also did not ever say that abuse was romantic (nor do i think so). I just see this situation very much as the Ship trying to be romantic, and being pushed by the Seraphs to act on it in awful, awful ways. If we read carefully, all of the threats and physical abuse are done my the Seraphs (the power-stealing, the grabbing of Zimmy, and possibly the plan itself). The Ship's actually very polite and request-y. See my compendium of all of its lines for evidence.
If anything, the Seraphs are the ones doing the abuse, while the Ship is turning a blind eye (or an ignorant eye). That itself is awful, but the Ship then is not the one perpetrating the abuse (instead, he's enabling it, which is wrong in a different way).
TLDR: in my headcanon, Ship's being romantic (and enabling) while Seraphs are being actively abusive. The Ship/Seraphs' method is terrible and unethical and dangerous, but the ends (for the Ship to be noticed by his crush and get a bio-mechanical makeover) are not evil themselves. This, of course, could be entirely reversed by the update coming in 2 hours and 25 minutes, rending either of out arguments moot. |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Oct 10, 2014 5:36:57 GMT
You'd think people would have noticed the giant heart with a question mark floating in the middle of the ship before now...
|
|
|
|
Post by KMar on Oct 10, 2014 13:32:40 GMT
AHHHHHH IT BURNS MY EYES The thing people can never get about calculus is that 'infinitely close' IS 'equals'. There's no difference. Meh. Discuss. (heh heh) (While I don't disagree with you,) I'd even stay clear away from such a vague term like "infinitely close" unless a more rigorous definition for what's meant by "infinitely close" is provided (and these internet forum discussions are not usually a very good place for introductory lesson in calculus). Because of fascinating quirk of decimal number system, 0.999... is just another representation for the same number as 1. But guess what's even more interesting: 0.1 is in base 16 0.19999999999999... and in binary 0.00011001100110011... |
|
