Book 3 - Page 165

Dun...dun...dungeon

Book 3 - Page 165
Comic - Book 3 - Page 165
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Xellos wrote:
Yrutan wrote:
The way I see it Bill acted like a child. He found a new friend and a new game to play with when suddenly he gets rejected with no explanation. So he tried poking a bit when he did not get any answer (exactly like a child would).


Then he tried raping her. Exactly like a... o w8


You're joking but that actually would be a valid extension of that analogy. Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Keybounce wrote:
(14 pages people! Slow down and let the late comers add to the discussion :-)


No.

Knott wrote:
Yeah, those analytical methods do exist and can be applied in an objective and intellectual discussion about the subject. However, the frequency of victim-blaming/shaming that surfaces, and were even used by athority figures that was supposed to protect the victim, is shifting a substancial portion (if not all of it) of the blame for the cause of the damage onto the victim.

And do so with poor, rhetoric arguments such as: "She dressed like a whore. How was this young man supposed to control himself?"

And the truth of the matter as that most victims already do blame themselves (Bunny certainly did). And they do not need everyone else to follow suit. They need help to understand that this was not their fault!

People don't choose to become targets of of crime. (They can certainly be reckless about how they present themselves)
But ultimately it is the criminal that makes the choice to commit the crime.


I'm not sure if you were trying to agree with me or refute me. Everything you wrote could be summed up with what I wrote in the paragraphs above the ones you quoted, but you left those out.

Diodri wrote:
Does anyone else notice this or am I just crazy?


No, a few of us have notice the same thing. Personally I can't be sure it's not just an artifact of the artistic styles changing over time as the teams have changed. I guess we'll find out if she keeps getting softer as time goes on.
Silas wrote:
Bunny has a Duty to the discipline but it's to the discipline as a whole, not the GMTA specifically. Their interpretation of what's best for the discipline is morally no more right then hers, unless it's simply a numbers game.

Zeroeth law problem?
Who or what is "the discipline (of thinkamancy)"? Who can say what is in the best interest of thinkamancy?
This groups claims to know, and apparently this claim is accepted (perhaps for lack of alternatives?).

Silas wrote:
As for might makes right, sure that can be the GMTA's argument, but that just makes them assholes.

No kidding.
I suppose they can't help losing emotion - from what we've seen, any decision takes time to reach (if it is reached at all).
Trying to reach a decision on something emotional probably takes a lot longer than something that is merely factual.
Which may be why they have no empathy as a group. They literally don't have enough time to be considerate...
Quote:
I agree with nearly everything you said, except for that bolded sentence. Bill wasn't abusing Bunny in order to get an explanation. He was doing it to force her compliance


Agreed, the point I was trying to make was that Bill was attempting to force Bunny to return to what they had, it's possible (but not guaranteed) that if the GMTA had explained to him the situation or taken at least some care in their actions he may not reacted the way he did.

Now obviously none of this is guaranteed to work and none of it in any way diminishes Bill's responsibility for his actions.
Slayorious wrote:
This entire post is presumptuous. You don't know anywhere near enough about me to make any kind of claims about whether or not I have been faced with any kind of situation similar to those being portrayed in the book or in your own hypothetical.
If it's "presumptuous" of me to assume you're a human being who has once in your entire life done a minor favor for a person you trust, then by ALL means feel free to clarify that you are in actual fact a robot. Then I'd gladly concede my point as being irrelevant to you, since my post referred to "human nature".
ryanroyce wrote:
Xellos wrote:
Yrutan wrote:
The way I see it Bill acted like a child. He found a new friend and a new game to play with when suddenly he gets rejected with no explanation. So he tried poking a bit when he did not get any answer (exactly like a child would).


Then he tried raping her. Exactly like a... o w8

Yrutan wrote:
It kind of reminds me of the Do you want to build a snowman scene from Frozen except it all goes downhill from here. What I am still struggling with is how Bill manage to turn so wrong but I guess this is what happen when you don't actually have a childhood to learn about proper behaviour and you are being thrust directly in "adult" life.


Erfworld units are popped with all the knowledge necessary (how would they learn to poo in the loo?). This one was popped weird.


I think that's the point of what Yrutan is saying. Bill "popped weird" with a child-like mentality that Erfworlders are supposed to skip. Bill didn't, at least in regards to specific aspects of his psyche, and is mentally ill (as opposed to intentionally sadistic) because of it. This in no way excuses his behavior, though.


Bill is not child-like. In this update he was reduced to a child-like state of helplessness by the thought of reliving his torture, but in the pages where we've seen inside his head, it is NOT child-like in there. Twisted, yes, but NOT innocent, unaware of consequences, or naive.
0beron wrote:
If it's "presumptuous" of me to assume you're a human being who has once in your entire life done a minor favor for a person you trust, then by ALL means feel free to clarify that you are in actual fact a robot. Then I'd gladly concede my point as being irrelevant to you, since my post referred to "human nature".


I'll refer you to my previous comment about dehumanization:

Slayorious wrote:
While I'm open to discussion about Erfworld I think I'll pass on baiting into your dehumanization of my own personality.


I do minor favors all the time, but I'm also willing to accept responsibility when my actions have led to some undesired consequences. Your robot is made of straw.
Diodri wrote:
Does anyone else notice this or am I just crazy?


I've definitely noticed this but I haven't been able to decide if that's because Maggie has indeed softened up, or if it's just the way she's drawn by any given artist.
Slayorious wrote:
Diodri wrote:
Does anyone else notice this or am I just crazy?


I've definitely noticed this but I haven't been able to decide if that's because Maggie has indeed softened up, or if it's just the way she's drawn by any given artist.


Given Parson has explicitly mentioned it, it's intentional that her Signamancy has changed.
Slayorious wrote:
Diodri wrote:
Does anyone else notice this or am I just crazy?


I've definitely noticed this but I haven't been able to decide if that's because Maggie has indeed softened up, or if it's just the way she's drawn by any given artist.

The examples given by Diodri are not indicative of signamancy changes. The later examples Diodri posted showed Maggie in thinkspace, and that's inner beauty.
dsollen wrote:
Corieu wrote:


Its telling that most people would consider "ok" if Bill "abused" his dolls as long as they did not have any "string atached" to a unit. Wich brings me to these questions:

Being erfworld the way it is, what is the real difference, for a king/lord of a side, between a doll and a real being? Arent both just "units" to be ordered?
What is the difference, in Erfworld, between ordering a doll to have sex with and ordering a unit to have sex with?
What is the real difference between what Bill does and what Charlie has the Archons doing?


This update also raises interesting real-life questions. Is people who have sex with sex-dolls potential abusers? Is it a symptom of a sickness? Is it just another odd fetish out there? It should be accepted by society as "normal" (as in culturally accepted)? It shoud be treated? It should be frowned upon?

Of course, real dolls dont have real links with real human beings, but a person who has sex with a doll really similar to a real human being could be considered a potential threat for this person and a judge could consider a warrant against it? (I dont know if warrant is the correct word in english here. I was trying to say when someone goes to a court against another and a judge decides that one person cant get x miles/meters near the other person).

Lots of food for thougt.


I'm completely okay with Bill 'assaulting' a doll, as I understand they work, and see no moral conundrum there at all. I believe that dolls are implied to not be sapient or sentient, their more like automated machines with some basic AI. Assuming this is true then they have no feelings to hurt, they can not be upset or feel pain, no harm can be done to them. You might as well ask if someone is abusing their computer when they watch porn by forcing the computer to be part of a sexual activity without it's consent.


Likewise I don't care about people doing anything with a sex doll, unless they are so obsessed with one that they let their real life suffer, but that wouldn't be a problem with the doll itself just that any obsession can be harmful when taken to extreme.

As to punishing anyone for something like sex with a doll, no or many levels. Punishing people for actions that do no harm because of a claim they may one day suddenly slip to doing harm is dangerous on many levels. There is no reason to presume someone sense of morality and human decency will suddenly shut off, that one day their forget that a real human has feelings and shouldn't be raped just because they enjoyed some odd fantasy.

After all how many people have at some point fantasized about or consumed pornographic depictions/stories of some sort of theme that some would see as potentially harmful, such as rape, abusive sex, mindcontrol, incest, sex with someone under 18, bestiality, snuff etc. Without going into morality of each, I think we can say that there are many who would be upset if someone did any of the above in real life; but if you arrested or punished anyone who ever had a fantasy about them you would run out of jail cells very fast, judging by the prevalence of such themes in pornography. It's clear that a large percentage of people have had fantasies about things others wouldn't approve of their acting on at some point, but most *don't*, because at the end of the day were human and know the difference about enjoying a simple fantasy and actually harming someone. Studies have in fact suggested people with ready access to pornography with themes like the above are *less* likely to engage in those activities in real life, because they have an outlet for their fantasies that doesn't harm others. The slippery slope argument is proven flawed.

Furthermore, the idea of punishing people for above fantasies I believe is based more off of punishing someone for their differences, for having a fetish that is unusual, then any realistic fear of their acting on it. Take out the sexual aspect and ask if the argument still feels valid to you.

I have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, I spent years learning how to hurt people with my hands and feet (sort of, Tae Kwon Do isn't really that practical a martial art lol). Would anyone argue that I'm going to go out and assault someone at random just because I practice? I have kicked, punched, and stabbed humanoid kicking dummies, equivalent to dolls, on numerous occasions, is the fact that they look like humans mean I'll no longer be able to stop myself from striking real humans? I've even struck real humans, when sparing, surely the fact that I've not limited myself to dolls and have developed skills that would make me more dangerous if I did go on an attack spree (...in theory) would make my training more scary, someone who uses a sex doll doesn't become a more capable rapist after all.

However, no one is worried about my attacking people, in fact I'm a bit of a quasi-pacifist. The only reason the whole sex-doll idea might sound different is because it's unusual and bogged down by all our sexual taboos, while martial arts is commonly accepted.

And, the moment you risk punishing people for 'sexual deviancy' because you don't understand something, rather then because it's actually harming someone, your going down a dangerous path. Think how horrible homosexuals were treated not to long ago, still are treated in many parts of the world, for being different when it doesn't harm others. Who knows, in a generation maybe everyone will have their own personal sex bot and consider using one as normal as masturbation and look back on any of us heathens who didn't understand it as simply bigoted and evil folks :)


When I talked about the difference between a doll and a unit, I meant as a ruler see a low unit like infantry or something. For a ruler, in Erfworld, units are nothing.
Thats pretty clear on the updates where we have someone (Maggie I think) tell that Parson`s refuse to order the Archons to have sex with them is rather strange, but cute.
You went the route that units have feelings, and agree with you. But Erf seems to not agree with that.

So...why is it ok for a ruler to order any unit to have sex with him but its strange for a dollamancer to have sex with dolls?