Book 3 - Page 314

Bordollo

Book 3 - Page 314
Comic - Book 3 - Page 314
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Merilynne wrote:
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Darkstar7613 wrote:
Dear Titans I hope today isn't a skip... we can't take 15 more pages of this :?

Personally I'm more dreading the possibility of an early update for this Friday than any skips this week.

The last time we got an early update (like, so early it's still Friday in Australia, early) on Good Friday, I ended up getting banned....

...
I blame Judas. ;)


Do y'all have a different Good Friday? Ours was this past Friday. Or did you mean just any early Friday update?


Orthodox Easter for example doesn't necessarily line up with Catholic Easter.
Carl wrote:
All i can say is welcome to the internet everyone. Your welcome BTW.


You're.

(Now it's REALLY welcome to the internet.)
alowe wrote:
Bobfromjanitorial wrote:
In all these points people are making about how Maggionette did this and not Maggie, and therefore Maggie is 100% Innocents, people seem to fail to notice something.

In Stupidworld, "Conspiracy to commit...", "Accessory too...", and "Accessory after the fact" are all things Maggie could be charged with, if she had given compensation to Maggionette, it would be Soliciting Murder.

Personally, when Bill stole part of Maggie's string to make a doll, that to me is like rape.

Maggionette is like the illegitimate result of that rape. Maggie can't be held responsible for what Maggionette does unless there is some direct or indirect communication from Maggie to Maggionette in which Maggie is consciously asking or directing Maggionette to do something.


If someone rapes me and I kill them 2 days later, I'm still a murderer.

I'll say it again: Eye for an eye is not a legitimate moral defense for killing someone.

Also, Maggionette only knows what she knows because Maggie knows, and Maggie was ACTIVELY feeding knowledge to Maggionette about what she should know.

If you remove Maggie's willful meddling with the Maggionette, you end the situation before it ever happens.

If I build an AI based on an imprint of your brain and it kills me, it's my fault.
If I build an AI based on an imprint of your brain, then you meddle with that AI and it kills me, it's your fault.
Bobfromjanitorial wrote:

If I build an AI based on an imprint of your brain, then you meddle with that AI and it kills me, it's your fault.

"Meddle" in what way? By making it aware that it is an AI? If all I do is inform the AI that it's an AI, and then it chooses to feel anger toward you and act upon those feelings, then I am not responsible.

That's all Maggie did. Page 313:
Quote:
... she might just write an odd new chapter to that story about the doll that thinks she thinks she is Maggie. In that chapter, the makaleka learns about itself.

Now it knows it is not Maggie. It knows it is not alive, and never can be. It knows, only because Maggie knows. The makaleka is a complex expression of empathy from Maggie's own heart and mind.

It's pretty angry about that. Its anger is truth. It knows who created it, and why.


Maggie did not tell the doll to do anything. She did not give any orders. She didn't even give suggestions. She only shared her own knowledge and feelings.

The doll made its/her own decisions after that.
Bobfromjanitorial wrote:
If I build an AI based on an imprint of your brain and it kills me, it's my fault.
If I build an AI based on an imprint of your brain, then you meddle with that AI and it kills me, it's your fault.

Almost exactly what I was saying. Thanks for compressing it down to two sentences.
greycat wrote:

Maggie did not tell the doll to do anything. She did not give any orders. She didn't even give suggestions. She only shared her own knowledge and feelings.

The doll made its/her own decisions after that.


Sharing knowledge is an action. She did it willfully, and she knew the potential consequences of her actions (Because Magionette only knows what Maggie knows, so if Magionette knows she can Kill Bill, it's only because Maggie knows.)

Furthermore, if Maggie knew that telling Magionette she could never be a Real Doll would make Magionette angry, then she is once again culpable for Bill's death. Less so than pulling the trigger herself, but she is still responsible for her actions, and the resulting fallout.

Maggie has been actively engaging the Maggionette for a while (update wise), and those interactions have led us to this point.

So here's a canon reference to think about:
Charlie gave Jillian guns, but didn't tell her he was giving her guns, what guns are, nor what to do with them.
He knew full well that those guns would be used to attack GK.

Is Charlie an innocent bystander or active participant? (contract notwithstanding, given his ability to Carny his way around it)
Bobfromjanitorial wrote:
greycat wrote:

Maggie did not tell the doll to do anything. She did not give any orders. She didn't even give suggestions. She only shared her own knowledge and feelings.

The doll made its/her own decisions after that.


Sharing knowledge is an action. She did it willfully, and she knew the potential consequences of her actions (Because Magionette only knows what Maggie knows, so if Magionette knows she can Kill Bill, it's only because Maggie knows.)

Furthermore, if Maggie knew that telling Magionette she could never be a Real Doll would make Magionette angry, then she is once again culpable for Bill's death. Less so than pulling the trigger herself, but she is still responsible for her actions, and the resulting fallout.

Maggie has been actively engaging the Maggionette for a while (update wise), and those interactions have led us to this point.

So here's a canon reference to think about:
Charlie gave Jillian guns, but didn't tell her he was giving her guns, what guns are, nor what to do with them.
He knew full well that those guns would be used to attack GK.

Is Charlie an innocent bystander or active participant? (contract notwithstanding, given his ability to Carny his way around it)


The problem is that Maggie didn't really tell the doll anything. Maggie came to some realizations, and yes, the doll is privy to them, but not through any direct communication. Let me see if I can explain how I view it...

My best friend has known me since grade school. We have been a part of each other's lives longer than we've been married (to others... lol), longer than we've been parents, longer than a good many on this forum have lived. She knows me, and I know her. We have no secrets, not because we haven't tried, but because when we have tried, the other one can freakin' tell. When we lived thousands of miles apart, I'd need to talk to her and she would call... or I would suddenly get the urge to call and find that she needed me. We're connected by our heart strings. If we were standing a few feet apart and she suddenly had an epiphany, I'd know it. Given whatever circumstances we were in, I might even know exactly what the epiphany was. I might even, (again, given certain circumstances) be tempted to act upon it. She would not be responsible for that action.

If she gave me a gun or knife, knowing I might use it, then, yes, she would be culpable.
That's an analogy I can work with, it sums it up quite well, and I can agree with that interpretation.

The potential difference in the way I'm viewing the situation seems to be two things.

I believe that in this series of events, Maggie is an active participant in Maggionette's evolution. She is acting primarily out of curiosity rather than malice, but realizes the potential malicious applications towards the end, and in doing so transmits those applications to Maggionette.

I also believe that since the murder weapon was not a physical construct, but an idea, that Maggie did hand over the murder weapon, and mere moments (or even milliseconds) before it was used against Bill.

I don't think Maggie's a cold blooded murderer or even a murderer at all.
She'd get manslaughter at worst, accessory at best, with a light sentence based on prior record and Bill's actions towards her previously.

Probation and court ordered therapy!
Casewerker wrote:
kaylasdad99 wrote:
Nonsense. A state of war continues to exist between GK and CC. The fact that the are under a temporary truce does nothing to change that state.


They've never been out of war. They've been under a formal ceasefire (no peace treaty) whose spirit neither side has ever shown the least interest in honoring, even if they have periodically tried to keep its letter. Heck, Charlie specifically created the contract itself with the hidden purpose of using its provisions to destroy Gobwin Knob, and Parson suspected as much. It was a crooked deal from the get-go, and I feel that Charlie has no room to claim the moral high ground on this one. It wasn't a treaty, it was a weapon of war.

I thought Charlie created the contract with the hidden purpose of stopping Gobwin Knob from croaking Jillian.
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Casewerker wrote:
kaylasdad99 wrote:
Nonsense. A state of war continues to exist between GK and CC. The fact that the are under a temporary truce does nothing to change that state.


They've never been out of war. They've been under a formal ceasefire (no peace treaty) whose spirit neither side has ever shown the least interest in honoring, even if they have periodically tried to keep its letter. Heck, Charlie specifically created the contract itself with the hidden purpose of using its provisions to destroy Gobwin Knob, and Parson suspected as much. It was a crooked deal from the get-go, and I feel that Charlie has no room to claim the moral high ground on this one. It wasn't a treaty, it was a weapon of war.

I thought Charlie created the contract with the hidden purpose of stopping Gobwin Knob from croaking Jillian.

There were a lot of purposes for the contract; Charlie doesn't do anything for just one reason. "Don't croak Queen Jill" cannot be considered a hidden purpose when it was both an explicit and prominent term in the contract, and obviously a priority due to the timing. Charlie's reasons for valuing Jillian's life so highly are hidden, but the fact that he does at all is not, not to anyone who knows those terms and has any knowledge of the context whatsoever.