fucking child robots - robopedophilia

RMPGP

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
3,880
1
238
#1
This was an interesting discussion on Monday's show. Obviously it brings up issues larger than robopedophilia, but that issue allows us to examine the macro issues on a micro scale.

Should we allow pederasts to violate robots that look like kids?

Fez said it is a machine and shouldn't matter. Ron's point was that if the robot has intelligence, it would be wrong just as it's wrong to so against any other intelligent being.

They were almost arguing on two different levels. Fez was arguing that a machine cannot be alive and therefore cannot be violated. A machine has no soul. Ron was arguing that if a machine is self-aware and intelligent, and thus the same as a human being, it is wrong to violate it. I would argue they are both right.

The machine that Fez describes is not a human, nor does it possess the same mental traits of a human.

Could we make a machine self-aware? That is to say, could we make life out of a machine? Even non-intelligent creatures with life are self-aware on some level (moreso they are externally aware). Our computers right now are more sophisticated than the cognitive hardware of their brains.

Life isn't intelligent by nature. A base definition of life is that it is externally aware and has the ability to reproduce. Life is in some ways independent of a physical host. That is to say it's a consciousness we cannot see, and at one point in time does not exist, then one day comes into existence, and then someday leaves existence. The physical host is traceable on a physical level before the life exists and after the life exists. The life (the soul on some level) cannot be traced in this way.


It even seems to me that the essence of intelligent life... the ability to be self aware isn't as simple as just being self aware. That is to say, there has to be a self to be aware of before you are self aware. What is this self that we are aware of? Basically it's the primitive form of life described above: a physical host that is externally aware and has the ability to reproduce. It's more than just being intelligent.

We can't even create a simple form of life let alone a complex one. Let alone creating an intelligent sentient robotic child being that looks like a child... and then allowing kid touchers to have their way with. Unless you live in Robot Thailand of course.

So I feel Fez is correct in thinking it would be a dumb device that looks like a kid, and it's different than actual child porn in that no real children would be required to create it. So I feel like Ron & Fez were correct in this debate. Fez in the current world we live in and Ron in the future world where robots take over.
 

hotshot70

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
334
0
0
Iowa USA
#4
a robot does not have feelings, so it cannot feel pain or love. they do not make robot baby sex dolls because the visual conotation is considered bad by most. And robots follow the prime directive which has 3 rules.
1. A robot is programmed to help humans
2. A robot cannot be programmed to harm a human
3. A robot that harms a human would immediate self-destruct
 

burky79

62 75 72 6b 79 37 39
Feb 18, 2005
4,341
0
236
in a house
#8
(Movie Still from Artificial Intelligence)
yup, i know that.
i was just saying the christ on a pony line cause it was funny and hahahaha and smiley man are over used.
so im stealing an ant line - "christ on a pony" is now my hahahaha.

damn, too long an explanation for not much humor. i stink.

hahhahaha
:icon_bigg
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#9
yup, i know that.
i was just saying the christ on a pony line cause it was funny and hahahaha and smiley man are over used.
so im stealing an ant line - "christ on a pony" is now my hahahaha.

damn, too long an explanation for not much humor. i stink.

hahhahaha
:icon_bigg
In hindsight, I got it...I am really drunk!