First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Sexbots
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
There was so much feminist rhetoric in that post, I need to switch to my laptop to thoroughly blow it up. It's quite unfortunate that every time you think a man may have a legitimate argument, he regresses back into a state of mangina when he goes to his "points" of women doing "better" in a society that builds double standards to do so.

It seems gynocentrism is embedded so far in your psyche that I'll need to use the power of MGTOW philosophers to blow through your idiotic claims and examples. I'll be back, and I'll list each point as to why that entire wall made any self respecting male or female wanna vomit.

Even if you've been infected by the leftist agenda, you'd realize why your assertion of women doing better(with lower morale overall) is by far the most cancerous thing I've ever heard, specifically about education. For this reply, I'll need to use Prayger University in conjunction with MGTOW philosophers as you seem to be very, very, very far gone since you equated doing better in college as an example.

You'll have to wait a bit for the reply though, it's going to be overly detailed and you're gonna gloss over most of it, but the audience doesn't deserve to accept that toxic ideology as a final comment. Lol
8016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

There was so much feminist rhetoric in that post, I need to switch to my laptop to thoroughly blow it up. It's quite unfortunate that every time you think a man may have a legitimate argument, he regresses back into a state of mangina when he goes to his "points" of women doing "better" in a society that builds double standards to do so.

It seems gynocentrism is embedded so far in your psyche that I'll need to use the power of MGTOW philosophers to blow through your idiotic claims and examples. I'll be back, and I'll list each point as to why that entire wall made any self respecting male or female wanna vomit.

Even if you've been infected by the leftist agenda, you'd realize why your assertion of women doing better(with lower morale overall) is by far the most cancerous thing I've ever heard, specifically about education. For this reply, I'll need to use Prayger University in conjunction with MGTOW philosophers as you seem to be very, very, very far gone since you equated doing better in college as an example.

You'll have to wait a bit for the reply though, it's going to be overly detailed and you're gonna gloss over most of it, but the audience doesn't deserve to accept that toxic ideology as a final comment. Lol




I don't see a man being with a robot any worse then a man being with another man, i proudly would support both, but with your argument, you would think you have a problem with gay couples as well, because it removes the ability to reproduce and takes power away from woman.

do you also want to end gay relationships?
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
Robot: Beep boop, would you like to put your penis in my mechanical whir vagina?

Me: No thanks. I still have hands.
1456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a machine for sex.

The only valid "ethical complaints" are split into two categories, in my humble opinion:

1. If they have real artificial intelligence, to the point that they are sentient beings on par with human intelligence or greater.

2. If they are capable of somehow reproducing via an "artificial womb". Or artificial balls for that matter, I guess.

For point 1, I think that there are plenty of potential issues. First of all, designing something that has the same ability as a human to think and feel makes the very idea of forcing them into the role of a "sex bot" abhorrent to me. There's literally no difference if they make proper AI between the AI itself, and any human that they are meant to replace - so they should have the same rights.

This of course means then that many of the supposed "sex bots" would have the choice not to be sex bots, and that leads to the exact same situation as before.

So them having actual artificial intelligence is pretty much out of the question - though highly advanced programming that isn't quite on the level of human sentience (or even on the level of animal-level intelligence) would be perfectly fine.

For point 2, the issues are myriad.

First of all, the kinds of people who aren't willing to go through the stress and effort of finding a real person to have as a mate are far from being the same sorts of people that I and many others would trust to raise children.

Secondly, if you want the machine to do the raising instead, then why even have a child? If you're perfectly happy with a machine as a wife, then why not just have a machine as a child? They are both equally artificial, and while they might help fulfill your sadness and deal with your issues, they can never truly be more than an escape until the day that artificial intelligence that is "True" AI becomes a reality.

By then, point 1 will become an issue again.

In short: there's no way to have a sex bot that can properly serve the same purpose of an actual relationship with a human being unless they have artificial intelligence properly developed, and at that point you might as well just pursue a real person unless you want to essentially make them sex slaves instead. If they remain as machines without any intelligence, then that's one thing, but the moment you give them sentience is the moment you have no right to control their wills.

The very idea of making sex bots able to do more than just sex and basic chores and such screams of conceit and is honestly pathetic. If you don't have the personal capability of interacting with another sentient being without them being essentially your slave, then you have a problem. Obviously, they aren't slaves if they aren't actually sentient, but you should get the idea by now.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

lukedollo wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

There was so much feminist rhetoric in that post, I need to switch to my laptop to thoroughly blow it up. It's quite unfortunate that every time you think a man may have a legitimate argument, he regresses back into a state of mangina when he goes to his "points" of women doing "better" in a society that builds double standards to do so.

It seems gynocentrism is embedded so far in your psyche that I'll need to use the power of MGTOW philosophers to blow through your idiotic claims and examples. I'll be back, and I'll list each point as to why that entire wall made any self respecting male or female wanna vomit.

Even if you've been infected by the leftist agenda, you'd realize why your assertion of women doing better(with lower morale overall) is by far the most cancerous thing I've ever heard, specifically about education. For this reply, I'll need to use Prayger University in conjunction with MGTOW philosophers as you seem to be very, very, very far gone since you equated doing better in college as an example.

You'll have to wait a bit for the reply though, it's going to be overly detailed and you're gonna gloss over most of it, but the audience doesn't deserve to accept that toxic ideology as a final comment. Lol




I don't see a man being with a robot any worse then a man being with another man, i proudly would support both, but with your argument, you would think you have a problem with gay couples as well, because it removes the ability to reproduce and takes power away from woman.

do you also want to end gay relationships?


Hahaha! The bait and switch!

MGTOW philosophers aren't about just theory, they talk while looking at data and statistics and examine how things how, not how they think they are.

The reason why I have an edge here is because this is a topic I'm knowledgeable about. This is topic where your agenda and emotions are the driving force and you don't necessarily have a general idea of what ways men and women naturally interact and which one has the edge over the other.

If you reply with egalitarianism speech that men and women are equal, I seriously won't debate with you. Which would be a shame since debates are both fun and insightful. But blind allegiance would stop anyone in their tracks.

You asked me if I opposed gay relationships. I don't oppose them. I don't support them either though.

Here's a question that it sure to short circuit your brain as you scramble for a PC reply. Which one is objectively superior, men or women? You can take objective qualities into account that would be useful for survival such as physical and mental prowess.

If you can't honestly put your weight behind an answer, than it will be clear I'm dealing with Male Feminist, or at least a gynocentric male.

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

dichologos wrote:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a machine for sex.

The only valid "ethical complaints" are split into two categories, in my humble opinion:

1. If they have real artificial intelligence, to the point that they are sentient beings on par with human intelligence or greater.

2. If they are capable of somehow reproducing via an "artificial womb". Or artificial balls for that matter, I guess.

For point 1, I think that there are plenty of potential issues. First of all, designing something that has the same ability as a human to think and feel makes the very idea of forcing them into the role of a "sex bot" abhorrent to me. There's literally no difference if they make proper AI between the AI itself, and any human that they are meant to replace - so they should have the same rights.

This of course means then that many of the supposed "sex bots" would have the choice not to be sex bots, and that leads to the exact same situation as before.

So them having actual artificial intelligence is pretty much out of the question - though highly advanced programming that isn't quite on the level of human sentience (or even on the level of animal-level intelligence) would be perfectly fine.

For point 2, the issues are myriad.

First of all, the kinds of people who aren't willing to go through the stress and effort of finding a real person to have as a mate are far from being the same sorts of people that I and many others would trust to raise children.

Secondly, if you want the machine to do the raising instead, then why even have a child? If you're perfectly happy with a machine as a wife, then why not just have a machine as a child? They are both equally artificial, and while they might help fulfill your sadness and deal with your issues, they can never truly be more than an escape until the day that artificial intelligence that is "True" AI becomes a reality.

By then, point 1 will become an issue again.

In short: there's no way to have a sex bot that can properly serve the same purpose of an actual relationship with a human being unless they have artificial intelligence properly developed, and at that point you might as well just pursue a real person unless you want to essentially make them sex slaves instead. If they remain as machines without any intelligence, then that's one thing, but the moment you give them sentience is the moment you have no right to control their wills.

The very idea of making sex bots able to do more than just sex and basic chores and such screams of conceit and is honestly pathetic. If you don't have the personal capability of interacting with another sentient being without them being essentially your slave, then you have a problem. Obviously, they aren't slaves if they aren't actually sentient, but you should get the idea by now.


> Robot Sentience

> Robot Rights

> Robot Consent

> Robot Choice

If you let me run unfiltered for a second -- I think you're borderline insane asylum.
1456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Hahaha! The bait and switch!

MGTOW philosophers aren't about just theory, they talk while looking at data and statistics and examine how things how, not how they think they are.

The reason why I have an edge here is because this is a topic I'm knowledgeable about. This is topic where your agenda and emotions are the driving force and you don't necessarily have a general idea of what ways men and women naturally interact and which one has the edge over the other.

If you reply with egalitarianism speech that men and women are equal, I seriously won't debate with you. Which would be a shame since debates are both fun and insightful. But blind allegiance would stop anyone in their tracks.

You asked me if I opposed gay relationships. I don't oppose them. I don't support them either though.

Here's a question that it sure to short circuit your brain as you scramble for a PC reply. Which one is objectively superior, men or women? You can take objective qualities into account that would be useful for survival such as physical and mental prowess.

If you can't honestly put your weight behind an answer, than it will be clear I'm dealing with Male Feminist, or at least a gynocentric male.



Objectively superior? You're joking, right?

Survival qualities in the modern world entail primarily intellectual abilities. So men have no real advantage there, despite us having generally better skeletal and musculature ability to females on average due to our genes.

On the front of intellectual abilities, men and women seem to excel in different fields - but regardless, the difference between dumb people and smart people is a huge gulf that the vast majority of both men and women fall towards the dumb side of. I have seen some studies on intellectual abilities between sexes, but to my knowledge they tend to be minor at best and more and more irrelevant as you get closer to the upper levels of intellect - the sort of thing that actually allows you to contribute a lot to humanity.

Though actual survival abilities are not relevant to your strength or your brains so much as your ability to earn money and build relationships in the modern world, and women tend to be just as good as men at building relationships and garnering support as men.

We aren't living in some post-apocalyptic or cave-man society where "survival skills" are relevant. At least for the most part.

Even if we were, I can say for sure that you are objectively inferior in intelligence to me for even bringing up such a pointless argument at all. I bet I could beat you up, too (that's just my statistical assumption though), so +1 to physical prowess right there. I'm not so sure about social skills, but given that you seem to find great joy in starting arguments over stupid things, I can't see you having very strong ones.
1456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


dichologos wrote:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a machine for sex.

The only valid "ethical complaints" are split into two categories, in my humble opinion:

1. If they have real artificial intelligence, to the point that they are sentient beings on par with human intelligence or greater.

2. If they are capable of somehow reproducing via an "artificial womb". Or artificial balls for that matter, I guess.

For point 1, I think that there are plenty of potential issues. First of all, designing something that has the same ability as a human to think and feel makes the very idea of forcing them into the role of a "sex bot" abhorrent to me. There's literally no difference if they make proper AI between the AI itself, and any human that they are meant to replace - so they should have the same rights.

This of course means then that many of the supposed "sex bots" would have the choice not to be sex bots, and that leads to the exact same situation as before.

So them having actual artificial intelligence is pretty much out of the question - though highly advanced programming that isn't quite on the level of human sentience (or even on the level of animal-level intelligence) would be perfectly fine.

For point 2, the issues are myriad.

First of all, the kinds of people who aren't willing to go through the stress and effort of finding a real person to have as a mate are far from being the same sorts of people that I and many others would trust to raise children.

Secondly, if you want the machine to do the raising instead, then why even have a child? If you're perfectly happy with a machine as a wife, then why not just have a machine as a child? They are both equally artificial, and while they might help fulfill your sadness and deal with your issues, they can never truly be more than an escape until the day that artificial intelligence that is "True" AI becomes a reality.

By then, point 1 will become an issue again.

In short: there's no way to have a sex bot that can properly serve the same purpose of an actual relationship with a human being unless they have artificial intelligence properly developed, and at that point you might as well just pursue a real person unless you want to essentially make them sex slaves instead. If they remain as machines without any intelligence, then that's one thing, but the moment you give them sentience is the moment you have no right to control their wills.

The very idea of making sex bots able to do more than just sex and basic chores and such screams of conceit and is honestly pathetic. If you don't have the personal capability of interacting with another sentient being without them being essentially your slave, then you have a problem. Obviously, they aren't slaves if they aren't actually sentient, but you should get the idea by now.


> Robot Sentience

> Robot Rights

> Robot Consent

> Robot Choice

If you let me run unfiltered for a second -- I think you're borderline insane asylum.


I specifically mentioned artificial intelligence as being the only way in which those things should apply.

Artificial intelligence meaning intelligence that is indistinguishable from our own.

Any human being who respects that a person should have certain fundamental rights or any rights can only base those rights, logically, in what separates us from anything else without rights. For humans, that is primarily our own sentience and intelligence, so it also stands to reason that if we could create something with equal or greater intelligence which is sentient it should be afforded the same rights as us.

Though I suppose those who think that humans are "chosen by God" or something similar, or that only humans can ever have "real" intelligence would disagree with this point, such individuals are not worthy of my time.

11732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
inb4 half of them is miku
there would be 1 fuckton of miku kids walking around n maybe boning each other
41687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
This sounds like some shit from Futurama.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

dichologos wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

Hahaha! The bait and switch!

MGTOW philosophers aren't about just theory, they talk while looking at data and statistics and examine how things how, not how they think they are.

The reason why I have an edge here is because this is a topic I'm knowledgeable about. This is topic where your agenda and emotions are the driving force and you don't necessarily have a general idea of what ways men and women naturally interact and which one has the edge over the other.

If you reply with egalitarianism speech that men and women are equal, I seriously won't debate with you. Which would be a shame since debates are both fun and insightful. But blind allegiance would stop anyone in their tracks.

You asked me if I opposed gay relationships. I don't oppose them. I don't support them either though.

Here's a question that it sure to short circuit your brain as you scramble for a PC reply. Which one is objectively superior, men or women? You can take objective qualities into account that would be useful for survival such as physical and mental prowess.

If you can't honestly put your weight behind an answer, than it will be clear I'm dealing with Male Feminist, or at least a gynocentric male.



Objectively superior? You're joking, right?

Survival qualities in the modern world entail primarily intellectual abilities. So men have no real advantage there, despite us having generally better skeletal and musculature ability to females on average due to our genes.

On the front of intellectual abilities, men and women seem to excel in different fields - but regardless, the difference between dumb people and smart people is a huge gulf that the vast majority of both men and women fall towards the dumb side of. I have seen some studies on intellectual abilities between sexes, but to my knowledge they tend to be minor at best and more and more irrelevant as you get closer to the upper levels of intellect - the sort of thing that actually allows you to contribute a lot to humanity.

Though actual survival abilities are not relevant to your strength or your brains so much as your ability to earn money and build relationships in the modern world, and women tend to be just as good as men at building relationships and garnering support as men.

We aren't living in some post-apocalyptic or cave-man society where "survival skills" are relevant. At least for the most part.

Even if we were, I can say for sure that you are objectively inferior in intelligence to me for even bringing up such a pointless argument at all. I bet I could beat you up, too (that's just my statistical assumption though), so +1 to physical prowess right there. I'm not so sure about social skills, but given that you seem to find great joy in starting arguments over stupid things, I can't see you having very strong ones.


If I link a detailed study that lists the differences between men and women, or even if I spend 3 days explaining them here. Somehow, with some impressive mental gymnastics, you will somehow come to the conclusion that gender doesn't influence anything objective about a person whatsoever and you will manage to return to a "men and women are equivalent" mindset.

Egalitarianism is the support for gender equality under the law. Nothing else, nobody was talking about lawful equivalency. We were talking objective natural criteria.

I don't think I asked you, but you were certainly also welcome to answer. But the reason why I shoot down Social Justice and PC brigades is because they aren't about facts or how things are, they are trying not to offend people, which isn't bad inherently, but it's hard to debate with people who aren't intellectually honest.

It's Crunchyroll, so nobody will really push too far. But being intellectually honest isn't a bad trait. If honesty offends people, that isn't a legitimate reason to keel over and lock up. That's not the kind of mentality that will lend itself well to a deep conversation about biology and gender psychology, which are worth discussing. Some scientists even say men and women could be considered sub species because of the amount of biological and psychological differences. Men and women are not equivalents, leave man made law in the back of your mind, we are talking about men and women as animals. Not as scribbles on a law form. That makes no sense.

So I think I'm perfectly justified in leaving a dead horse if one of the parties has to manufacture thoughts to not offend a certain collective.
8016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Hahaha! The bait and switch!

MGTOW philosophers aren't about just theory, they talk while looking at data and statistics and examine how things how, not how they think they are.

The reason why I have an edge here is because this is a topic I'm knowledgeable about. This is topic where your agenda and emotions are the driving force and you don't necessarily have a general idea of what ways men and women naturally interact and which one has the edge over the other.

If you reply with egalitarianism speech that men and women are equal, I seriously won't debate with you. Which would be a shame since debates are both fun and insightful. But blind allegiance would stop anyone in their tracks.

You asked me if I opposed gay relationships. I don't oppose them. I don't support them either though.

Here's a question that it sure to short circuit your brain as you scramble for a PC reply. Which one is objectively superior, men or women? You can take objective qualities into account that would be useful for survival such as physical and mental prowess.

If you can't honestly put your weight behind an answer, than it will be clear I'm dealing with Male Feminist, or at least a gynocentric male.



24962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:
Humans don't have normal pair bonding sexual tendencies. It was the alpha male who got most women and his seed was the one that continued on. This wasn't an effective strategy since all men want sex, and as tribes/civilization got bigger, the threat of the alpha being killed so someone could take his spot was always extremely high, since they would be plotting it the entire time if other males were around, which they were for hunting and power purposes to protect the tribe from predators and other humans.


There's much more evidence supporting that males bonded and practiced homosexuality, gang rape, and sharing of females. For exactly the reason you mentioned. Alpha males would be murdered. Human predatory tactics revolved around group stalking, surrounding, and ambushing. Obnoxious humans would be isolated and killed in the same manner as prey. So, yeah, not so much normal pair bonding but there was group bonding and there was no alpha male.

But there are tons of conflicting studies and opinions out there.
20644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
I think I'd like sexbots, especially if they can read forums for me and filter out the stupid bullshit.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:
> Robot Sentience

> Robot Rights

> Robot Consent

> Robot Choice

If you let me run unfiltered for a second -- I think you're borderline insane asylum.


What are humans but a carefully crafted bundle of electricity and chemicals? Why is it so farfetched that we could create an artificial human that possesses true intelligence with enough technology? Granted, the technology isn't exactly in the realm of the near future, but when we are able to create something with true intelligence, there will be serious ethical discussions to be had. I am on the side of Robot Rights in that debate, however, as I said, we are tremendously far off from that point and sexbots harm no one.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.