Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3066 to 3070 (12th - 16th October 2015)
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: J on 17 Oct 2015, 08:11 ---ok, subtle doesn't work. fine. how about telling their mutual employer "The new girl won't stop pestering me with personal questions, please tell her to mind her own business." or maybe just ignore any non-work related conversation attempts. or just don't show up at the party. hell, even if we're just talking about this particular incident; bubbles has a running speed of 30 kliks, she can easily remove herself from the situation without damaging innocent masonry.
because even if bubbles is fully in control of her actions, that doesn't change the fact that she's causing property damage and threatening to murder someone who isn't just not threatening her, but is completely incapable of threatening her. all that would mean is that she either couldn't see any of the other options available to her, or that she could see them, and chose that one as being preferable.
so imagine this: if i were a person who carried a handgun on a daily basis, and someone i didn't like wouldn't stop talking to me. and so i pull out my gun and put a few rounds into the wall 10 inches from their head. should i be allowed to keep that gun?
--- End quote ---
Rules of fiction. Show, don't tell. Make it dynamic.
Remember when Pintsize was armed with military grade laser, caused wanton property damage, and Dora assaulted a federal agent?
sitnspin:
--- Quote from: J on 17 Oct 2015, 08:11 ---help me out here; am i completely misunderstanding your point, or are you saying that it's ok to use threats of physical violence and cause property damage, if someone is sufficiently annoying?
--- End quote ---
Annoying is not the issue, psychological harm is the issue. Continuing to pressure someone who is under considerable psychological distress is more than just "annoying". Are threats of violence socially acceptable in most instances? No, but psychological harm is a real thing and a person in within their rights, in my opinion, to defend themselves from it, even when that harm is unintentional.
J:
if we have reason to believe that further loss of temper may cause them to act violently, then i'm pretty sure we do lock them up. whether or not they would 'normally' act that way is basically irrelevant.
secondly, 'all else' has not failed; the argument that because subtlety hasn't worked, 'extreme measures' are necessary is invalid, because it presupposes that there is nothing between "I'm leaving." and "BUBS SMASH!". there are multiple avenues of recourse that have yet been unexplored.
but lets break the situation down:
1) you have an AI housed in a weaponized combat-chasis, who is suffering from emotional instability & psychological illness.
2) said AI who can be driven into a wall-smashing rage by the combination of an annoying coworker and a brief, uncomfortable social situation.
3) said AI either could not recognize that she had multiple non-smashy options available to her (in which case, she was irrational due to her emotional instability, and thus unpredictable), or could do so and consciously chose to smash a wall as her most preferred option (in which case, she is fully responsible for her actions).
4) said AI claims to have been resistant to previous attempts at rehabilitative therapy.
my solution to this is that she be removed form the combat-chasis & moved into something less dangerous. her original to be held in custody pending successful rehabilitative therapy. ie: she can have it back, once she can be reasonably expected to use it responsibly.
what would your solution be?
Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
J:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 17 Oct 2015, 09:37 ---Rules of fiction. Show, don't tell. Make it dynamic.
--- End quote ---
i understand that concept, but don't know how it relates to the post you quoted.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 17 Oct 2015, 09:37 ---Remember when Pintsize was armed with military grade laser, caused wanton property damage, and Dora assaulted a federal agent?
--- End quote ---
i do remember that, and referenced it in some of my earlier posts in order to draw parallels with the current situation. in both cases, an unpredictable AI was in possession of dangerous military hardware & caused property damage with it.
--- Quote from: sitnspin on 17 Oct 2015, 09:37 ---Annoying is not the issue, psychological harm is the issue. Continuing to pressure someone who is under considerable psychological distress is more than just "annoying". Are threats of violence socially acceptable in most instances? No, but psychological harm is a real thing and a person in within their rights, in my opinion, to defend themselves from it, even when that harm is unintentional.
--- End quote ---
ok, granted. however, the issue is not whether or not psychological harm is a real thing, or whether or not a person has the right to defend themselves from it. the issue is whether or not bubbles can be trusted to consistently employ appropriate defenses against said harm.
if hannelore stuck a gun into the face of everyone who tried to shake her hand, we wouldn't say that it's ok because she has the right to defend herself psychologically. we'd say that she lacks the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner, and that someone should take that thing away from her.
sitnspin:
I find punching a wall and brandishing a firearm to be completely incomparable, even for someone as strong as Bubbles. She did not hurt anyone. She just made herself crystal clear.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version