Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

"My sister is crazy! She thinks you want romance in your life!"

6 (10.9%)

"What did you say to Evie? She was really quizzing me on you!"

9 (16.4%)

"Bubbles? Bubbles, are... Are you lonely?"

12 (21.8%)

"So, I'm hearing that you want some robo-lovin'!"

3 (5.5%)

""Um... Do... Do you want a boyfriend? I mean, I want you to know I'm cool with it if you do!"

6 (10.9%)

"So... I hear you guys can download pleasure programs! You got any of those installed?"

1 (1.8%)

"So... Uh... Speakin' hypothetically, how does an AI go about gettin' a significant other?"

6 (10.9%)

"Imagine if the Skate Park was a Robot Sex Dungeon! What would have we done then?"

1 (1.8%)

"My baby sis in a serious relationship! Everyone is pairing up except me! Oh Bubs! Will I ever get lucky?"

4 (7.3%)

Other (please specify in a comment)

7 (12.7%)

Total Members Voted: 53

[Technoir]

Same thing  that happened to panel #6 in this. It's just a stylistic thing Jeph does from time to time to highlight certain beats.

Danke! Never noticed it before, but for some reason it really jumped out at me yesterday.

[dutchrvl]

"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

Pretty much this. From where I'm seeing it, the issue is not with Evie per se, it's simply with the fact that Bubbles is hypersensitive to these issues and can't really deal with that kind of scrutiny. This, after all, is a PTSD-suffering veteran whose main coping mechanism we've seen thus far is explosive violence towards things (that and tea admittedly). Still, it's this kind of scrutiny that is needed to build a greater understanding between people. Thus far we've seen laser-armed sociopath-bots (Pintsize), giant walker death robots (Deathbot 9000), 2.5 meter emotionally unstable Terminators (Bubbles), an omniscient demigod-bot etc. If that's the AI lineup I'm gonna say that "sorry, humanity is trying to understand you and being perceived as rude does not take precedence"

EDIT: Having reviewed the thread a bit more, I'm going to simply say "Yeah, Evie could have been way more diplomatic". Still: Bubbles should have been more clear she personally took offense. "Some might find that offensive" pretty much means "Some, not me", at least where I'm standing.

That last bit is definitely where Bubbles could have been a lot more clear.
Personally, while Bubbles' anger is absolutely justified and should lead to a discussion with Evie so she understands why her approach to AI sociology was not cool, I also find it slightly disappointing that Bubbles felt the need to add the qualifier "for rich people's children". Not only is it completely unnecessary (the sentence reads just as good without it), it also implies that only rich kids are that stupid, which is highly unlikely (not to mention that we've seen no evidence that Evie is such a rich kid).

In addition, Evie did not 'merely shrug it off', she in fact acknowledged that the comparison was offensive. Yes, she could have, and I think should have, apologized for it, but Bubbles misinterprets or misrepresents Evie's response, in my opinion.

[dutchrvl]

Again, a conversation requires two participants. As I said before, Bubbles being hurt by it can be more seen as a reflection of Bubbles than Evie.

Like, if Evie took the exact same tact with Momo we would have seen a really cool discussion, for instance. Ev isn't psychic, she didn't dismiss Bubbles offense when it was brought up, she seems pretty empathetic in a lot of other ways. Bubbles just has a chip on her shoulder which happened to get homed in on with laser precision, which sucks.

So like... chill out, guys?

I agree with your perception that the same conversation with Momo would likely have fared different and probably better.

However, we do not get to decide whether somebody has a reason to be offended. If they are, it usually warrants a conversation to see why that is and how both parties can work together to not have that.

[Technoir]

A shame, really. Warm crumpets with butter and jam are delish!

[dutchrvl]

I have to admit, the turn of events in #3668 caught me by surprise.

I really expected that Bubbles would be thoroughly pissed off with Faye, not Evie. Faye behaved horribly towards Melon. It wasn't just the condescending tone and words (although the whole 'domesticated robo-dick' dialog *was* pretty funny), it was the way that Faye took advantage of Melon's naiveté and accepted $100 for telling her to get batteries.

Bubbles and Faye's long-term business prospects depend on the good will of the AI community. I imagine that if something like that got out, their business would be damaged beyond repair.

I have a feeling we might see some kind of resolution to the Faye/Melon thing as well at some point.
For now, we don't even know if Bubbles is aware of what exactly transpired in that whole transaction between them.

[dutchrvl]

A shame, really. Warm crumpets with butter and jam are delish!

They really are.
I sometimes get them from Trader Joe's, and while vacuum sealed, they are actually quite decent after putting them in a toaster

[maneyan]

"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

Pretty much this. From where I'm seeing it, the issue is not with Evie per se, it's simply with the fact that Bubbles is hypersensitive to these issues and can't really deal with that kind of scrutiny. This, after all, is a PTSD-suffering veteran whose main coping mechanism we've seen thus far is explosive violence towards things (that and tea admittedly). Still, it's this kind of scrutiny that is needed to build a greater understanding between people. Thus far we've seen laser-armed sociopath-bots (Pintsize), giant walker death robots (Deathbot 9000), 2.5 meter emotionally unstable Terminators (Bubbles), an omniscient demigod-bot etc. If that's the AI lineup I'm gonna say that "sorry, humanity is trying to understand you and being perceived as rude does not take precedence"

EDIT: Having reviewed the thread a bit more, I'm going to simply say "Yeah, Evie could have been way more diplomatic". Still: Bubbles should have been more clear she personally took offense. "Some might find that offensive" pretty much means "Some, not me", at least where I'm standing.

That last bit is definitely where Bubbles could have been a lot more clear.
Personally, while Bubbles' anger is absolutely justified and should lead to a discussion with Evie so she understands why her approach to AI sociology was not cool, I also find it slightly disappointing that Bubbles felt the need to add the qualifier "for rich people's children". Not only is it completely unnecessary (the sentence reads just as good without it), it also implies that only rich kids are that stupid, which is highly unlikely (not to mention that we've seen no evidence that Evie is such a rich kid).

In addition, Evie did not 'merely shrug it off', she in fact acknowledged that the comparison was offensive. Yes, she could have, and I think should have, apologized for it, but Bubbles misinterprets or misrepresents Evie's response, in my opinion.

Yeah, that bit about rich people's children really rubbed me the wrong way... it sounded honestly like something I'd expect out of an anti-intellectual Trump fanatic. "Hurr durr, educated elites"

AND YET! Is that statement offensive? I'd take it as sorta offensive because it really belittles the academic view of things, and as I took it that way, there's a case to be made that it was indeed offensive. And if I can say that, Bubbles can definitely say that she found the comparison offensive and was hurt by it. So I guess it works out both ways her really.

[Technoir]

Argh. Now i really want warm crumpets with butter and jam. I don't even want to look and see how many points that is on my WW app.  Yikes. 2 crumpets each with a 1/2 tbsp each of butter and jam....16 points, out of my daily 40.  Sigh. Maybe on the weekend with my leftover weekly points. 

#CrumpetTalk

[TheEvilDog]

I've said it before, Bubbles main problem is that she doesn't communicate how she feels. She remains quiet and quiet and quiet, until its too late and she vents. By which time, the person who could actually use the information, in this case, Evie, has already left.
That remains her biggest obstacle and she needs to learn how to talk to people.

And I am still waiting on my damn scones!

[Dal Gurak]

After reading today's comic, I went back and re-read #3656 to make sure I remembered something correctly.  And I did - Bubbles said "Some of us would resent being compared to weapons of mass destruction."  She did not say "I am offended that you would compare me to weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not trying to nitpick her - I realize that, in most cases, when hearing something like that the other person is expected to make the mental translation (i.e. "Uh oh, I offended this person.") and apologize appropriately.  Perhaps Bubbles was just trying to not be too blunt?  (I'll defer to people who understand social context better than me, which is to say most people.)  The reason I bring it up is that I think it's possible Evie took those words literally.  She reacts to the statement as if it was a broad sweep of A.I. opinions, not the opinion of the person right in front of her speaking to her.

I could be projecting.  This sort of thing would happen to me constantly as a child, and still happens pretty often.  For example, when I was a kid, my mother might tell me "Your room is a mess - you really need to clean it up."  And I would interpret that as her saying my room was a mess and I need to clean it - a disapproving comment on the situation.  Okay.  I'd go back to whatever I was doing.  Later, she'd get angry and say "Why didn't you clean your room like I told you to??"  And I'd respond "What?  You didn't tell me to."  And she'd get more angry because she thought I was intentionally overanalyzing her words and misinterpreting them deliberately out of spite or mischief.  I take things literally - it's very difficult for me to suss out what a statement really means when it's indirect, such as Bubbles' statement.  When I first read #3656, I thought she was talking about A.I.s in general, and it wasn't until today's strip that it was clarified that, oh, she was actually talking about her own personal feelings.

Again, that's not saying Bubbles or anyone else must only speak directly and bluntly.  It's my responsibility to learn how to communicate and internally translate what people say to me, and it's Evie's responsibility to realize she said something rude and apologize to Bubbles.  I get the feeling that if Evie was told that she hurt Bubbles' feelings, she would be surprised and very sorry.  Or she might shrug and say something like "Well, that's too bad - this issue is more important than one person's feelings", in which case I suppose the many, many Evie-haters on here can have a field day with that callous attitude.

So to sum up - the hurt feelings and anger may have been caused by miscommunication.  Which happens all the time, and really sucks.  I would hope that, if things were explained to her, Evie could make up with Bubbles and all would be well.  Maybe too idealistic, but it would be nice.

[traroth]

"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

I mean, yes of course. That is fine.

That doesn't mean doctors, for example, start telling their patients what their pain feels like.

If you think that Bubbles is upset about AIs being studied, then you are not grasping today's comic. At all.

You mean the part where Evie compared AIs to nuclear weapons and how it hit right on the wrong spot for Bubbles, given her traumatic military past? Sure, but that's really specific to Bubbles, not AIs in general, is it? So there is no why she could expect that Evie could take that into account. I understand Bubbles' point of view in today's comic, but I still can't see anything wrong in what Evie said in #3656...

[A small perverse otter]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the key objection Bubbles expressed was that Evie was dehumanizing her by treating her as a tape recorder to which Evie was confiding her theories. Evie should know better, even if she is in the throes of her dissertation focus, and the comment that "Some might find that offensive" should have brought her up short. It didn't.

Basically, what I'm reading here is the Evie is a condescending, self-centered jerk. It's all very well to treat people as representatives of a group in some circumstances, but it's kind of, you know, critical to remember that they're more than that. Evie doesn't realize that any more, even if she might well have done so initially.

[Case]

"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

I mean, yes of course. That is fine.

That doesn't mean doctors, for example, start telling their patients what their pain feels like.

If you think that Bubbles is upset about AIs being studied, then you are not grasping today's comic. At all.

You mean the part where Evie compared AIs to nuclear weapons and how it hit right on the wrong spot for Bubbles, given her traumatic military past? Sure, but that's really specific to Bubbles, not AIs in general, is it? So there is no why she could expect that Evie could take that into account. I understand Bubbles' point of view in today's comic, but I still can't see anything wrong in what Evie said in #3656...

No, he means the part where Evie brings up Skynet and grey goo as examples of pre-singularity human fears of AIs, notably near-extinction scenarios, then wonders why humans aren't freaking out more now that AIs are a reality and then shrugs and says "Whelp, we didn't freak out about nukes, either, cause humans are really bad at assessing dangers".

That is a comparison between AIs and nukes, in the frame of the reaction of humans to either.

I mean ... is there any other reading in which Bubble's reply to Evie - that Evie agrees with - makes sense?

[traroth]

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism. That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists "experiments" can hardly be called science by any objective observer. More like sadistic massacres.

[Is it cold in here?]

"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues because people who don't mean harm can and will cause it unless they learn not to.

[Case]

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism. That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.

[traroth]

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism. That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.

Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

[Is it cold in here?]

Things I have learned trying to manage this place:

Whenever you think the word "oversensitive" about someone from a marginalized group, that's a signal to stop and think some more, including asking yourself "Am I missing something?" or "What kind of experiences led to that reaction?".

Bubbles's experiences have rubbed her raw emotionally. Her reactions are not ideal for productive social interaction. But if someone told her she needs to chill, that would be just like saying "You need to grow thicker skin" to someone in a burn ward.

Trivia: burn wards are kept at summer temperatures, because people can get dangerously cold without the insulation that had been provided by the skin that got burned off.

[shanejayell]

I liked the update. If Bubbles feels offended, she has every right to. They're her feelings after all.

Now Faye, give her a hug.

[Magniras]

This comic really looks like Bubs had too much time to sit alone and stew.  How many of you have made a conversation so much worse than it was because you over thought it?  Because I know I've done it. A lot.

She says she told Evie the comparison was offensive, but all she did was say she resented the comparison. Evie was the one who called it offensive. I'm sure if Bubbles expressed her frustrations Evie would apologize for everything in a heartbeat.

Because I think a black lesbian from the south understands real issues that real people face.

[MrNumbers]

A bunch of people seem to have mistaken my last post to mean Bubbles should chill, or is wrong to be offended.

No, no, I should absolutely clarify.

I'm not telling Bubbles to chill. Bubbles was rightfully hurt and offended, and her feelings are completely legitimate. I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

[ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]

"Humans just don't typically seem to respond aggressively to non-immediate risks and this strongly indicates that the fear of the unknown and the actual threat response instinct are either decoupled in the human mind or at least that this 'different = bad' equation is a low action priority in the average psyche. The point I'm making is that anti-Synthetic activism is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctual response to the unknown or a threat. These people hate because they want to have something to hate; they found something and taught themselves to respond appropriately."

You've worded the issue quite eloquently.

The question is, has Evie reached this sophisticated level of thinking, or is she as naive and sheltered as she acts?

[traroth]

I liked the update. If Bubbles feels offended, she has every right to. They're her feelings after all.

Sure. Bubbles has every right to feel offended, and Evie didn't actually make anything wrong. What could we conclude from that situation?

[traroth]

I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

[OldGoat]

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't get to enjoy hot buttered crumpets ...

As an Australian, ...

So that's what they're for!

[Is it cold in here?]

I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.

Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!

[Morituri]

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

[Storel]

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

Wow. I'm a native English speaker and I had no idea what "That's... not even wrong" was supposed to mean. Despite feeling that there are so many things wrong with what was said that you can't address all of them, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of some of the things that are wrong with it? Because I for one don't see what the problem is.

[sitnspin]

She says she told Evie the comparison was offensive, but all she did was say she resented the comparison.

She resented it, because it's offensive. I don't see how you are missing that.

Evie was the one who called it offensive. I'm sure if Bubbles expressed her frustrations Evie would apologize for everything in a heartbeat.

She expressed her frustration twice in that conversation and Evie kept right on going.

Because I think a black lesbian from the south understands real issues that real people face.

Being part of one (or more) marginalized groups does not automatically make one aware of or sensitive to the experiences of other marginalized groups. I say that as a biracial lesbian from a very conservative region.

[Case]

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism. That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.

Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

Uhmmmh - actually, it is. It's a ... 'bonmot' by theoretical Physicist Wolfgang Pauli that somehow became an English nerdism. In the narrowest sense, it means that a statement is non-falsifiable. Like e.g. "I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done." It can neither be proven right nor wrong, since there's no unambiguous, universally and measurable definition of either 'distanced', or 'valuable'. Hence 'not even wrong' (Pauli was called many things, but rarely diplomatic. Least not without a 'not' in front).

Lysenkoism is pseudoscience - not particularly unethical, apart from setting back the research of a veritable superpower for several decades, and causing untold headaches due to the horrendous cognitive dissonance. I don't see how it necessarily follows from a non-falsifiable statement, how one could ascertain or falsify it, or what it has to do with ethics in in research with human subjects.

I think you might be confusing deontology with the opposite of ontology (which it is not), and I was of the opinion that the branch of philosophy relevant to science was Epistemology, but I'd bow the the resident philosophers expertise (or really anyone who has a formal education in the humanities).

Lastly, the statment "By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer..." is at best useless, since there is no such a thing as an objective observer (or if there is, they're not human), it's an ideal to aspire to.

Also, I don't see why those experiments cannot be called science - I haven't seen anything about the hypothesis being non-falsifiable, or systematic measurement errors etc. Maybe you have studied them in greater detail and can help.

They are, however, deeply unethical and a crime - and here is the point that Akima tried to convey to you: There is nothing in any formulation of the 'scientific method' I have read that gives guidance as to ethical conduct wrt. human (or animal) subject. It's purely Epistomology, it's only concerned with knowledge. The only 'ethos' in the scientific method is the Feynman rule “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” .

For everything else, you need moral philosophy, compassion and a conscience - and the latter two are not particularly closely related to 'distanced'. Well, Mengele might disagree, but he's a monster, so what the fuck does he know?

Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

You kept repeating that mistake, despite Akima's attempts to point them out to you - I thought you'd rather not have people sniggering behind your back. Personally, I use a spellchecker, since I'm also a non-native speaker on a board full of native speakers (mostly because German capitalization is so different).

P.S.: Akima has a math degree. Doesn't strictly make her a scientist, but I'm pretty sure she could have explained the above to you just as well. Math-nerds are like that.

[SpanielBear]

I'm sure there are other resident philosophers, but I'm the one who's here.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. What does it mean to know something, how do we get to truth rather than belief, what level of certainty are we happy with. Scepticism, scientific method, experiments vs metaphysics- these are all subjects that epistemology deals or has dealt with. You are right to call it a branch related to science, because it is asking the same basic questions- what can we know, and how do we know it?

Deontology is basically to do with creating a system or practice based on first principles and logical rules considered in abstract. It comes up most often in moral philosophy and especially in the works of Immanuel Kant. He tried to formulate a system of morality based on logic, with the maxim "only act as if that act could become a universal law." So if asking oneself "is it right to kill this man", one would reformulate the question as "how would it be if we killed all men". The universal law being obviously insupportable , one would use that as a guide to action.

This is a controversial theory, to say the least.

Not much to do with science either, especially as Kant was an "armchair philosopher", who believed he could make practical guide to life based on pure reason, without reference to that mucky outside world.

[Tova]

I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.

Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!

Okay, so let's take a step back. I hope that this conflict can be resolved somehow, even though they may not meet again in awhle.

Much as we like to go back and forth to figure out who was right and who was wrong, Faye has got it right so far. She has first listened and then acknowledged Bubbles' legitimate reasons for feeling angry and upset.

If you take a moment's thought, then maybe you can empathise with both sides? We've already discussed Evie's background and why she may have been as thoughtless as she was. If you take a moment to consider Bubbles' background, I am confident it will occur to you why Bubbles did not feel free to be absolutely forthright in a conversation with a person she didn't know.

So, where to from here? Like the Hanners/Tilly situation, should Faye encourage Bubbles to express her discomfort more assertively next time? Should Faye have a word with her about what happened? Or something else?

[Is it cold in here?]

Kant is highly relevant here because another formulation of the categorical imperative is always to treat people as ends in themselves and not as means to an end.

Practicing that will save a scientist from letting professional detachment drift into horror.

Evie let herself treat Bubbles as an audience rather than as a person. That was avoidable.

[Tova]

COMIC.

Here we go...

[SpanielBear]

U.S.S Faye Whitaker, oblivious to the point of clinical blindness, plows on like an icebreaker through a polar bear's back yard.

[ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]

U.S.S Faye Whitaker, oblivious to the point of clinical blindness, plows on like an icebreaker through a polar bear's back yard.

Speaking of shipping, Jeph has been teasing us for almost a month now. Goddamn man, either launch this ship or decommission it already!

[SPK]

It's a healthy thing to be able to vent, holding it in won't do any good.

That third panel is a look of sheer terror on her face, I adore it.

*goes to make popcorn for the next few strips*

[Zebediah]

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

[OldGoat]

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

Wow. I'm a native English speaker and I had no idea what "That's... not even wrong" was supposed to mean. Despite feeling that there are so many things wrong with what was said that you can't address all of them, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of some of the things that are wrong with it? Because I for one don't see what the problem is.

It's no doubt it's an attempt by some American student of freshman French at revenge for passé simple.

[Akima]

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

I think there is a difference between demanding clairvoyance, and expecting basic social toilet-training. I don't expect people to be clairvoyant about how I'm going to react, but I don't believe clairvoyance should be required to anticipate that saying, for example, "you can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies" would offend me. Comparing Bubbles's entire "species" to weapons of mass-destruction, is similar to regarding my entire people (I'm an ethnic Han) as part of the Yellow Peril, an attitude still widespread today.

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)

[SmilingCat]

Speaking of shipping, Jeph has been teasing us for almost a month now. Goddamn man, either launch this ship or decommission it already!

Just a month? Oh my sweet summer child...

[Case]

Fweeeeeeesnort ...

(Omg I am dying over here. Ze lafter, she hurtz!)

[Tova]

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)

You're just saying that to needle us.

[SpanielBear]

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)

You're just saying that to needle us.

I think she's raised a fir point.

[Tova]

You wood say that.

[TheEvilDog]

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Well the old scent of rusty metal, death and burnt popcorn was discontinued a while back.

You wood say that.

These puns don't really make a lot of scents.

[ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]

These puns don't really make a lot of scents.

Do they really leaf you feeling that stumped?

[TheEvilDog]

That pun was oak-kay.

[A small perverse otter]

I didn't come here for the puns, I camphor the scents.

[Tova]

Oh, this thread is getting poplar.