Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Milayna:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jan 2019, 09:34 ---
--- Quote from: A small perverse otter on 10 Jan 2019, 09:14 ---I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
--- End quote ---
Can I get a link?
Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
--- End quote ---
A small perverse otter:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jan 2019, 09:34 ---
--- Quote from: A small perverse otter on 10 Jan 2019, 09:14 ---I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
--- End quote ---
Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
--- End quote ---
I missed that one. Can you point me to it? (Unless you mean the "on discussoin of private parts", which I was trying to sort of call back to...)
Tova:
--- Quote from: Milayna on 11 Jan 2019, 17:17 ---This gets really sticky, where the rights of fully autonomous people intersect with the reality that some of those people now have physical properties that historical civilization simply was not built to accommodate. There would need to be either radical restructuring of the physical space of the world - virtually impossible - or there would need to be some restrictions and the type of equipment that people are allowed to use; just as I can't drive a backhoe around to do my daily errands, it seems like a chassis such as Crushbot's would be, essentially, his "work vehicle".
--- End quote ---
Okay, so in the real world this would come down to a risk assessment, wouldn't it?
I mean, if nearly 40,000 people died this way in a single year, then obviously people's individual rights to own such machinery would need to be compromised in the name of public safety. Right? Right?
Okay, maybe not. In the case of cars, there are a comparable number of fatalities, but the utility of cars is such that we don't ban them outright, but we do require training and licensing.
If this is a freakish one-off, then I can't imagine consequences beyond reviewing the safety of the chassis and training Crashbot to prevent such accidents in future.
I do agree, anyway, that the intersection of individual rights and public safety can be a sticky topic.
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 03:58 ---*snip*
YThere's been a debate here about (very) old drivers - when it's time that they should hand in their license, as there is no legal age-limit. On the one hand, it is a cruel statement to make, it is likely to shrink their mobility and thus their social circle at a time when loneliness becomes a health-hazard etc. On the other hand, they're handling half a ton of murder on wheels in one of the most demanding driving environments on the planet. Reaction times become longer, focussing becomes harder, eyesight weaker.
--- End quote ---
I've actually put a good amount of thought into this when my best friend got hit by a septigenerian lady with terrible cataracts in both eyes. Turns out her kids (who were also her lawyers) knew and let her continue driving anyways.
Start requiring regular vision tests at age 50 (when eyes commonly start changing shape again). That way vision problems could be (hopefully) caught early. Just an annual vision test would be required. Failing to get the test would probably come with a fine, and maybe a suspended license. In the event of cataracts, the driver would of course be informed that they'd need them removed in order to continue driving. This could also catch other aging eye problems such as macular degeneration, juxtafovial retinopathy, and Drusen's syndrome.
Once a driver's eyesight was no longer reliable, then their license would be taken away.
Tova:
In NSW Australia, all drivers need to pass regular vision tests, but this requirement becomes more frequent as you age. It becomes annual when you reach 70 years of age.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version