• An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • We've issued a clarification on our policy on AI-generated work.
  • Our mod selection process has completed. Please welcome our new moderators.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Fourteen)

Reader mode
Eponymic said:
Well most legal and ethical systems held by people who happen not to be pedophiles, pardon, 'ephebophiles', do consider it necessary.

This whole child 'ship thing seriously disturbs me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, yes, my point was that this is something where one should be specific... also, I wasn't exactly referring to sex, given what Buggy123 was saying here.
 
Prince Charon said:
Well, yes, my point was that this is something where one should be specific... also, I wasn't exactly referring to sex, given what Buggy123 was saying here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Ah, apologies I meant no illwill. In that case I'm pretty sure contract law in most places has provisions for child consent. Something for the lawyers, do these hypothetically aliens have lawyers?

I'd love to see a fae lawyer argue on enforceability because one of the parties accepted food.

More on topic, do the gnomes have lawyers? Has the gnomish embassy been contacted?
 
Buggy123 said:
Huh, it's nice to see that some places are a little more practical about this. AI, human-alikes, etc getting equal rights is great - it'd be ridiculous if they didn't. But uh... demons who live to cause as much suffering as possible, evil stabby fire lizards, and so on...?

Paul really should have worked out some solid legal framework of "Assume it has rights the same as a person at first, but also pay attention to whether they immediately try to feed on all nearby babies when you summon them" back in America.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This was raised in the comments when Grayven said that. Essentially, the problem in the US is the constitution. You have to remove a lot of amendments which are quite sensible when referring the humans, but rather fall down in reference to demons and other arcane creatures. Other countries have less of a problem.

Edit: Oh yeah, and to the surprise of absolutely no one it looks like my permanent suspension on Sufficient Velocity is going to be upheld.
 
Last edited:
Even arcane creatures should get Constitutional protections. The problem is the system catching up to the actual status of the individuals involved.

For example, explicit attacks by demons on US citizens under the orders of Hell (before Paul got involved) were both terroristic and unambiguously acts of war. So while a damned soul showing up in the US might get treated like anyone else, a demon is an enemy combatant.
 
Phrexia Unbound said:
Yeah, well, screw them!
the fact that they decided to be bitchbabies about it is entirely their problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, see, enforcing a rule you've made isn't a particularly unreasonable thing to do. Even if the rule a bit stupid. But what's getting me is the disproportionality of it. The original offence (and they're busy moving the goal posts on that one) got me a one day ban. The second is going to get me a permanent suspension. I checked the rules and there's no actual requirement for moderators to escalate in stages, but I can't help but feel that I'm not being punished for the offence but for my badthink.

I also can't think of a way to say that as a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become helicopters without sounding sarcastic. Thoughts?
 
Eponymic said:
Well most legal and ethical systems held by people who happen not to be pedophiles, pardon, 'ephebophiles', do consider it necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wait, do you honestly not understand that pedophilia and ephebophilia are different words that mean different things?

Maybe I don't get the context here (since it seems like you're responding to someone talking about demons eating babies, so I don't know how your comment has any relevance at all), but your statement reads to me like someone being snarky about people who refer to New Zealand as New Zealand rather than calling everything in that part of the world Australia.
 
Buggy123 said:
Paul really should have worked out some solid legal framework of "Assume it has rights the same as a person at first, but also pay attention to whether they immediately try to feed on all nearby babies when you summon them" back in America.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, one of the reasons I prefer Grayven.
Mr Zoat said:
also can't think of a way to say that as a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become [TRANSFORMERS] without sounding sarcastic. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Just change a few words my friend.
 
Valint said:
Wait, do you honestly not understand that pedophilia and ephebophilia are different words that mean different things?

Maybe I don't get the context here (since it seems like you're responding to someone talking about demons eating babies, so I don't know how your comment has any relevance at all), but your statement reads to me like someone being snarky about people who refer to New Zealand as New Zealand rather than calling everything in that part of the world Australia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I'm saying that the Australian Frontier Wars we're just as abusive and abhorrent to the indigenous peoples as the Maori Wars, Treaty of Waitangi be damned.
 
Mr Zoat said:
Edit: Oh yeah, and to the surprise of absolutely no one it looks like my permanent suspension on Sufficient Velocity is going to be upheld.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do really wish I could have warned you about the Trans button earlier. I've seen ENTIRE conventions melt down when pressed even in a joking manner by an open supporter of the Transgender community. Reminds me of a volcano going off in a way. That is, if the lava was actually made up of countless Lava ants that can all march in sync to relentlessly pursue a target.

Mr Zoat said:
I also can't think of a way to say that as a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become helicopters without sounding sarcastic. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps attempting to phrase it as a cybernetic upgrade package?
 
Mr Zoat said:
Nah, see, enforcing a rule you've made isn't a particularly unreasonable thing to do. Even if the rule a bit stupid. But what's getting me is the disproportionality of it. The original offence (and they're busy moving the goal posts on that one) got me a one day ban. The second is going to get me a permanent suspension. I checked the rules and there's no actual requirement for moderators to escalate in stages, but I can't help but feel that I'm not being punished for the offence but for my badthink.

I also can't think of a way to say that as a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become helicopters without sounding sarcastic. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a reason you're supposed to get an advocate...
 
When it comes to the Aboriginal stuff?


Politics! NO! Bad Thread!


Mr Zoat said:
I also can't think of a way to say that as a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become helicopters without sounding sarcastic. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Then don't.


"As a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become spaceships." Even if they sing.
 
Simonbob said:
When it comes to the Aboriginal stuff?


Politics! NO! Bad Thread!



Then don't.


"As a transhumanist I genuinely support people who wish to become spaceships." Even if they sing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Yes, I usually use the spaceship as a reference of endlessly exploring the cosmos, the attack helicopter has been poisoned in online discourse sadly.
 
Chaoswind said:
Yes, I usually use the spaceship as a reference of endlessly exploring the cosmos, the attack helicopter has been poisoned in online discourse sadly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Robot dinosaur transformers? You want something that doesn't have an aggressive overtone - an attack helicopter is a weapon so it is dangerous. People integrating weapons into their bodies is a little bit of a different issue from people becoming vehicles/ getting biological modifications. Gun control is a far older debate that alienates even more people from the attack helicopter metaphor. I support people becoming cyborgs, helicopters and spaceships, but not terminators or attack helicopters or Death Stars. Don't introduce anything aggressive into whatever metaphor you use.
People see: I think everyone should have the right to become an attack helicopter: people think you mean - I want to have the ability to shoot into crowds from up above and see all the little people go Splat!
Not the metaphor you want to use.
 
Mquz said:
Robot dinosaur transformers? You want something that doesn't have an aggressive overtone - an attack helicopter is a weapon so it is dangerous. People integrating weapons into their bodies is a little bit of a different issue from people becoming vehicles/ getting biological modifications. Gun control is a far older debate that alienates even more people from the attack helicopter metaphor. I support people becoming cyborgs, helicopters and spaceships, but not terminators or attack helicopters or Death Stars. Don't introduce anything aggressive into whatever metaphor you use.
People see: I think everyone should have the right to become an attack helicopter: people think you mean - I want to have the ability to shoot into crowds from up above and see all the little people go Splat!
Not the metaphor you want to use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No? Attack helicopters aren't good because of a specific shitty meme.
 
Mquz said:
I support people becoming cyborgs, helicopters and spaceships
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So do I...if only because this will mean we won't have to environment-proof structures on other planets.

The first Martian colonists being downloaded into Rovers would solve the "Hideously toxic Iron Perchlorate dust that makes you cough your lungs up in crimson slurry." issue and also the issue with Radiation...and there being no fucking atmosphere.
 
Queshire said:
No? Attack helicopters aren't good because of a specific shitty meme.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but the logic behind that meme and the immediate nearly subconscious flinch I get when I think of the idea will transfer to whatever metaphor you come up with so long as it's main use is violence. That will just up my refusal to accept your right to identify as something. I might be the only one like this - but the right to become an attack helicopter seems ridiculous and a little repulsive, while the right to become a normal helicopter/ semi-RC drone does not. Probably missing the point entirely though.
 
Last edited:
Phrexia Unbound said:
So do I...if only because this will mean we won't have to environment-proof structures on other planets.

The first Martian colonists being downloaded into Rovers would solve the "Hideously toxic Iron Perchlorate dust that makes you cough your lungs up in crimson slurry." issue and also the issue with Radiation...and there being no fucking atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Yeah maybe, but there are still significant issued in material science related to getting enough compression to run an internal combustion engine in that atmosphere, especially considering you'd have to filter those same fines.

And before anyone says electric motors, burning hydrocarbons is inherent to my helicopter identity.

Edit: Removed accidental quote.
 
Eponymic said:
Yeah maybe, but there are still significant issued in material science related to getting enough compression to run an internal combustion engine in that atmosphere, especially considering you'd have to filter those same fines.

And before anyone says electric motors, burning hydrocarbons is inherent to my helicopter identity.

Edit: Removed accidental quote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nuclear power? In a radioactive environment, you might be able to use that. Sort of like solar power, right? I think it's a suitable replacement. Being powered by glowing green rocks?
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 9 more.
    • Total: 73 (members: 15, guests: 58)
    Back
    Top